The Big Question

The big question here is not whether or not JMK killed JonBenet - but whether ANY "intruder" could have killed her.
With the facts as we know them in this case - how do they measure up against the current frenzy that seems to "assume" that indeed an intruder could have killed JonBenet.

I think it is important to take a step back here, clear our heads and take an elementary look at the BASIC facts of the case. And with those basic facts, ask ourselves if they could in any way allow for JMK as the perp.

FACTS:

1. Early in the morning the day after Christmas, a family calls the police and
claims that their 6 yr old child is missing and a kidnap "ransom" note was
found on their stairs.

2. When police arrive a few minutes later, the mother greets him at the door
fully dressed - in the same clothing she wore the night before.

3. The "note" warned the family NOT to call the police or anyone or the child
will die. The family calls not only the police (understandable) - but scores
of friends to come over.

4. The note stated that the family is being monitored and watched carefully
and yet the family had no worries about allowing their 10 yr old son to
leave the home out of their sight and protection "out there" - to go to a
friends house with NO police protection.

5. The child was never kidnapped. The child's dead body was found in the
home "hidden" in the basement.

6. The child was lain on a blanket and wrapped up in a blanket. The child's
favorite nightgown was found lying near her too.

7. There was no sign of forced entry in the home.

8. There was virtually NO forensic or physical evidence at the crime scene
other than that of her family members - save for a miniscule speck of
DNA that was so small that, as Dr. Henry Lee pointed out this week - they
could not ever get a full profile from it.
With as much time as the perp spent in that home from writing the note
to doing all that was done to JonBenet in that basement and/or elsewhere
there should be a PLETHORA of foreign forensic evidence. There is not.

9. The mother's sweater fibers from the sweater she was wearing that night
were discovered "entwined" in the knots in the string tied around her
daughter's neck and also on the tape on her mouth.

10. The linguistics in the note point to Patsy the mother and language she
was known to use. "Gentelman" "And hence" "Attache" Not to mention
the style (overdone, many exclamation points) and the handwriting itself.
She cannot be excluded as the author. The note was written with the
left hand and attempted to be disguised.

11. The Note was written IN THE HOUSE with paper and pens FROM the
house. The pens were even put back into the cup.
If the "intention" of the perp was to kidnap for ransom - why didn't he
come equipped with the note?
If the "intention" of the perp was to kidnap for ransom - why didn't he
grab the child and leave?
If the "intention" of the perp was to extort money from the family - why
didn't he work toward that goal? Why didn't he grab the child and leave
even if she was already dead? The family would not have known she was
dead.

12. If the perp's "intention" was sexual - why then leave a "ransom" note?
These are two different animals. Apples and oranges. Pedophiles are
driven to commit their crimes for sex.
Kidnappers are driven to commit their crimes for money.
Experts have emphasised this time and again.

13. The parent's kept their distance from the police from early on when most
parents of murdered children HOUND the police relentlessly. No matter
what they "claim" as far as cooperation goes - they did NOT cooperate.
They only gave perfunctory cooperation giving the required hair samples
etc. As far as interviews and questioning go - they hid behind a wall of
lawyers and it took FOUR MONTHS before they finally agreed to sit down
and talk to the police.

14. The Ramsey's claimed that their son Burke was "asleep" all morning during
all the chaos of discovering JonBenet missing. Yet, after enhancing the
911 call from that morning, Burke's voice is heard in the background
asking his father questions and his father is heard sternly speaking to him.
Why LIE about something so seemingly inoccuous if they are innocent?
Why did they feel a need to protect Burke's movements? Their answer
seemed to be to make him "unavailable" at every turn. During the night
he was "sleeping." That morning he was "sleeping." That morning and
the rest of that day he was shuttled out and away from the police's
presence - even though they should have been terrified for his safety
with that "foreign faction" of threatening kidnappers out there watching
their every move!

15. They sued for slander several times on behalf of Burke and Patsy - but
NEVER on behalf of John. Why?

16. Confirmed by John Ramsey himself - there was a chair propped up against
the OUTSIDE of the door (in the hallway) that led into the infamous
room in the basement with the "broken window" that idiots like Lou Smit
like to imply or suggest was the exit route the intruder took after the
murder. Just HOW in the world did he accomplish the feat of propping a
chair against the outside of the door - and then manage to get through
the door into the room to exit out the window? It makes no sense.


