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

[Mama2JML]

"Access celebrates $1 billion mark
By TOM LOCKE
Camera Business Writer
December 21, 1996

A billion bucks. That's enough to make anybody celebrate.

So when Boulder-based computer distributor Access Graphics Inc. passed the $1 billion mark in 1996 revenues, it tossed a luncheon party at the Hotel Boulderado on Friday.

A dixieland jazz band made the rounds at Access' Boulder offices Friday morning to announce the celebration and later played at the Boulderado.

John Ramsey, president of Access Graphics, thanked about 300 employees at the gathering and told them it couldn't have happened without them. The $1 billion in sales is about a 25 percent increase over the $800 million the company posted last year, and Ramsey foresees continued growth.

The next major milestone party, when the company reaches $2 billion in revenues, will come "before the end of the decade, that's for sure," he predicted.

Reaching the billion-dollar mark has come relatively quickly for Access, which was formed in 1989 from the merger of three companies: CAD Distributors Inc. of Boulder; CAD Sources Inc. of Piscataway, N.J.; and Advanced Products Group of Roswell, Ga.

In 1990, Access posted $59 million in sales and had 120 employees. While revenues have grown about 1,600 percent, employment has grown about 358 percent, to 550 employees. About 380 employees are in Boulder, 100 in Europe, 20 in Mexico City, 12 in Canada and some at warehouses in California and Pennsylvania.

Access Graphics, a wholly owned subsidiary of Bethesda, Md.-based Lockheed Martin Corp., gets about 60 percent of its revenues from selling hard ware and software from Sun Microsytem."​

​

http://www.acandyrose.com/s-xmas-access-12201996.htm

 

[tovarisch]

The toilet in the basement had not flashed urine with the cigarette`s but floating in it.
Someone urinated and had time to smoke , that's` obviously before the crime, while waiting for the right moment.
What is significant, the carpet around the toilet was cut and taken away by investigators. It sowed stains in the red(or blue?) light.
What it tells , it tells that there were urine stains on this carpet. Further, what this fact tells, it tells it was a male, who urinated in the toilet and, true for the natural physics of a human body, around the toilet. RDI cannot link Patsy to this carpet, due to the same physics of a human body, period.

RDI could link, I imagine, Mr. Ramsey, who was a non smoker, but RDI might theorize took cigarette from Patsy`s pack this night.
In this case we, public, would know that cigarette belonged to Patsy`s pack. We never heard about it, right?

 

[otg]

The toilet in the basement had not flashed urine with the cigarette`s but floating in it.
Someone urinated and had time to smoke , that's` obviously before the crime, while waiting for the right moment.
What is significant, the carpet around the toilet was cut and taken away by investigators. It sowed stains in the red(or blue?) light.
What it tells , it tells that there were urine stains on this carpet. Further, what this fact tells, it tells it was a male, who urinated in the toilet and, true for the natural physics of a human body, around the toilet. RDI cannot link Patsy to this carpet, due to the same physics of a human body, period.

RDI could link, I imagine, Mr. Ramsey, who was a non smoker, but RDI might theorize took cigarette from Patsy`s pack this night.
In this case we, public, would know that cigarette belonged to Patsy`s pack.

Excuse me for “butting” in on a thread I know I’m not appreciated, but where are you getting all this information? Cigarette butts and urine in the toilet? Carpet cut and taken away with stains of red in it showing in a blue light (maybe you mean a black light?)? Then the assumption that this means there was urine on the carpet so it has to be an indication that a male was there on that particular night -- peeing and smoking cigarettes while he was there waiting in the basement? Really?

We never heard about it, right?

Actually, I never heard any of this.

 

[tovarisch]

Excuse me for “butting” in on a thread I know I’m not appreciated, but where are you getting all this information? Cigarette butts and urine in the toilet? Carpet cut and taken away with stains of red in it showing in a blue light (maybe you mean a black light?)? Then the assumption that this means there was urine on the carpet so it has to be an indication that a male was there on that particular night -- peeing and smoking cigarettes while he was there waiting in the basement? Really?


