Intruder theories only - RDI theories not allowed! *READ FIRST POST* #2

[2 percent]

This is not necessarily true. Lack of transfer fiber only disproves that an intruder came in through that window.

That was my point. If an IDI they probably used a key and most likely staged entry/exit at that window.

 

[Chewy]

Ok so that makes us wonder why they would "stage" a crime scene. It's obvious that the scene is staged, but then by who?

 

[2 percent]

Ok so that makes us wonder why they would "stage" a crime scene. It's obvious that the scene is staged, but then by who?

I've never subscribed to the theory that a random stranger committed this crime. I'm going on statistics here but something a well known profiler said in another case has stuck with me. When you look for the murderer of an adult, the circles are varied depending on how they lived their life but typically there's a work circle, a family circle, several activity circles, etc. Murderers are most commonly found in those circles somewhere.
{random acts of violence do occur but are rare and I don't usually include them unless the evidence leads me there)

Children's circles are not as varied or wide as adults, though. They're mainly school, home and activities; most of the time the same adults pop up in the child's circles. Children also don't have dangerous behavior like some adults - clubbing/barhopping, a drug habit (even a minor one), etc. Therefore, finding the murderer of a child means you stick to the circles. There is one exception I will allow for children, they do tend to be more victimized by the kind of molester/murderer who abducts children...but that's the point, they are rarely attacked in their home, most of them are not even abducted from inside their home.

But this child was molested prior to the murder and she was molested and murdered in her home. There is no getting around the intimacy of this crime. So I would say that someone staged the crime, trying to create a point of entry/exit to hide their true entry to the house which appears to be undetectable.

 

[2 percent]

True about the bed wetting. But I think you are splitting hairs here. I didn't say parents regularly wake up at night to check on their children. YOU said that why would the parents check on Jonbenet if they woke up. I pointed out that most parents would check on their children if they woke up in the middle of the night. I guess you know every single parent who wouldn't do this, but most people wouldn't think twice about doing this with a child her age.

I always checked on my kids at night when I was up. Even when they were teenagers. But I was always in a room on the same floor as my children. Would I have checked on them every time if I'd been on a different floor? I don't know.

You say the risk was small. But this is what I mean about jumping from one side of a theory to another. A premeditated murder by someone who knew them and preplanned this would not just "take the risk" when it came to being detected in the house.

It is the most dangerous scenario.
A stranger caught in the house, if he got away, could still stay anonymous. Eyewitness identifications are notorious.

But a person known to the Ramseys getting caught in the house, especially with proof someone molested and murdered the young girl in the house would not be easy to explain away. Not to the Ramseys, not to the cops.

I've been saying the exact same thing??? I've also pointed out that to me this scenario indicates that there were TWO intruders. If there were two intruders then the neighbors who heard the scream are very suspicious to me.

Why two? I must've missed that post.

 

[Chewy]

I've never subscribed to the theory that a random stranger committed this crime. I'm going on statistics here but something a well known profiler said in another case has stuck with me. When you look for the murderer of an adult, the circles are varied depending on how they lived their life but typically there's a work circle, a family circle, several activity circles, etc. Murderers are most commonly found in those circles somewhere.
{random acts of violence do occur but are rare and I don't usually include them unless the evidence leads me there)

Children's circles are not as varied or wide as adults, though. They're mainly school, home and activities; most of the time the same adults pop up in the child's circles. Children also don't have dangerous behavior like some adults - clubbing/barhopping, a drug habit (even a minor one), etc. Therefore, finding the murderer of a child means you stick to the circles. There is one exception I will allow for children, they do tend to be more victimized by the kind of molester/murderer who abducts children...but that's the point, they are rarely attacked in their home, most of them are not even abducted from inside their home.

But this child was molested prior to the murder and she was molested and murdered in her home. There is no getting around the intimacy of this crime. So I would say that someone staged the crime, trying to create a point of entry/exit to hide their true entry to the house which appears to be undetectable.

