686 users online (69 members and 617 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 59
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Amongst the beautiful Washington Islands
    Posts
    2,492

    Evidence Of An Intruder

    This is for you, BC.

    Ok folks, let's get started and make our list of evidence of an intruder...

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Dumpwater, Arkansas..LOL
    Posts
    5,333
    I can't remember any evidence that points to an intruder. None....
    "If at first you don't succeed, skydiving isn't for you!"

    The above post is my opinion and my opinion only. Please do not copy and past to other forums. If I wanted to posted on other forums, I would do it myself. Your cooperation is greatly appreciated in this matter.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by Fran Bancroft
    This is for you, BC.

    Ok folks, let's get started and make our list of evidence of an intruder...
    This has been done a bazillion times. The best single list is in Judge Carnes's
    ruling. Unfortunately, this list can in no way be used to rule out BDI theories since BC conveniently adjusts his theory so that it "explains" every single piece of physical evidence while violating all standards of logic and common sense in the process. The flaw in that theory lies not in its failure to explain the available evidence, but its resort to rather fantastical leaps of imagination to explain motivations/behavior of the alleged principals. It further requires that Hunter flat-out lied on national TV in his Larry King interview and further flat-out lied in a written affidavit that he was not hesitant to re-word as needed so that it accurately reflected events.

    The fact is, if you read the affidavit in the context of the King interview, all his edits make perfect sense. That is, the interview acknowledges that LE considered possibility that BDI, hence the original statement in affidavit to the effect that Burke had NEVER been considered a suspect had to be struck since Alex Hunter did not care to commit perjury (I'm not a lawyer, but presume that one who knowingly files a false affidavit is guilty of perjury or contempt of court or some similar offense). But Hunter WAS willing to state that no evidence was developed that would point to Burke as the likely perp etc. So either a DA freely and willingly lied to the public on multiple occasions or BC's BDI theory is a crock. Choosing between these alternatives is pretty simple if you rely on the principle of Occam's razor.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    maryland
    Posts
    1,832
    oops..put this on the wrong thread..
    evidence of an intruder.
    Deliberate lies by those police involved the first few days.
    Example...when Fernie arrived ,he walked to the Butler door, saw the ransom note, noticed the door was ajar, walked around to another entrance and was let into the house. He questioned WHY if there were NO FOOTPRINTS in the snow as the police suggested, did no one see HIS?
    another..Police hired a locksmith who noted tampering at the door, it was decided the tampering was "old", later it was found there had been no determination concerning the timing of the "tampering" it was simply noted as "finding marks indicating someone tried to tamper with the lock"
    Police released a statement, that John Ramsey said doors and windows were locked, however later it was found several windows were not locked and had wires coming in to connect outdoor decorations, and of course the butler door was not locked or closed.
    Within the first few days the police released information stating as fact "no one could fit through that train room window" it was determined "too small".
    I question WHY?
    IMO the police came to the house and saw evidence of an intruder.

    More..later as to the exculpatory evidence pointing away from the family.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,475
    sissi, please explain just how these things are actual, real evidence of any intruder.

    Quote Originally Posted by sissi
    oops..put this on the wrong thread..
    evidence of an intruder.
    Deliberate lies by those police involved the first few days.
    Please quote specific "lies" and show how they are actually evidence of an intruder.

    Example...when Fernie arrived ,he walked to the Butler door, saw the ransom note, noticed the door was ajar, walked around to another entrance and was let into the house. He questioned WHY if there were NO FOOTPRINTS in the snow as the police suggested, did no one see HIS?
    Where did you see this? Please provide a source, or reference for this statement that you say John Fernie said. Not doubting you, but I've never seen anything like that.

    another..Police hired a locksmith who noted tampering at the door, it was decided the tampering was "old", later it was found there had been no determination concerning the timing of the "tampering" it was simply noted as "finding marks indicating someone tried to tamper with the lock"
    And just how is this evidence of anything other than there were marks on the door? It certainly looks like the BPD was looking for an intruder doesn't it?
    The door, not just the lock, was marked and slivers/chips were missing, yet they weren't on the floor. That's why they thought the tampering had been a prior episode. If it were recent then where was the wood that was scraped from the door when it was tampered with?

    Police released a statement, that John Ramsey said doors and windows were locked, however later it was found several windows were not locked and had wires coming in to connect outdoor decorations, and of course the butler door was not locked or closed.
    Again, how exactly is this "evidence" of an intruder and where would one find that released statement? In his 1997 interview JR states that there was a misunderstanding when he scanned the police reports.