Actually, I never heard any of this.

Where did I say red stains, please???

Please, don`t twist...
It`s OK to correct, Im` fine and grateful, but-to butt, red or blue light-to black light, thanks . But RED stains ?

Again,

from police file, I will present the source later:

basement`s toilet had urine in it, with cigarette butt floating in it
the carpet around this particular toilet with urine and butt was cut off and taken away
butt was collected

If it does not make connection for you, I can not help it.
It does for me. The urine, the butt, and the carpet were evidence of SOMETHING.

 

[elannia]

Did Patsy smoke?

 

[tovarisch]

http://www.acandyrose.com/bathroom-toilet.jpg

For now this is the photo of basement`s toilet after investigators took good care of it, it`s pretty much down to parts and pieces. Carpet is cut off. The description of evidence what was in the toilet I will find too, I need more time, a lot of old information is not accessible anymore.
But I know, that OTG and others knew this too, and just pretending. It`s OK with me.

 

[Mama2JML]

http://www.acandyrose.com/bathroom-toilet.jpg

For now this is the photo of basement`s toilet after investigators took good care of it, it`s pretty much down to parts and pieces. Carpet is cut off. The description of evidence what was in the toilet I will find too, I need more time, a lot of old information is not accessible anymore.
But I know, that OTG and others knew this too, and just pretending. It`s OK with me.

The missing carpet appears to be where the toilet once was & where it should be. Now, I don't know much about plumbing, and I don't have carpet in my bathrooms, BUT I wouldn't think carpet would be laid beneath the toilet?...

FWIW, I've never heard about a cigarette butt in the toilet bowl either.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tovarisch]

The missing carpet appears to be where the toilet once was & where it should be. Now, I don't know much about plumbing, and I don't have carpet in my bathrooms, BUT I wouldn't think carpet would be laid beneath the toilet?...

FWIW, I've never heard about a cigarette butt in the toilet bowl either.


You right, Mama, on this photo carpet was not cut of, my mistake, it`s the original spot under the toilet, which was moved. What do you think the red circle on the photo showing carpet around the toilet , circle made by investigators, means? circle of interest, perhaps?

I`m not a speculator, and I remember what I said I`ve read for sure, it was a while ago, but I will find a source and present it. Urine and a butt, inside this toilet, that investigators almost tore down,and carpet was cut off, even if not in this photo.

 

[otg]

Where did I say red stains, please???

Please, don`t twist...
It`s OK to correct, Im` fine and grateful, but-to butt, red or blue light-to black light, thanks . But RED stains ?

Excuse me if your sentence structure caused me to misunderstand what you were trying to say, but please don’t accuse me of trying to twist what you said. I thought perhaps you were referring to two different techniques of looking for bodily fluids. One involves using what is called a “black light” (even though it looks blue) which causes certain otherwise invisible fluids to fluoresce. The other technique involves spraying a liquid which causes fluids to turn visible colors. Those colors vary depending on the lights used and the filters through which an area is viewed. Here is an example of an area of the same basement carpet with a red stain on it from the chemical applied (as I thought you were suggesting in the post I responded to):

Again,

from police file, I will present the source later:

basement`s toilet had urine in it, with cigarette butt floating in it

I’m not sure where you read this, or exactly what you read. But I’m afraid you might have read something like “unflushed toilet”, and then assumed it was urine that had been left in the toilet. And it may well have been urine -- I simply asked where you got that information because you are basing your conclusions on it. I know that the contents of the toilet bowl were taken into evidence, but I’ve never read the results of what was found (or that a cigarette butt was included in the contents).

the carpet around this particular toilet with urine and butt was cut off and taken away
butt was collected

If it does not make connection for you, I can not help it.
It does for me. The urine, the butt, and the carpet were evidence of SOMETHING.

I think you’re assumption here (about “cut off carpet”) was actually the section of carpet left out around the toilet base, and you’ve since realized the mistake. I understand the mistake -- I had thought the same thing myself until I looked closer at it and realized what it was. But do you see how misinterpreting something and then basing your conclusions on it can throw you off from what might actually be the case?

 

[tovarisch]

More on the toilet in the basement. The photo of it that I posted previously shows it was demolished by the investigators for the mysterious reason.

Now the interview below, showing great interest in the toilet. Full version is on acandyrose.com
And I`m not done with that toilet. The description of it`s contents will be presented too.



June 1998 John Ramsey Interrogation by Lou Smit and Mike Kane (The Cobies, the Pig Sty Neighors)

0764
19 LOU SMIT: I would like to show you
20 a photograph number 517. It's a photograph of
21 the bathroom and that would be the basement
22 bathroom. But before we get into that, I think
23 I will ask you a couple of questions.
24 Again, who used that basement
25 bathroom?

0765
1 JOHN RAMSEY: It was hardly ever
2 used. I think Evan, I remember Evan using it.
3 LOU SMIT: When?
4 JOHN RAMSEY: Oh, Evan was in and
5 out of that house almost every day. And you
6 know, I can't recall that it was right then that
7 I -- I just remember. I -- the thing I wasn't
8 sure worked, but I do remember Evan using it
9 once, and remember thinking oh, it worked.
10 Amazing.
11 LOU SMIT: What, the toilet?
12 JOHN RAMSEY: Right. Burke might
13 have. You know, hard to tell, if he's playing
14 down there. But it just didn't get used.


(SNIP)


0090
18 LOU SMIT: Try to think about that a little
19 bit. It's just one of those things that we're
20 trying to determine who all would have gone in
21 there into that room at a specific time. That's
22 whey we have to find that out. That's why
23 specifically if you can think about it. I know to
24 sequence your memory is kind of hard. But it's one
25 of those things that I figure you can think about

0091
1 a little bit.
2 Just to back up just a little bit. After the
3 children opened their gifts, do you know what they
4 did that day, your children?
5 JOHN RAMSEY: Well they played around the
6 house. There were some kids in and out, I think.
7 Because I wasn't there for several hours.
8 LOU SMIT: And where were these kids from?
9 JOHN RAMSEY: Only, I think based -- well
10 I'm pretty sure I saw Evan and Kile, I forget
11 their last name.
12 LOU SMIT: Coby?
13 JOHN RAMSEY: Coby. They were there. I don't
14 remember specifically knowing that. But I think
15 Patsy, I heard her saying neighbors and girls from
16 up the street.
17 LOU SMIT: Do you know their names?
18 JOHN RAMSEY: I don't. I don't.
19 LOU SMIT: We were trying to determine who
20 all JonBenet or Burke had had any contact. And
21 later on we'll kind of get into those reasons. But
22 right now we have to find out any contact with the
23 children.
24 JOHN RAMSEY: Yeah, I know. Well, there were
25 a number of kids there that day. Our house was

 

[Global Justice Ops]

Pineapple was found in JonBenet’s small intestine, and there was a bowl of pineapple found on the kitchen table. This is a well-known fact about the case.

"The proximal portion of the small intestine contains fragmented pieces of yellow to light green-tan apparent vegetable or fruit material which may represent fragments of pineapple.” – Autopsy report.

There was green fecal matter further in her digestive tract that was observed during the autopsy. This green fecal matter was all of the food JonBenet had consumed during Christmas day.

"The large intestine contains soft green fecal material." – Autopsy report.

The condition of the pineapple in the small intestine implicates that JonBenet had consumed it not long before she died.

The bowl itself was still very much full of pineapple, and very little pineapple was found inside of JonBenet. I think this means she ate some because she was told to and wanted to cooperate with the perpetrator, or was subdued after the first bite.