I don't see agreement that Jonbenet was molested. That's part of the problem in this case, lack of agreement by experts. Additionally that she had been molested in the past doesn't automatically mean that her molester actually killed her.

So there's that. It seems to me that if an intruder did it, there is malice and foresight evident in the crime, especially towards John. So that circle becomes even smaller.

Apparently John had a suspect that he believed did it. I'd like to know who that was.

 

[2 percent]

During the 1998 LE interviews, Patsy Ramsey was questioned about "cotton" & a "Santa suit", relative to the window sill. Is there a credible source, within/close to the investigation, supporting your argument re: a lack of fiber evidence collected from the window in question?

No report of lack of fibers would exist in the records. And it's a waste of my time to prove a negative.
The fibers found on and near the body have been published and discussed. Do you think if there were fibers on the window of entry, it wouldn't have been shouted from the rooftops by Lou Smit? You saw how much he over emphasized the debris in that depo. If there had been fibers, he would have done more than skate over the subject.

 

[Tawny]

Kolar was an investigator on the case.

Seriously??

 

[2 percent]

I don't see agreement that Jonbenet was molested. That's part of the problem in this case, lack of agreement by experts. Additionally that she had been molested in the past doesn't automatically mean that her molester actually killed her.

I used to look at the expert opinion, too, until I saw one of these experts say his disagreement that she was molested was based on the lack of semen. Any so-called expert that doesn't know a little girl can be molested in more than one way isn't worth my time.

If I remember right, Thomas said a panel of pediatric and sexual assault experts concurred that JB was indeed abused prior to the murder and the night of the murder.

It's possible her molester didn't kill her but I doubt it. The autopsy shows quite clearly she was bleeding from vaginal wounds around or at the time of her murder. The sexual assault is most definitely part of this murder.

So there's that. It seems to me that if an intruder did it, there is malice and foresight evident in the crime, especially towards John. So that circle becomes even smaller.

Apparently John had a suspect that he believed did it. I'd like to know who that was.

Yes. If an IDI, this person had to be intimate to the Ramseys. There are too many things strangers just could not know or find and it's doubtful they would take the time to search the house, greatly increasing their chances of being discovered.

Again, I tend to think in a straight line.
JonBenet was the one that was molested and murdered, she was the one attacked, not John. JonBenet was always the target.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Kolar was an investigator on the case.

Seriously??

Yes, another investigator who thinks he has all the answers and writes a book. :facepalm:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/18/jonbenet-ramsey-case-jame_n_1687905.html

The thing is that even in this article they bring up the book and Kolar and go righ then to the important summary. There is DNA that points to a third party and that is where the case lies.

IMO

 

[Tawny]

You asked if he even participated in the case. He was an investigator.

 

[Anti-K]

True about the bed wetting. But I think you are splitting hairs here. I didn't say parents regularly wake up at night to check on their children. YOU said that why would the parents check on Jonbenet if they woke up. I pointed out that most parents would check on their children if they woke up in the middle of the night. I guess you know every single parent who wouldn't do this, but most people wouldn't think twice about doing this with a child her age.

You wrote that “Most parents would just by habit check on their kids in the middle of the night.” http://tinyurl.com/lmn5r7p) So, yes, you did say that parents regularly wake up at night to check on their children as we are talking about a killer who would have waited until he believed that everyone was asleep before striking.

You say the risk was small. But this is what I mean about jumping from one side of a theory to another. A premeditated murder by someone who knew them and preplanned this would not just "take the risk" when it came to being detected in the house.

I've offered two possibilities of solutions to this but you keep dismissing them and saying that a person premeditated this whole scheme and did it to get the attention of the FBI with some ulterior motive in place, planned down to the terminology in the ransom note..... and then just decided to "risk it" when it came to being detected in the house? Makes absolutely no sense to me.

I say the risk was small, but I say more than that. I say that it’s a question of risk (getting caught) vs benefit (fulfillment of desire/fantasy). And, I also say that the Precautionary Principle (consequence of being caught) does not apply (because the risk was in fact taken).