    JR: Well, they was a couple of areas where I think there was some misunderstanding or wasn’t correct. I did not check every door in the house the night before. I don’t think I checked any door. I think I was tired, wanted to go to bed, get up early. Ah, and I think the other part I noted in there was they said I read to both kids before I went to bed, and that did not happened. What happened was the kids went to bed and then I read to myself in bed.

    ST: John, let me ask you this. Do you attribute that to simply an officer’s error in recollection or might you have said that and . . .

    JR: I wouldn’t have said that. I think it might have been, maybe the way I said it, that was misinterpreted, but we clearly did not read to the kids that night. JonBenet was asleep, we wanted Burke to get to sleep, so we could get them up early the next morning, so . . .




    Within the first few days the police released information stating as fact "no one could fit through that train room window" it was determined "too small".
    I question WHY?
    Please tell me which one of the actual press releases that is contained in. I find absolutely nothing in any of the official press releases that state this is true. http://www.ci.boulder.co.us/comm/pre...se/indexr.html

    IMO the police came to the house and saw evidence of an intruder.

    More..later as to the exculpatory evidence pointing away from the family.
    None of this is exculpatory evidence of anything. You even state it is just your opinion. That is not evidence.

    It looks as if there is no "evidence of an intruder" listed anywhere on this thread.

    Factual evidence of an intruder is hard to prove in this case because it's so hard to find. Nothing listed is proof of an intruder.

    Here, let me help you out a bit on what is actual evidence that cannot be sourced. However, just because they can't find the rest of it still does not prove these things were not already in the home and in the Ramsey's possesion.

    How about the rope? No other rope like it was found in the home.
    The black duct tape that was found over her mouth? Where did it come from and where is the rest of it?
    The partial Hi-Tec boot print that has never been verified as belonging to anyone?

    Those are "possible" evidence of an intruder, but not proof positive.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    170

    Intruder

    Animal and fibers they could not find any source of in the house.
    Part of the cord that didnt match anything in the house....it was cut in JBR's room because they found the fibers in her bed. Tape that didnt match anything in the house. Handwriting does not match Patsy, John or Burke. No history of abuse, neglect, drugs or alcohol by the family. And for those of you that are Steve Thomas fans....well he did investigate that crime for a long time and if the best theory he could come up with was bedwetting....well that alone tells you they had nothing to point to Ramseys.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    170
    Quote Originally Posted by sissi
    oops..put this on the wrong thread..
    evidence of an intruder.
    Deliberate lies by those police involved the first few days.
    Example...when Fernie arrived ,he walked to the Butler door, saw the ransom note, noticed the door was ajar, walked around to another entrance and was let into the house. He questioned WHY if there were NO FOOTPRINTS in the snow as the police suggested, did no one see HIS?
    another..Police hired a locksmith who noted tampering at the door, it was decided the tampering was "old", later it was found there had been no determination concerning the timing of the "tampering" it was simply noted as "finding marks indicating someone tried to tamper with the lock"
    Police released a statement, that John Ramsey said doors and windows were locked, however later it was found several windows were not locked and had wires coming in to connect outdoor decorations, and of course the butler door was not locked or closed.
    Within the first few days the police released information stating as fact "no one could fit through that train room window" it was determined "too small".
    I question WHY?
    IMO the police came to the house and saw evidence of an intruder.

    More..later as to the exculpatory evidence pointing away from the family.
    Right Sissi! They did see the intruder evidence and they apparently went with that idea because they treated it as a kidnapping until her body was found. If they really thought the parents were involved you can bet even those keystone cops would have cleared that house to try to find the evidence of the parents doing something.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    midwest
    Posts
    43
    What if you stayed up all night and staged a crime scene to make it look like an intruder entered your home, attempted a kidnapping and committed a murder and in the morning when the police show up they are unable to see or believe what is right there in front of them? I guess I agree with the police on this one, no credible evidence found of a intruder that I can see.
    JUST MY OPINION!

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    170
    Quote Originally Posted by eliza
    What if you stayed up all night and staged a crime scene to make it look like an intruder entered your home, attempted a kidnapping and committed a murder and in the morning when the police show up they are unable to see or believe what is right there in front of them? I guess I agree with the police on this one, no credible evidence found of a intruder that I can see.
    Who attempted the kidnapping? Patsy? If you think this is all staged then why couldnt it be an intruder? I really like that "attempted kidnapping"........ Yep, that really flies!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    maryland
    Posts
    1,832
    http://www.crimelibrary.com/notoriou..._2.html?sect=7

    I searched the for the early reports in the RMN and Boulder News, will continue to search, for now I will offer Court TV's version, most of what I said in my post can be found by going through the pages on the bottom.