Having only consumed a small serving, it would have taken a minimum of 1 hour for that small amount of pineapple to leave her stomach and enter her small intestine. The pineapple stopped in the small intestine at the time of death when all biological functions ceased. Depending on various factors it can sometimes take a longer amount of time for food to exit the stomach and enter the small intestine. I proposed a minimum of sixty minutes due to the amount and type of food in question. It would not be a metabolic challenge for the body.

Either way, the killer spent 1-2, MAYBE 3 hours with her before he killed her. And I believe he wanted her under his complete control during that time, which is why two sets of stun gun injuries appear on her body.

 

[Mama2JML]

Pineapple was found in JonBenet’s small intestine, and there was a bowl of pineapple found on the kitchen table. This is a well-known fact about the case.

"The proximal portion of the small intestine contains fragmented pieces of yellow to light green-tan apparent vegetable or fruit material which may represent fragments of pineapple.” – Autopsy report.

There was green fecal matter further in her digestive tract that was observed during the autopsy. This green fecal matter was all of the food JonBenet had consumed during Christmas day.

"The large intestine contains soft green fecal material." – Autopsy report.

The condition of the pineapple in the small intestine implicates that JonBenet had consumed it not long before she died.

The bowl itself was still very much full of pineapple, and very little pineapple was found inside of JonBenet. I think this means she ate some because she was told to and wanted to cooperate with the perpetrator, or was subdued after the first bite.

Having only consumed a small serving, it would have taken a minimum of 1 hour for that small amount of pineapple to leave her stomach and enter her small intestine. The pineapple stopped in the small intestine at the time of death when all biological functions ceased. Depending on various factors it can sometimes take a longer amount of time for food to exit the stomach and enter the small intestine. I proposed a minimum of sixty minutes due to the amount and type of food in question. It would not be a metabolic challenge for the body.

Either way, the killer spent 1-2, MAYBE 3 hours with her before he killed her. And I believe he wanted her under his complete control during that time, which is why two sets of stun gun injuries appear on her body.

I agree that 'control over the victim' was the/a primary motive, but I'm not so confident the pineapple was consumed within 1-3 hours before death. At least one expert, consulted in this case, believes the pineapple could have been consumed the afternoon of the 25th, prior to dinner @ the White's' house. According to Schiller, the 'matter' thought to be pineapple was poorly chewed, so I do believe this supports your conjecture.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tovarisch]

I made some research on different sites, so different you will be surprised. I`ve been at the website for criminal medics( foreign language) , scary site, and on public sites. I`ve learn that time of food to become a mass, that you call digestion, could be as quick as 30 minutes. And move along the track of gastro system up to 40 hrs! Agter I thought a little, I knew it`s true, because we all gave digestion track system.
The track of digested food is long, very long, meters and meters. What criminal medics do- they look at the where the food is, and they calculate using formula of known speed meter/hour how food moves, they estimate time of last meal. Not by chart- How long it take food to digest -meaning become mass, but exactly by the food location and special formula of speed of it`s transit.
Food being mainly in JB`s large sack estimates it have been in her system between 5-12 hrs.
Interesting to know:
Food does not digest in order " first in-first out"
Always remains pieces of undigested food while the main portion moved down the road, and it`s normal.

 

[tovarisch]

http://www.mayoclinic.org/digestive-system/expert-answers/faq-20058340

For everybody`s consideration this is public site, but shares the same knowledge as criminal medics site.

 

[tovarisch]

For everybody`s consideration,this public sit shares the same knowledge as criminal medics site.


http://www.mayoclinic.org/digestive-system/expert-answers/faq-20058340

 

[Global Justice Ops]

You are absolutely right, it could have been consumed long before the murder. But I don't think it was. John and Patsy can't account for that bowl, and Patsy said she never placed a tea bag inside a glass, like the one found next to the bowl. Something else that I find bothering is the fact that JonBenet had told one of her friend's mothers that Santa was going to give her a secret visit after Christmas. We all know this.

A certain individual, who was once considered to be a good suspect, was in possession of a video tape that had footage of a news broadcast about a missing girl in Colorado, followed by footage of Santa Clause waking up a little girl in bed on Christmas night. He was also found to be in possession of a stun gun.

This is all old news, I understand. But just because his DNA does not match does not mean he was not involved. Most likely there were two intruders. The ransom note refers to many people being involved. "The two men watching over your daughter...."

I realize I might get in trouble for bringing him up, but it is too important not to. Especially when his named associate has NOT been cleared on DNA evidence.

 

[tovarisch]

You are absolutely right, it could have been consumed long before the murder. But I don't think it was. John and Patsy can't account for that bowl, and Patsy said she never placed a tea bag inside a glass, like the one found next to the bowl. Something else that I find bothering is the fact that JonBenet had told one of her friend's mothers that Santa was going to give her a secret visit after Christmas. We all know this.

A certain individual, who was once considered to be a good suspect, was in possession of a video tape that had footage of a news broadcast about a missing girl in Colorado, followed by footage of Santa Clause waking up a little girl in bed on Christmas night. He was also found to be in possession of a stun gun.

This is all old news, I understand. But just because his DNA does not match does not mean he was not involved. Most likely there were two intruders. The ransom note refers to many people being involved. "The two men watching over your daughter...."

I realize I might get in trouble for bringing him up, but it is too important not to. Especially when his named associate has NOT been cleared on DNA evidence.

I wish I knew what you are talking, but I won`t ask. IDI is not a safe harbor, we are looking for the real killer , other than Patsy. RDI could beat the dead horse (English saying) as long as they want, they are safe. Why ? Because that exactly what somebody wants us to think and to do.
It needs more time, it`s not time yet, to reveal to the public eye more facts and real evidence. They have it. It`s just not time, my opinion.

I might be in trouble too now.

 

[andreww]

I just don't buy the intruder theory. If an intruder had a plan to kidnap JBR, why wouldn't they write the ransom note in advance? Would they take the time to make themselves a cup of tea? And why do any of this when JBR was lying dead in the basement? None of it makes any sense whatsoever.

If in fact the crime were committed by an intruder, why were the Ramsey's so uncooperative with LE? I think it's obvious there was a coverup by te RS and why do that if it was an intruder?

I really don't understand why the Rs weren't separated and interrogated right from the start. Isn't that standard police procedure? Something tells me this case would have been solved very quickly if they had done that.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Global Justice Ops]

The ransom note was most likely written in advance. I highly doubt that killer wrote it after he killed JonBenet. Either he went to kidnap her and something caused him to abort the plan at the last minute or the true purpose of the ransom note was to stall the Ramsey family and police from searching the house and launching a manhunt after discovering a body. He might have been trying to buy as much time as he could for all we know.

The Ramseys provided interviews, hair samples, blood samples, saliva and handwriting samples. Their entire house was at Boulder PD's disposal. They cooperated more than any other suspect and they were never charged. That should tell you something.

 

[andreww]

The ransom note was most likely written in advance. I highly doubt that killer wrote it after he killed JonBenet. Either he went to kidnap her and something caused him to abort the plan at the last minute or the true purpose of the ransom note was to stall the Ramsey family and police from searching the house and launching a manhunt after discovering a body. He might have been trying to buy as much time as he could for all we know.

The Ramseys provided interviews, hair samples, blood samples, saliva and handwriting samples. Their entire house was at Boulder PD's disposal. They cooperated more than any other suspect and they were never charged. That should tell you something.

I believe the ransom note was written in the Ramsey house, on their paper wasn't it? An intruder would not write a note that long whilst sitting in the victims kitchen. You would think that would be something that was taken care of prior to entering the house. And you think the Ramsey's were cooperating? They simply refused to be interviewed by police! Why would they do that? Didn't they want to find their daughters murderer? Obviously not. Their money and power got them the kid glove treatment and they didn't speak to police until they'd had the opportunity to go over their story 1000 times. Anybody else would have been 0in cuffs and at the station within hours of finding the body.