We're not talking about children abducted in malls. We're talking about a child abducted in her home. Please stop using irrelevant scenarios to make some sort of a case.

We’re talking about people engaging in high risk activity in order to achieve some benefit; getting caught vs fulfillment of desire/fantasy. Children being grabbed by offenders while they were playing in their own yard, on the school ground, in the mall with people (security cams, etc) all around, etc is high risk activity engaged in to achieve some benefit. The examples are therefore valid.

I've been saying the exact same thing??? I've also pointed out that to me this scenario indicates that there were TWO intruders. If there were two intruders then the neighbors who heard the scream are very suspicious to me.

I rarely discuss two-person theories because I don’t think the evidence supports that position, but maybe you’re right, anyway. However, I’m not sure how the addition of a second party alleviates the risk for the person in the basement.

Here’s the house: http://tinyurl.com/o2syk89 Perhaps you could explain step-by-step how the second person would have diminished the risk. Where would they be positioned? What would they do?

Not necessarily true. Liquid assets is not the same as net worth. A bonus check is a much more likely amount to be accessible as opposed to $200,000

See how different we are? If I’m in the Ramsey home and if I know there’s a $118,000 bonus and if I think that amount is easily available , than I’m thinking beyond doubt that there’s $200,00.00 easily available. But, that’s just me.
...

AK

 

[Chewy]

No I didn't. Stop putting words in my mouth.





I SAID

Again this entire scenario relies on knowing that there is no way the parents or BURKE could have woken up.

snipped

I don't think you understand my point about the basement.


Yes a perpetrator would risk not being caught. I get that. YES the basement is far removed from the parents on the third floor. I get that.

But the perpetrator took her into a room in the basement where he'd have no way of knowing if anyone had woken up. Even if it took the 17-30 minutes to do the whole thing this is a person who

Went into Jonbenets bedroom and took her out. Had no way of knowing if anyone on the third floor had woken up.

But also Burke. This is why I keep pointing out Burke. The odds of three people not waking at all is very risky. One person or just mom and dad on the upper level is one thing.

He then takes the body into the basement where he cannot escape without detection if police are called to the house. He has no way of knowing what is going on in the rest of the house.

Options may include "leaving a baby monitor type device in Jonbenet's
What was the motive?

YOU SAID

IMO, the killer never intended on removing his victim from the house.
People who engage in criminal activity rarely believe that they are going to get caught. People who enjoy taking risks rarely believe that they are going to fail.

If the killer planned to commit the entirety of this crime while in the home, than the basement would have been the safest place to take her. Three floors down, and far away from eyes and ears; middle of the night, Christmas, people sleep the good sleep, they’re wiped out, and full and tired and content and what better time, what better night than this?

Is this risky? Of course. But, the time of night, the size of the house, the basement – it all goes towards minimizing that risk. Could someone have woken and discovered that Jonbenet was not in her room? Sure; but was that likely to happen? No; probably not.
...

AK

No, none of it relies on “knowing that there is no way the parents or BURKE could have woken up.” It relies on knowing that it would be unlikely that the parents or Burke would wake up AND discover that Jonbenet was missing. Sure, one of three could wake up, but if they did, why would they look in Jonbenet’s room?


AK

And then I said

I'm assuming you don't have kids, if you ask "Why would they look Jonbenet's room?" Most parents would just by habit check on their kids in the middle of the night. But especially if the kid had a problem wetting the bed.

I was referring to YOUR STATEMENT that even if the parents woke up at night they would probably NOT check on their daughter. I said MOST PARENTS WOULD. I have never met a parent that wouldn't check on their kids if they happened to wake up in the middle of the night unless they didn't care about their kids at all. Especially a child Jonbenet's age.

And the point is, the intruder would have NO WAY OF KNOWING WHAT WAS GOING ON IN THE REST OF THE HOUSE> That's my point. Not a discussion about the habits of parents. But HOW would the intruder KNOW that the parents hadn't woken up and weren't sitting on the phone with 911.

You are missing the point.

Again, if the theory is that this was a highly planned premeditated act, with secret code written into the ransom note in an effort to catch the attention of the FBI then WHY would such a person take a huge risk like that?

Most people are basing their theories on HIND SIGHT instead of what would be reasonable to expect in the crime scene in the moment.


If two people worked in tandem it STILL wouldn't eliminate the risk. You see? It's a better theory but it doesn't really solve the problem. This is exactly what I mean about laying it out step by step. Instead of just positing TWO people were there, we'd need to rely on "walkie talkies" or something because even with the second person there, the risk is HUGE for them to take her all the way into the back of the basement like that. Simply because the intruder is basically cornering themselves. Unless the person had already used that window as a means of entry or escape, they wouldn't know if they could get out through the window.

The way the intruder theory is being laid out, there's a "casualness" as I've mentioned before, about their actions that doesn't make any sense.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

You asked if he even participated in the case. He was an investigator.

Sorry that was sarcastic..

 

[Anti-K]

No I didn't. Stop putting words in my mouth.





I SAID



YOU SAID





And then I said



I was referring to YOUR STATEMENT that even if the parents woke up at night they would probably NOT check on their daughter. I said MOST PARENTS WOULD. I have never met a parent that wouldn't check on their kids if they happened to wake up in the middle of the night unless they didn't care about their kids at all. Especially a child Jonbenet's age.

And the point is, the intruder would have NO WAY OF KNOWING WHAT WAS GOING ON IN THE REST OF THE HOUSE> That's my point. Not a discussion about the habits of parents. But HOW would the intruder KNOW that the parents hadn't woken up and weren't sitting on the phone with 911.

You are missing the point.

Again, if the theory is that this was a highly planned premeditated act, with secret code written into the ransom note in an effort to catch the attention of the FBI then WHY would such a person take a huge risk like that?

Most people are basing their theories on HIND SIGHT instead of what would be reasonable to expect in the crime scene in the moment.


If two people worked in tandem it STILL wouldn't eliminate the risk. You see? It's a better theory but it doesn't really solve the problem. This is exactly what I mean about laying it out step by step. Instead of just positing TWO people were there, we'd need to rely on "walkie talkies" or something because even with the second person there, the risk is HUGE for them to take her all the way into the back of the basement like that. Simply because the intruder is basically cornering themselves. Unless the person had already used that window as a means of entry or escape, they wouldn't know if they could get out through the window.

The way the intruder theory is being laid out, there's a "casualness" as I've mentioned before, about their actions that doesn't make any sense.

So, you’re saying “parents who just happen to wake up in the middle of the night make it a habit to check on their children” as opposed to “parents make it a habit to wake up in the middle of the night to check on their children?” Or, am I still not understanding you?

“Parents who just happen to wake up in the middle of the night make it a habit to check on their children” would present less of a risk to the killer than “parents who make it a habit to wake up in the middle of the night to check on their children.”

So, your position in this regard (unless I am still misunderstanding you), actually a weaker objection than I originally thought.
.

As far as your point that the killer” would have NO WAY OF KNOWING WHAT WAS GOING ON IN THE REST OF THE HOUSE:” I haven’t missed it at all. I’ve addressed it more than once. Risk vs benefit, etc. Others have also addressed this: the killer may have been prepared to assault/murder, etc anyone and everyone if he was caught in the act. The killer may have left the ransom note on the stairs as an early warning system before taking his victim down to the basement. Etc.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

BBM

No I didn't. Stop putting words in my mouth.





I SAID


YOU SAID





And then I said



I was referring to YOUR STATEMENT that even if the parents woke up at night they would probably NOT check on their daughter. I said MOST PARENTS WOULD. I have never met a parent that wouldn't check on their kids if they happened to wake up in the middle of the night unless they didn't care about their kids at all. Especially a child Jonbenet's age.

And the point is, the intruder would have NO WAY OF KNOWING WHAT WAS GOING ON IN THE REST OF THE HOUSE> That's my point. Not a discussion about the habits of parents. But HOW would the intruder KNOW that the parents hadn't woken up and weren't sitting on the phone with 911.

You are missing the point.

Again, if the theory is that this was a highly planned premeditated act, with secret code written into the ransom note in an effort to catch the attention of the FBI then WHY would such a person take a huge risk like that?

Most people are basing their theories on HIND SIGHT instead of what would be reasonable to expect in the crime scene in the moment.


If two people worked in tandem it STILL wouldn't eliminate the risk. You see? It's a better theory but it doesn't really solve the problem. This is exactly what I mean about laying it out step by step. Instead of just positing TWO people were there, we'd need to rely on "walkie talkies" or something because even with the second person there, the risk is HUGE for them to take her all the way into the back of the basement like that. Simply because the intruder is basically cornering themselves. Unless the person had already used that window as a means of entry or escape, they wouldn't know if they could get out through the window.

The way the intruder theory is being laid out, there's a "casualness" as I've mentioned before, about their actions that doesn't make any sense.

Yes, well, I’ve on more than one occasion speculated that the killer may have entered the home a week or so before the night of the crime to determine availability and location of items, layout of house, insider info, etc.

Further to that, I have speculated that the evidence of recent disturbance found at the basement window could have been created by such an entry.
...

AK

 

[THE BUNK]

I always think it's strange that people think Smit would be "paid off" to twist it to make it look like the Ramseys' were innocent. As if a detective wouldn't want to be able for taking credit for solving the crime of the century. LOL

Meanwhile the guy who very obviously wrote a sensationalized book to MAKE MONEY is held up as an expert. I don't get it?

1. I would argue that having John Ramsey in your debt forever would pay off much more than any promotions and glory of police work. John Ramsey could guarantee him a job anywhere. That's better than having a LOR from the mayor of Boulder City.

2. It should be pointed out that Lou Smith could legitimately believe their is an intruder, yet be completely wrong about it. He himself could be suffer

3. There is more glory for Lou Smith to find an intruder than to just rubber stamp what other police already believed. If he finds this intruder...he becomes the next Robert Douglass. If he doesn't....he still has the fame of having worked on Ramsey case. Consider this....Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden lost the OJ case...did that hurt their careers?

 

[THE BUNK]

Yes, well, I’ve on more than one occasion speculated that the killer may have entered the home a week or so before the night of the crime to determine availability and location of items, layout of house, insider info, etc.

Further to that, I have speculated that the evidence of recent disturbance found at the basement window could have been created by such an entry.

1. This assumes then that the killer's plan was premeditated. Planned possibly weeks in advance.

2. He did reconnaissance and THIS was the best plan he could come up with?
Not exactly EAR-ONS is he, this killer?

3. If he did reconnaissance before hand and enter the home...he would have found a better entry way than the broken window. I would argue he could easily have found a spare key and copied it and used that to enter the home. I would also argue he would use the advantage of already being in the home to commit his act. Namely, doing something like burning the Ramsey house to the ground. An act that would provide vengeance, no murders, and no evidence.

 

[THE BUNK]

So, you’re saying “parents who just happen to wake up in the middle of the night make it a habit to check on their children” as opposed to “parents make it a habit to wake up in the middle of the night to check on their children?” Or, am I still not understanding you?

“Parents who just happen to wake up in the middle of the night make it a habit to check on their children” would present less of a risk to the killer than “parents who make it a habit to wake up in the middle of the night to check on their children.”

Well, he is entering a house with potentially 5 people in it. Two adults, 1 teenager and 2 kids. There is a large risk of someone still being awake at night.

 

[Darly314]

Which of the Ramseys would be brutal enough to use the garrotte? I can envision someone hating one, or both, of the parents enough to hurt them through their children; as for fibers, did BPD do a thorough check? They bellieve they had the killer(s) right away.

 

[2 percent]

Which of the Ramseys would be brutal enough to use the garrotte?...

I have yet to see a molester give a flying crap about anything but their needs.
If it was about sexual gratification, brutality doesn't matter. Sorry to say...