    from same:
    The end result? - No secret room, no need for forced entry and very little snow, which leads to one of two conclusions - either the press distorted the facts to embellish their story or someone inside the police department leaked false information, intentionally or otherwise. Despite having been proved incorrect, all three bits of misinformation were given continual coverage.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    midwest
    Posts
    43
    Quote Originally Posted by jasmine
    Who attempted the kidnapping? Patsy? If you think this is all staged then why couldnt it be an intruder? I really like that "attempted kidnapping"........ Yep, that really flies!
    A three page ransom note with a body left in the house looks like an attempt at a kidnapping gone wrong to me, whether you believe it to be an intruder or staged by a family member to cover up the real events of that night.
    JUST MY OPINION!

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053

    Definition of Intruder

    Quote Originally Posted by Fran Bancroft

    Ok folks, let's get started and make our list of evidence of an intruder...

    Fran,

    Please let me interject the definition of an "intruder" at this point, because there ARE indications that a fifth person could have been in the house that night -- but IMO he could NOT be considered an intruder if he was a Ramsey, or one or more of the Ramseys inside had invited or let him into the house.

    Dictionary definition:

    INTRUDE: "To thrust oneself in without invitation, permission, or welcome. To cause to enter as if by force."

    An "intruder", of course, would be one who intrudes.

    IMO the definition of an intruder is important, especially in the Ramsey v Fox News case, because the evidence of lies and behaviors of the Ramseys indicate a coverup, and they would cover up only if a family member was involved. They would NOT cover up for a bonifide "intruder" as defined above. IOW, there could have been an intruder but, if a Ramsey was his accomplice, then he wasn't a bonifide intruder.

    So the evidence of an INTRUDER should fit the definition of "intrude" (to thrust oneself in without invitation, permission, or welcome; to cause to enter as if by force).

    JMO

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    maryland
    Posts
    1,832
    If this "guest" were invited in by a child, without the knowledge of the parents, without their permission, would this "guest" then be considered an intruder?
    BC if JonBenet knew her killer perhaps she let him in?
    There is just so much we don't know, little details that would make a better case for our opinions.
    There were incidents preceding the murder that were unusual and IMO deserved more attention by the police. An example of these was suggested in the statement made by the housekeeper in Michigan . She thought the Ramseys had an invited guest when she noted someone had slept in Jonbenet's bed and had spotted a pair of cowboy boots in her room. Someone obviously intruded into their summer home that fall before the murder. During the same time frame a gas station attendant in Mich. had a brief conversation with an angry patron who said he had unfinished business in Colorado.
    I am not a conspiracy theorist, however, I have always found it odd that a company owned by Lockheed Martin didn't have kidnapping strategies in place,and would have expected a "memo" of sorts to go out immediately for the protection of other CEO's families at the first indication of kidnapping by terrorists (small foreign factions). That this didn't happen was another indication that either the parents were the ONLY suspects and that the FBI bought into this the first minutes or something more dark was involved and a coverup was underway. Weren't we aware as a nation of terrorists cell activity after the first bombing in 1993 of the WTC?
    From a publication...Patterns of Global Terrorism
    1994
    Indeed, terrorists represent a small minority of dedicated, often fanatical, individuals in most such groups. It is that small group -- and their actions -- that is the subject of this report.
    Lockheed:
    http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache...hl=en&ie=UTF-8

    Just maybe Boulder didn't want this kind of activity in their community, so it didn't happen? Given the political climate, the business of Mr. Ramsey, the attention brought toward the family by the recent "billion" dollar news, consideration and deep investigation should have been taken over by the FBI not the BPD. Perhaps with their expertise they could have eliminated this possibility and helped move the investigation toward a more local source and solved it. IMO

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    514
    If you insist on claiming that some intruder committed this crime - then you MUST look at EVERY fact and circumstance of the crime scene. Not just select and random things that you think exonerate the Ramseys themselves.

    First of all, forget about the butler door. This is so laughable I cannot believe it is brought up as a serious indicator of an "intruder".
    Think about it - John Ramsey himself has been sitting on the floor right near that butler door reading the note, Patsy makes her phone call right near there - and DON'T NOTICE THE DOOR OPENED??? LOL! C'mon.
    Even if the door was opened a little - People were already there up and running around. Police officer on the scene and the Ramseys.
    Strike.

    Secondly, the "footprints in the snow" problem was observed by the first police officer on the scene BEFORE John Fernie arrived. Whether or not John Fernie's subsequent footprints in the snow were observed or not is totally irrelevant - he wasn't even THERE yet when the officer made his observation.
    Of course his footprints wouldn't be noticed!!
    Strike.