It makes no sense to consider that some intruder, on the LEAST likely night of the year - Christmas (when family members' whereabouts are the MOST likely of any night of the year to be known!) just HAPPENED to "know" that the Ramsey family would go out for a few hours on Christmas so that he could slip into their house and - (Kidnap? or was it Molest?). And would just happen to know that they'd be returning.
It makes no sense with what was found at that crime scene - to consider that an intruder did it. If he came to kidnap, he brought no ransom note, did not kidnap the child and never called for money.
If he came to molest - he should not have left a ransom note saying he'd kidnapped her and give me money. His "obsession" (as with ALL predatory pedophiles) is on the CHILD and the sexual perversions on his mind.
They grab the child and RUN!!!!!

The truth of the matter is that unless there is alot - or a substantial piece of forensic evidence that the public is not aware of - then NO INTRUDER committed this crime.
It makes no sense and does NOT fit the facts of what the crime scene told us.

John Mark Karr did NOT kill JonBenet Ramsey. :banghead:

But can't a list be generated that supports the intruder theory as well?IMO, just depends on what one's bias is.

JBean said:

But can't a list be generated that supports the intruder theory as well?IMO, just depends on what one's bias is.

Click to expand...

Remember - ALL crime scenes contain artifacts that might "seem" to be part of the case but have nothing to do with it at all.
It is the totality of the case, all the facts and circumstances that one must look at.

Bottom Line: Parents claim child was kidnapped, produce a note that claims this, child is never kidnapped, no ransom ever sought, child is found hidden and dead in her own home.
Note is a fake, note has characteristics of mother, mother was one of 3 people on the face of the earth that WAS in the house at the scene of the crime that night, her fibers are on places on the victim that should never be there if she was not involved. There is not the forensic evidence that you should see from a foreign intruder if they had been the perp. There just isn't.

So - go ahead. List these facts that point to an intruder.

K777angel said:

Remember - ALL crime scenes contain artifacts that might "seem" to be part of the case but have nothing to do with it at all.
It is the totality of the case, all the facts and circumstances that one must look at.

Bottom Line: Parents claim child was kidnapped, produce a note that claims this, child is never kidnapped, no ransom ever sought, child is found hidden and dead in her own home.
Note is a fake, note has characteristics of mother, mother was one of 3 people on the face of the earth that WAS in the house at the scene of the crime that night, her fibers are on places on the victim that should never be there if she was not involved. There is not the forensic evidence that you should see from a foreign intruder if they had been the perp. There just isn't.

So - go ahead. List these facts that point to an intruder.

Click to expand...

What I am saying is that a lot of respected , professional individuals,as well as,posters here believe in the intruder theory. This is the ongoing argument. So this thread represents the argument and one who follows the intruder theory can list an equally as compelling list.

Angel, I've made all of those points many times.

"So this thread represents the argument and one who follows the intruder theory can list an equally as compelling list."

It's a free country.

"It is the totality of the case, all the facts and circumstances that one must look at."

Agreed.

SuperDave said:

Angel, I've made all of those points many times.

"So this thread represents the argument and one who follows the intruder theory can list an equally as compelling list."

It's a free country.

"It is the totality of the case, all the facts and circumstances that one must look at."

Agreed.

Click to expand...

Hi SDave..That is my point thank you.

You're welcome.

SuperDave said:

You're welcome.

Click to expand...

Agree or disagree,I appreciate your posts, they seem to be very well researched and you are far more knowledgeable than I.

It's nice to be appreciated.

JBean said:

What I am saying is that a lot of respected , professional individuals,as well as,posters here believe in the intruder theory. This is the ongoing argument. So this thread represents the argument and one who follows the intruder theory can list an equally as compelling list.

Click to expand...

I'm waiting for this "equally compelling list" of facts that point to an intruder.

K777angel said:

I'm waiting for this "equally compelling list" of facts that point to an intruder.

Click to expand...

Well, maybe someone will post it.Don't know.

Have you noticed that on Fox news and maybe elsewhere they're giving out his flight arrival time and flight number, location. Do they always do that? I thought it was usually just, oh..he's being returned Sunday night.

Are some shady folks hoping a whackjob will pull an JRuby/Oswald on him?

Great list of the facts K777, it might be most helpful to ones that have not spent years looking at this case.

I will respond in red.

QUOTE K777angel
The big question here is not whether or not JMK killed JonBenet - but whether ANY "intruder" could have killed her.
With the facts as we know them in this case - how do they measure up against the current frenzy that seems to "assume" that indeed an intruder could have killed JonBenet.

I think it is important to take a step back here, clear our heads and take an elementary look at the BASIC facts of the case. And with those basic facts, ask ourselves if they could in any way allow for JMK as the perp.

FACTS:

1. Early in the morning the day after Christmas, a family calls the police and
claims that their 6 yr old child is missing and a kidnap "ransom" note was
found on their stairs.

2. When police arrive a few minutes later, the mother greets him at the door
fully dressed - in the same clothing she wore the night before.
This means very little to me. I think it is completely plausible that she wore a special christmas outfit for only a few hourse the previous evening, then donned the same outfit for the morning. I have done the same think - reworn the same outfit, to be worn to see different people, as long as it was clean, of course....

3. The "note" warned the family NOT to call the police or anyone or the child
will die. The family calls not only the police (understandable) - but scores
of friends to come over. i can accept calling the police. The scores of friends? makes no sense to me.

4. The note stated that the family is being monitored and watched carefully
and yet the family had no worries about allowing their 10 yr old son to
leave the home out of their sight and protection "out there" - to go to a
friends house with NO police protection. i would have demanded protection for my child, for sure.

5. The child was never kidnapped. The child's dead body was found in the
home "hidden" in the basement.

6. The child was lain on a blanket and wrapped up in a blanket. The child's
favorite nightgown was found lying near her too.

7. There was no sign of forced entry in the home.

8. There was virtually NO forensic or physical evidence at the crime scene
other than that of her family members - save for a miniscule speck of
DNA that was so small that, as Dr. Henry Lee pointed out this week - they
could not ever get a full profile from it.
With as much time as the perp spent in that home from writing the note
to doing all that was done to JonBenet in that basement and/or elsewhere
there should be a PLETHORA of foreign forensic evidence. There is not. This does not make sense to me either. No physical evidence of an intruder. I dont consider the miniscule speck of DNA to be conclusive evidence of an intruder.

9. The mother's sweater fibers from the sweater she was wearing that night
were discovered "entwined" in the knots in the string tied around her
daughter's neck and also on the tape on her mouth. if this is true, it does not make sense to me that her sweater fiber are in the knot, not unless there is also a sea of other fibers present under the knot also - Burke's clothes, John's clothes, etc.

10. The linguistics in the note point to Patsy the mother and language she
was known to use. "Gentelman" "And hence" "Attache" Not to mention
the style (overdone, many exclamation points) and the handwriting itself.
She cannot be excluded as the author. The note was written with the
left hand and attempted to be disguised. it would be nice to have this revisited by a fresh and impartial linguistics expert.

11. The Note was written IN THE HOUSE with paper and pens FROM the
house. The pens were even put back into the cup.
If the "intention" of the perp was to kidnap for ransom - why didn't he
come equipped with the note? Good question.
If the "intention" of the perp was to kidnap for ransom - why didn't he
grab the child and leave? Good question.
If the "intention" of the perp was to extort money from the family - why
didn't he work toward that goal? Why didn't he grab the child and leave
even if she was already dead? The family would not have known she was
dead. Good question.

12. If the perp's "intention" was sexual - why then leave a "ransom" note?
These are two different animals. Apples and oranges. Pedophiles are
driven to commit their crimes for sex.
Kidnappers are driven to commit their crimes for money. Makes sense to me!
Experts have emphasised this time and again.

13. The parent's kept their distance from the police from early on when most
parents of murdered children HOUND the police relentlessly. No matter
what they "claim" as far as cooperation goes - they did NOT cooperate.
They only gave perfunctory cooperation giving the required hair samples
etc. As far as interviews and questioning go - they hid behind a wall of
lawyers and it took FOUR MONTHS before they finally agreed to sit down
and talk to the police. I agree, this made the R's look very suspicious, and if they were innocent of any involvement, wasted valuable police investigation energy and time, imo.

14. The Ramsey's claimed that their son Burke was "asleep" all morning during
all the chaos of discovering JonBenet missing. Yet, after enhancing the
911 call from that morning, Burke's voice is heard in the background
asking his father questions and his father is heard sternly speaking to him.
This so-called fact has been disputed, and imo, cannot be relied on.
Why LIE about something so seemingly inoccuous if they are innocent?
Why did they feel a need to protect Burke's movements? Their answer
seemed to be to make him "unavailable" at every turn. I can understand prents shielding their surviving child from the horror of the investigation.During the night
he was "sleeping." That morning he was "sleeping." This doesn't seem like an outrageous claim - they arrived home late, they rose early. Any other kid his age would be asleep, why not Burke?That morning and
the rest of that day he was shuttled out and away from the police's
presence - even though they should have been terrified for his safety
with that "foreign faction" of threatening kidnappers out there watching
their every move!

15. They sued for slander several times on behalf of Burke and Patsy - but
NEVER on behalf of John. Why?

16. Confirmed by John Ramsey himself - there was a chair propped up against
the OUTSIDE of the door (in the hallway) that led into the infamous
room in the basement with the "broken window" that idiots like Lou Smit
like to imply or suggest was the exit route the intruder took after the
murder. Just HOW in the world did he accomplish the feat of propping a
chair against the outside of the door - and then manage to get through
the door into the room to exit out the window? It makes no sense. I think Lou Smit was too biased in favor of the Rs, did not have the objectivity to say "Yup. I can't explain that".


It makes no sense to consider that some intruder, on the LEAST likely night of the year - Christmas BANG ON, GREAT POINT! Least likely night of the year for SURE! (when family members' whereabouts are the MOST likely of any night of the year to be known!) just HAPPENED to "know" that the Ramsey family would go out for a few hours on Christmas so that he could slip into their house and - (Kidnap? or was it Molest?). And would just happen to know that they'd be returning. will be interesting to see if there is any way Karr can be placed in Boulder, given that any wife would remember her husband being MIA on christmas night, and so far, the ex thinks he was with her.
It makes no sense with what was found at that crime scene - to consider that an intruder did it. If he came to kidnap, he brought no ransom note, did not kidnap the child and never called for money. ITA
If he came to molest - he should not have left a ransom note saying he'd kidnapped her and give me money. His "obsession" (as with ALL predatory pedophiles) is on the CHILD and the sexual perversions on his mind.
They grab the child and RUN!!!!! ITA

The truth of the matter is that unless there is alot - or a substantial piece of forensic evidence that the public is not aware of - then NO INTRUDER committed this crime.
It makes no sense and does NOT fit the facts of what the crime scene told us.

John Mark Karr did NOT kill JonBenet Ramsey. :banghead:

From what I have learned so far, I have to agree, JMK did not do this crime. LE is no further ahead than it was a week ago....imo

Great post, K777angel...

In a ruling March 31, 2003, by U.S. District Judge Julie Carnes on a libel case brought against the Ramseys stemming from their book, Carnes found evidence that an intruder killed JonBenet more persuasive than evidence that her mother might have done so.

A few days later, District Attorney Lacy endorsed Judge Carnes decision with a statement of her own.

Not only is the intruder possible, it is the theory being pursued by Colorado law enforcement.

Not only is the intruder possible, it is the theory being pursued by Colorado law enforcement.

That sure is a fact now, lets see were that leads.

jc9876 said:

Have you noticed that on Fox news and maybe elsewhere they're giving out his flight arrival time and flight number, location. Do they always do that? I thought it was usually just, oh..he's being returned Sunday night.

Are some shady folks hoping a whackjob will pull an JRuby/Oswald on him?

Click to expand...

Your kidding. That is ridiculous. That should have been kept confidential, but then maybe it couldn't have been.

Yes, Ruby/Oswald. I thought that before I read your second sentence.

Read somewhere (news.yahoo.com) that John Ramsey is so mad that he might leave the U.S. per L. Wood. Apparently mad at the press. Shouldn't he be mad at all the wrong information feed to the press. Not trying to defend them, but they're not making it up.

From http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_4923124,00.html :

The case for an intruder

Smit has long argued that an intruder killed JonBenet Ramsey. These are the clues he has cited:

• Outdoor footprints: Early in the case, law enforcement leaks said no footprints were seen in snow around the Ramsey house, which seemed to discount the possibility of an intruder. However, Smit examined police photographs taken before 9 a.m., the morning after JonBenet's death that showed much of the perimeter of the house, including walkways, was clear of snow.

• Basement window: Police photographs show an open basement window. The window, hidden from view, would have been a likely point of entry for an intruder. A grate over the window well appeared to have been moved, leaving green foliage caught under its edge. Leaves and debris from the window well were found on the basement floor directly below the open window. There appeared to be less debris next to the central window, which was open, than elsewhere in the window well. Finally, areas of the window appeared to have been wiped clean as if disturbed by someone; a piece of broken glass looked like it had been dislodged; and there was a scuff mark, perhaps from a shoe, below the window.

• Debris in the wine cellar: Pieces of debris from the window well were found in the basement wine cellar, where JonBenet's body was found. They included foam peanut packing material, an autumn leaf and a footprint.

• DNA evidence: Foreign DNA - but not Ramsey family DNA - was found on JonBenet's body, both under her fingernails and in her underwear.

• The suitcase: A hard-sided suitcase was discovered below the open window. The killer, figuring it was safe to go out the way he came in, may have used it to boost himself up. John Ramsey said the suitcase was not in that area of the basement before, suggesting that someone moved it there. In addition, if the suitcase had been under the window for a long time, dust and debris would have collected on it. But little was there.

• Hair and fibers: Many significant hairs and fibers associated with the crime don't belong to John or Patsy. A hair, possibly a pubic hair, from a Caucasian male was found on the blanket covering JonBenet. The hair doesn't match John Ramsey. Light brown, cotton fibers were found on wood shards of the broken paintbrush, the duct tape, the nylon cord and on JonBenet's body.

• The stun gun: Marks on JonBenet's back and face matched those caused by a stun gun. The marks were not on her face the previous evening, according to photos of her opening Christmas presents. Her parents didn't own a stun gun.

• Unidentified footprints: There were unidentified footprints in the mold on the wine cellar floor. Experiments conducted by Smit suggest the fast-growing mold would diffuse footprints quickly, so he believes these were fresh prints. One print appears to be a tread from a shoe but didn't match shoes owned by John and Patsy Ramsey and didn't match any shoes found in the house. Another print belonged to a Hi-Tec boot, which also does not match any shoes owned by the family.

• Ransom note: The letter made frequent allusions to death and violence. It threatened "immediate execution" of JonBenet. There were four consecutive threats ending with "she dies." There's a reference to calling between 8 and 10 "tomorrow morning." To Smit, this suggested the letter was written before midnight, before JonBenet's killing.

• The killer took something away: Because none of the cord or tape was found in the home, and no stun gun was ever recovered, Smit thinks the killer must have taken any unused cord and tape, plus the stun gun, with him when he left.

• Outdoor footprints: Early in the case, law enforcement leaks said no footprints were seen in snow around the Ramsey house, which seemed to discount the possibility of an intruder. However, Smit examined police photographs taken before 9 a.m., the morning after JonBenet's death that showed much of the perimeter of the house, including walkways, was clear of snow.

John Fernie arrived at the house at 8.00 and states that he left footprints in the snow on the grass and noone asked him about those later. Wonder if those had already melted away at 9.00? Otherwise Lou would sure have examined them. The first police to arrive were there 6.05 and then there should have been much more snow, and they saw no prints.

k777angel and sandra--great posts--you have summarized the case very well,with good arguments and succinct points