    The basement window - we KNOW that is a joke to suggest this intruder exited out that window because John Ramsey himself stated that outside the door to that room where the basement window was there was a chair PUSHED UP AGAINST the door out in the hallway. Unless this dude was a ghost and can walk through walls .....

    Explain to me you "intruder did it" theorists just how Patsy Ramsey's clothing fibers from the clothes she wore that night just happened to become entwined in the cord wrapped around the victim's neck??? Not to mention in the paint tote just outside the room where she was found dead.

    This "intruder" bent on entering a large expensive home on Christmas to KIDNAP a child - did not even bring the ransom note with him!
    The paper and pen used to write this note (letter) was used from right there inside the house. Not only that - the pens were even placed right back in the cupholder. Patsy's pen. Patsy's paper.

    There is no reason to assume that the cord used on JonBenet HAD to have more in existence in the house. Why? It is very possible that this cord was lying around the house - probably in the basement - and just used because the opportunity to use it was there and obvious. The search warrant lists as items seized "string" from a sled. Did this "string" match the "cord"? I've always wondered that.....Or could the cord have been from an item of clothing even? A drawstring cord??
    Same thing with the piece of tape. For all anyone knows it could have come out of the paint tote box or off some object. OR - of course the rest of the roll very well could have been HIDDEN and never found. Or flushed..... That is if they even came off rolls.

    The doorjam marking turned out to be old. The housekeeper said they'd been there for sometime.

    Whoever killed JonBenet and staged the scene - CARED about her. Laying blankets on the floor to lay her on top of - AND covering/wrapping her up in yet another blanket showed that the perp/stager cared about her and was sorry she had died. This cannot be overlooked. It is great insight into what happened.

    I think it's just as important to point out what did NOT happen in this "intruder" theory - or facts that make this theory just so implausible. Just looking at these missing things and facts alone make it baffling how anyone can even consider such a theory:

    *No evidence of entry or exit from the home.
    *Would have to KNOW that the Ramseys were leaving at all that day - let
    alone what time they were leaving and that they planned to return!!
    *Would have to KNOW the dog was not there and that the alarm system
    was not turned on.
    *Would have to KNOW there was not someone else in that house - a guest
    that stayed behind.
    *Would have to be very comfortable staying inside the house that long as
    it took alot of TIME to do what was done that night.
    *Would have to know way around that maze of a house. Where the oddly
    placed light switches were etc.
    *How did he get JonBenet down to the basement (not to mention the more
    important question of WHY even GO to the basement and not out the
    door????) AND get those 3 pages of note placed on the stairs?? WHEN
    did he place those pages there??? Couldn't do it before he went up to
    kidnap her - he'd step on the coming back down. Couldn't do it after he
    had grabbed her - he'd step on them coming down. Couldn't risk going
    BACK up into the main house from the basement after he has just KILLED
    her!! And what would be the point? He knew she was dead now and
    no chance of any "ransom" money. And indeed - no call was ever placed
    to collect it.

    There is more, but to sum up, are we really to believe that some unknown person broke into a large expensive home on Christmas of all days of the year, with the intent to kidnap the child, did not bring a ransom note although he was supposedly going there for the sole purpose to kidnap for ransom - was there undected for hours, decides to borrow pen and paper there and write ransom note, grabs the child - and wait - doesn't leave! Instead, decides to stick around even LONGER than he's already been there plotting his moves - and goes down to the basement???? Where he kills her and somehow manages to exit the house without a trace. And leaves the note anyway.
    Not to mention the fact that he had to search around for blankets to lay her upon and wrap her up in. While placing her favorite nightie near her??

    It baffles my mind that this is actually a plausible scenario to some.
    This post is my opinion.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by DocWatson
    The best single list is in Judge Carnes's
    ruling.

    Doc,

    The evidence of an intruder used by Judge Julie Carnes, while ruling in a civil case on another matter, was based on what Lou Smit considered as evidence of an intruder.

    Carnes relied solely on Smit's interpretations of the intruder evidence and we all know that Smit, openly bonded by religious faith to the Ramseys, wants the Ramseys exonerated come hell or high water. Consequently, much and perhaps all of Smit's evidence of an intruder has since been convincingly discredited.

    However, if you'd like to bring up any of Carnes' (Smit's) specific items of evidence of an intruder for discussion in this forum, I'm sure it would make for a spirited debate. Somehow, maybe Smit was right and there really was a bonifide intruder in the house that night, but there's no credible evidence of it that I know of.

    JMO

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast