The Perfect Intruder?

New Posts

S

SleuthingSleuth

New Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2006
Messages
251
Reaction score
2
In examining the idea of the IDI theory, and in light of the recent debacle in Boulder, I feel one is forced to assume if it was an "unknown intruder" who did it...they were absolutely perfect.

It would appear to be clear the DNA in the panties does seem like a red herring, and most likely has no connection to the killer. If the DNA under the nails ever had a use...it appears to be useless now.
So, this intruder left no DNA, left no prints, and it would also seem left no fibers on Jonbenet's body or the clothes on her.
He doesn't appear to have left any footprints either, it would seem.

It also would appear likely this intruder brought no items or tools of his own...it would seem only items in the house were used by him. This is an assumption, to note...but it feels like a likely one.

As for how he got into the house...I have to come to feel no one came in through the basement window nor did anyone escape through it.
I found this link very helpful:
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=4764

I do not believe he could have entered through the butler's door either...as I believe when the police first came an officer tried all of the doors outside of the house and found them locked...therefore, the butler's door was most likely left ajar on the 26th.
Which means of course...either this intruder walked through walls, or was let into and out of the house. Or...had his own key.

This intruder would certainly be perfect...and such an intruder plainly will never be caught unless he comes forward, confesses, and presents evidence of his own to prove he truly was the perp. Unless he himself presents evidence...there would be no evidence to use against him.

The snafu in this perfect intruder is that such a perp would not leave his handwriting behind at the crime scene, considering no other trace of himself was left. It doesn't fit.

The idea of this intruder stretches the imagination...and this is without taking into account the other details of the case.
While it is possible of course there was such an intruder who was perfect in his ways, I would not know how he got into the house...or why he left his handwriting behind, much less make sense out of the other details of the case.

On a side note...I seem to remember there being a story that happened in 1997 in Boulder where someone got into a home and sexually assaulted a little girl in her bedroom, and was never caught.
I remember Lin Wood mentioning it a few days ago on TV, and I have heard of it before...but I can't find info about it now.
Does anyone know what case that was?
 
> On a side note...I seem to remember there being a story that happened in 1997 in Boulder where someone got into a home and sexually assaulted a little girl in her bedroom, and was never caught.
I remember Lin Wood mentioning it a few days ago on TV, and I have heard of it before...but I can't find info about it now.
Does anyone know what case that was?

Are you saying the idea of an intruder only "stretches the imagination" if the victim is killed?
 
I seem to remember there being a story that happened in 1997 in Boulder where someone got into a home and sexually assaulted a little girl in her bedroom, and was never caught.
I remember Lin Wood mentioning it a few days ago on TV, and I have heard of it before...but I can't find info about it now.
Does anyone know what case that was?
Click to expand...
It was a girl who had taken dance at the same place JonBenet practiced her pageant routines. The father was away on business and the mother and daughter went to the movies. When they returned home the man sexually assaulted the daughter in her bedroom. Lin Wood ties that case in to JonBenet because it points the finger away from the Ramseys.

Not that I believe the Ramsey's did it necessarily. I just think it's smart of Wood to keep bringing up that case as a way to say there's a molester/killer still on the loose. I believe that man was caught, but someone else here probably knows for sure and will hopefully provide links.

My own fascination with this case is that it's the perfect murder. No clear evidence points either way, you have a rich man who can buy protection, stupid, incompetent detectives and police officers, and weird evidence such as the ransom note.
 
guppy said:
> On a side note...I seem to remember there being a story that happened in 1997 in Boulder where someone got into a home and sexually assaulted a little girl in her bedroom, and was never caught.
I remember Lin Wood mentioning it a few days ago on TV, and I have heard of it before...but I can't find info about it now.
Does anyone know what case that was?

Are you saying the idea of an intruder only "stretches the imagination" if the victim is killed?
Click to expand...
What I'm saying is that the intruder, if there was one, in the Jonbenet case would have to be perfect.
He left no trace of himself...and it's a mystery how he even got into the house. On top of it the crime was not a smash and grab assault, or kidnapping.

In comparison to the case I asked for info about...I don't know anything about it.
However, from the sound of it it appeared to be a break in, assault, get away bit.
 
LoneDuck said:
It was a girl who had taken dance at the same place JonBenet practiced her pageant routines. The father was away on business and the mother and daughter went to the movies. When they returned home the man sexually assaulted the daughter in her bedroom. Lin Wood ties that case in to JonBenet because it points the finger away from the Ramseys.

Not that I believe the Ramsey's did it necessarily. I just think it's smart of Wood to keep bringing up that case as a way to say there's a molester/killer still on the loose. I believe that man was caught, but someone else here probably knows for sure and will hopefully provide links.

My own fascination with this case is that it's the perfect murder. No clear evidence points either way, you have a rich man who can buy protection, stupid, incompetent detectives and police officers, and weird evidence such as the ransom note.
Click to expand...
Hmm...ahh yes, I remember those parts of the case. I haven't been able to find articles or similar info about it though...as I am curious about its details compared to the JonBenet case...if it was another perfect sort of crime...or not so.

Will have to wait for others with more info.
 
SleuthingSleuth said:
In examining the idea of the IDI theory, and in light of the recent debacle in Boulder, I feel one is forced to assume if it was an "unknown intruder" who did it...they were absolutely perfect.

It would appear to be clear the DNA in the panties does seem like a red herring, and most likely has no connection to the killer. If the DNA under the nails ever had a use...it appears to be useless now.
So, this intruder left no DNA, left no prints, and it would also seem left no fibers on Jonbenet's body or the clothes on her.
He doesn't appear to have left any footprints either, it would seem.

It also would appear likely this intruder brought no items or tools of his own...it would seem only items in the house were used by him. This is an assumption, to note...but it feels like a likely one.

As for how he got into the house...I have to come to feel no one came in through the basement window nor did anyone escape through it.
I found this link very helpful:
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=4764

I do not believe he could have entered through the butler's door either...as I believe when the police first came an officer tried all of the doors outside of the house and found them locked...therefore, the butler's door was most likely left ajar on the 26th.
Which means of course...either this intruder walked through walls, or was let into and out of the house. Or...had his own key.

This intruder would certainly be perfect...and such an intruder plainly will never be caught unless he comes forward, confesses, and presents evidence of his own to prove he truly was the perp. Unless he himself presents evidence...there would be no evidence to use against him.

The snafu in this perfect intruder is that such a perp would not leave his handwriting behind at the crime scene, considering no other trace of himself was left. It doesn't fit.

The idea of this intruder stretches the imagination...and this is without taking into account the other details of the case.
While it is possible of course there was such an intruder who was perfect in his ways, I would not know how he got into the house...or why he left his handwriting behind, much less make sense out of the other details of the case.

On a side note...I seem to remember there being a story that happened in 1997 in Boulder where someone got into a home and sexually assaulted a little girl in her bedroom, and was never caught.
I remember Lin Wood mentioning it a few days ago on TV, and I have heard of it before...but I can't find info about it now.
Does anyone know what case that was?
Click to expand...
Karr talks at length about children being drawn to him. He mentions one child of 7 he had assaulted who did not turn him in when the police interviewed her.

Karr also details in the 420 pages of emails how he got in, what he did and how JBR died. He mentions bringing his own flashlight, which was the only light he used and which was the murder weapon. He had black tape wrapped around it and used one piece of it to put on her mouth after she was dead. He later smashed the flashlight in his grief over killing her. He claims the pen he wrote the note with was his. He claims he took his shoes off almost the whole time he was in the house so as not to leave footprints. He also brought some rope or cord and other accessories which he used for the attack, and took them with him when he left, as well as part of the paintbrush, some hair which he cut off with a knife he brought (he calls it a stiletto), and the panties he took off her. He put them in an ornate box which he buried somewhere.

Insane tale of a madman, taken from press accounts, or his own memories? I can't even tell. But if you read all the emails, he is a very troubled man who wanted to confess to someone; had been burned when the last person he trusted (Wendy Hutchens) was a police informant; had to flee his country and had been living overseas when he was put in touch with Michael Tracey, whom he somehow felt or hoped he could trust. Over and over he mentions how hard it is not to be able to talk about it. He wanted to talk to John and Patsy Ramsey and apologize and explain...and Michael pretended he was passing on his notes to them. This is a desperate man. It's very hard to imagine that the entire thing was a joke, a prank, or made up in his mind. After all, some people did hire him to teach children. He was not a drooling, raving lunatic. He appeared to be a personable, intelligent man, but underneath he was a cold, calculating pedophile. Killer or not? The dna says no, but what about the handwriting? What about his detailed confession? I don't think it should ALL be discarded like garbage.

In the emails he talks at length about how and why and where he wrote the ransom note. It was always meant to be a red herring and give him time to escape with the child. He didn't at first intend to kill her. Anyway...read the documents...and see if any of it seems believable to you.
 
aspidistra said:
Karr talks at length about children being drawn to him. He mentions one child of 7 he had assaulted who did not turn him in when the police interviewed her.

Karr also details in the 420 pages of emails how he got in, what he did and how JBR died. He mentions bringing his own flashlight, which was the only light he used and which was the murder weapon. He had black tape wrapped around it and used one piece of it to put on her mouth after she was dead. He later smashed the flashlight in his grief over killing her. He claims the pen he wrote the note with was his. He claims he took his shoes off almost the whole time he was in the house so as not to leave footprints. He also brought some rope or cord and other accessories which he used for the attack, and took them with him when he left, as well as part of the paintbrush, some hair which he cut off with a knife he brought (he calls it a stiletto), and the panties he took off her. He put them in an ornate box which he buried somewhere.

Insane tale of a madman, taken from press accounts, or his own memories? I can't even tell. But if you read all the emails, he is a very troubled man who wanted to confess to someone; had been burned when the last person he trusted (Wendy Hutchens) was a police informant; had to flee his country and had been living overseas when he was put in touch with Michael Tracey, whom he somehow felt or hoped he could trust. Over and over he mentions how hard it is not to be able to talk about it. He wanted to talk to John and Patsy Ramsey and apologize and explain...and Michael pretended he was passing on his notes to them. This is a desperate man. It's very hard to imagine that the entire thing was a joke, a prank, or made up in his mind. After all, some people did hire him to teach children. He was not a drooling, raving lunatic. He appeared to be a personable, intelligent man, but underneath he was a cold, calculating pedophile. Killer or not? The dna says no, but what about the handwriting? What about his detailed confession? I don't think it should ALL be discarded like garbage.

In the emails he talks at length about how and why and where he wrote the ransom note. It was always meant to be a red herring and give him time to escape with the child. He didn't at first intend to kill her. Anyway...read the documents...and see if any of it seems believable to you.
Click to expand...
I did read it all, and it's not believeable at all to me, it is the ravings of a madman looking for attention now. He makes up answers to fit the theories as Tracey poses him questions, like why the blanket? and his answers are not credible. For example I ask you- if you were the perp and not a Ramsey, would you be stupid enough to write the Ransom note in their bedroom as he claims???
He wants so badly to be known as JB's lover and/or identify with a women (possibly Patsy- whom he calls Patricia) that he learns to copy her handwriting. He hadn't even seen the movies Speed and Ransom- from which phrases in the note were lifted from- he said those movies weren't his style- that was him telling the truth!
So what if he was charming enough to manage to get hired?
 
LinasK said:
I did read it all, and it's not believeable at all to me, it is the ravings of a madman looking for attention now. He makes up answers to fit the theories as Tracey poses him questions, like why the blanket? and his answers are not credible. For example I ask you- if you were the perp and not a Ramsey, would you be stupid enough to write the Ransom note in their bedroom as he claims???
He wants so badly to be known as JB's lover and/or identify with a women (possibly Patsy- whom he calls Patricia) that he learns to copy her handwriting. He hadn't even seen the movies Speed and Ransom- from which phrases in the note were lifted from- he said those movies weren't his style- that was him telling the truth!
So what if he was charming enough to manage to get hired?
Click to expand...

What?! He didn't see Speed and Ransom cause they aren't his style? Those movies were AWESOME! What is wrong with this guy? Some kinda freak if you ask me. ;)
 
So, JMK brought his own flashlight then smashed it later. Yet they found a flashlight in the R's home, so that one must have belonged to the Rs. For some reason the R's take care to wear gloves when putting batteries in the flashlight, and the wipe the prints off the flashlight everytime they handle it.

I'm not buying it.
 
>>>So, JMK brought his own flashlight then smashed it later. Yet they found a flashlight in the R's home, so that one must have belonged to the Rs. For some reason the R's take care to wear gloves when putting batteries in the flashlight, and the wipe the prints off the flashlight everytime they handle it.

I'm not buying it.<<<<


Exactly. And no stockinged-footed prints nor bare-footed prints were found so he must have just floated about the house like a ghost or avoided using the floor to walk on like Spiderman.

This is so ridiculous. The DA had NOTHING on this guy. They can't place him in CO, his handwriting isn't a match, there's no fingerprints, DNA, fibers... there's NOTHING.
 
yes,all the doors and windows were secure---so we are dealing with a ghost intruder--let's call him Casper--it appears Casper can not only traverse thru walls,he also has the ability to write a 3 page ransom note... but must practice writing it first--but that's ok,he has plenty of time--after all,nobody can see a ghost,so why rush it--but alas it didn't work--The Ghostbusters were called and they caught him outside---Bill murray then interrogated Casper,and Casper denied everthing,said it was his evil ghost twin....the Wraith
 
Peter Hamilton said:
yes,all the doors and windows were secure---so we are dealing with a ghost intruder--let's call him Casper--it appears Casper can not only traverse thru walls,he also has the ability to write a 3 page ransom note... but must practice writing it first--but that's ok,he has plenty of time--after all,nobody can see a ghost,so why rush it--but alas it didn't work--The Ghostbusters were called and they caught him outside---Bill murray then interrogated Casper,and Casper denied everthing,said it was his evil ghost twin....the Wraith
Click to expand...

Hey! Let's not bash Casper, please. He is a friendly ghost and there is no way he is involved in this. I'm sure there are more suspicous ghosts you can try to pin this on. :snooty:
 
What puzzles me is why would someone intent on either kidnapping or rape do anything IN the home no matter how secluded a spot? Doesn't make any sense. Certainly it's possible "he/she/they" dropped her causing the skull fracture and at that point whatever was originally planned was no longer possible, but it just seems that an intruder who could be so careful to not leave evidence would also be smart enough to get in, grab her and get as far away as possible with her. I mean had it been me, even if a fall or whatever had rendered her near dead, I'd either get the heck out immediately without all the staging etc or still take the body with me and dump it someplace.

I have no hard conviction on who did it - I do think you can argue a good case for the Ramsey's guilt but I'm not "convinced" they did it. It just doesn't make much sense. Why would an intruder feel compelled to spend that much time in their home? Hanging around the house doesn't imply to me a crafty criminal - I'd expect sloppiness and evidence by the tons.
 
"Lin Wood ties that case in to JonBenet because it points the finger away from the Ramseys."

My point exactly.

malapoo, if you examine cases where a kidnapper has done this, you'll find that they ALWAYS take the victim with them to a place the killer feels safe.
 
Malapoo said:
What puzzles me is why would someone intent on either kidnapping or rape do anything IN the home no matter how secluded a spot? Doesn't make any sense. Certainly it's possible "he/she/they" dropped her causing the skull fracture and at that point whatever was originally planned was no longer possible, but it just seems that an intruder who could be so careful to not leave evidence would also be smart enough to get in, grab her and get as far away as possible with her. I mean had it been me, even if a fall or whatever had rendered her near dead, I'd either get the heck out immediately without all the staging etc or still take the body with me and dump it someplace.

I have no hard conviction on who did it - I do think you can argue a good case for the Ramsey's guilt but I'm not "convinced" they did it. It just doesn't make much sense. Why would an intruder feel compelled to spend that much time in their home? Hanging around the house doesn't imply to me a crafty criminal - I'd expect sloppiness and evidence by the tons.
Click to expand...
Malapoo, your post just exemplifies why this was an INSIDE JOB. No intruder, whether in their right mind of not (in my book) would ever risk breaking in and sticking around a home like that while never knowing when or if someone might walk in on him at any moment. It is just plain rediculous to think ANY INTRUDER did this crime.

SOMETHING REALLY BAD happened in that home that night. We'll probably never know what it was, but the Rams are solely responsible for the death of their daughter (sister) and the coverup. Any other answer is simply rediculous and will never wash. Just investigating this case all over again by plugging in an intruder (who was more than willing to give all sorts of explanations to help show how an intruder could do it) shows ain't no way someone outside this immediate family found his way into that home, killed JB, cleaned up (pristinely), wrote that rediculous note (Patsy wrote it!), and got away WITHOUT TAKING THE CHILD WITH HIM!

I'm hoping the best thing to come out of all this is the intruder theory will be relegated to the backseat where it belongs and the true investigation of the Rams and their involvement begins anew and with fresh eyes!

gaia:cool:
 
SleuthingSleuth said:
In examining the idea of the IDI theory, and in light of the recent debacle in Boulder, I feel one is forced to assume if it was an "unknown intruder" who did it...they were absolutely perfect.

It would appear to be clear the DNA in the panties does seem like a red herring, and most likely has no connection to the killer. If the DNA under the nails ever had a use...it appears to be useless now.
So, this intruder left no DNA, left no prints, and it would also seem left no fibers on Jonbenet's body or the clothes on her.
He doesn't appear to have left any footprints either, it would seem.

It also would appear likely this intruder brought no items or tools of his own...it would seem only items in the house were used by him. This is an assumption, to note...but it feels like a likely one.

As for how he got into the house...I have to come to feel no one came in through the basement window nor did anyone escape through it.
I found this link very helpful:
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=4764

I do not believe he could have entered through the butler's door either...as I believe when the police first came an officer tried all of the doors outside of the house and found them locked...therefore, the butler's door was most likely left ajar on the 26th.
Which means of course...either this intruder walked through walls, or was let into and out of the house. Or...had his own key.

This intruder would certainly be perfect...and such an intruder plainly will never be caught unless he comes forward, confesses, and presents evidence of his own to prove he truly was the perp. Unless he himself presents evidence...there would be no evidence to use against him.

The snafu in this perfect intruder is that such a perp would not leave his handwriting behind at the crime scene, considering no other trace of himself was left. It doesn't fit.

The idea of this intruder stretches the imagination...and this is without taking into account the other details of the case.
While it is possible of course there was such an intruder who was perfect in his ways, I would not know how he got into the house...or why he left his handwriting behind, much less make sense out of the other details of the case.

On a side note...I seem to remember there being a story that happened in 1997 in Boulder where someone got into a home and sexually assaulted a little girl in her bedroom, and was never caught.
I remember Lin Wood mentioning it a few days ago on TV, and I have heard of it before...but I can't find info about it now.
Does anyone know what case that was?
Click to expand...

my bold, RDI mythology and lore

vs. IDI factology:

The myth stated as fact that this intruder left no DNA. In fact, the evidence suggests otherwise.

The myth of it being likely the intruder brought no tools. Evidently, the R's don't own the cord, tape, or blunt instrument.

The myth of no evidence against him. This intruder could potentially be matched to everything simultaneously: his DNA traces, handwriting, linguistics, stylistics, juvenile political ideology, violent personality, and his glaring personal problem (child as sex object).

The fact that JR, PR, friends, family, hired help, coworkers, neighbors, or CODIS sex offenders could not be conclusively matched to anything despite the concerted BPD efforts to do so.
 
Holdontoyourhat said:
my bold, RDI mythology and lore

vs. IDI factology:

The myth stated as fact that this intruder left no DNA. In fact, the evidence suggests otherwise.

HOTYH, The touch DNA only shows that someone else had touched her clothing. It does not say when it was put there, why it was put there or that it was put there by the one that killed her.


The myth of it being likely the intruder brought no tools. Evidently, the R's don't own the cord, tape, or blunt instrument.

Really, the R's only owned sharp edged objects? The baseball bats those weren't their's? Or the flashlight, oh, wait, that wasn't anybodies. Next, it seems, I don't know strange to me, that an intruder could bring in and leave with rope, tape, and blunt object, yet its too far fetched to thinnk the R's could have done the same thing. I mean they lived there, they brought things in and out, just not those things. How do you know for sure they didn't bring those things in at some point? How do you know, those things didn't leave with them that day or with anyone else allowed to come and go e.g BR, PP, or any one of the numerous people that had been at that scene from the 26 to the 28th?

The myth of no evidence against him. This intruder could potentially be matched to everything simultaneously: his DNA traces, handwriting, linguistics, stylistics, juvenile political ideology, violent personality, and his glaring personal problem (child as sex object).

The same could be said for the R's. Any of one those things, can fit any one of the R's or all of them. I am asked all the time did you know them personally? I'm asking the same of you, did you know them well enough, to say they are none of these things or not responsible for any of them?

The fact that JR, PR, friends, family, hired help, coworkers, neighbors, or CODIS sex offenders could not be conclusively matched to anything despite the concerted BPD efforts to do so.
Click to expand...

It hasn't worked real well on finding that intruder either. Which when you think about it... It only reaffirms RDI, after 15 years no repeat offense, no DNA match in any other crime. Yep, looks more and more like someone that is not a career offender, and most likely a family member involved in a horrible tragedy. One in which, they never repeated.

You say tomato I say tomatoe... So now what?
 
Usual rubbish posted by IDI promoters.

There is no IDI theory to tell you why the intruder faked a crime-scene in the wine-cellar.

There is no IDI theory to tell you why the intruder removed JonBenet's size-6 underwear and replaced it with size-12 underwear.

There is no IDI theory to tell you why the intruder did not asphyxiate JonBenet with the ligature. Since JonBenet's hyoid bone was intact and her hair was entwined into the ligature, preventing it acting as a ligature.

There is no IDI theory to tell you why the intruder brought JonBenet's barbie doll and bloodstained barbie nightgown down to the wine-cellar and simply left them there, but left with her size-6 underwear?

There is no IDI theory to tell you why the intruder molested JonBenet then redressed JonBenet to hide this act?

There is no IDI theory to tell you why the intruder did not simply place the flashlight into the same pocket he used to bring the flashlight, instead of wasting time, wiping it clean, inside and out, then leaving it behind, duh!

There is no IDI theory to tell you who was chronically molesting JonBenet?

There is no IDI theory to tell you why the intruder left John's fibers on JonBenet's naked crotch or Patsy's fibers entwined into the ligature.

In fact the only thing the IDI can demonstrate is that there was never any intruder in the Ramsey household, that is simply their defense and their only one!

.
 
Thats what I call a tag team right there...lol..
 
:clap::clap::clap::clap: Thank you UKGuy!

UKGuy said:
Usual rubbish posted by IDI promoters.

There is no IDI theory to tell you why the intruder faked a crime-scene in the wine-cellar.

There is no IDI theory to tell you why the intruder removed JonBenet's size-6 underwear and replaced it with size-12 underwear.

There is no IDI theory to tell you why the intruder did not asphyxiate JonBenet with the ligature. Since JonBenet's hyoid bone was intact and her hair was entwined into the ligature, preventing it acting as a ligature.

There is no IDI theory to tell you why the intruder brought JonBenet's barbie doll and bloodstained barbie nightgown down to the wine-cellar and simply left them there, but left with her size-6 underwear?

There is no IDI theory to tell you why the intruder molested JonBenet then redressed JonBenet to hide this act?

There is no IDI theory to tell you why the intruder did not simply place the flashlight into the same pocket he used to bring the flashlight, instead of wasting time, wiping it clean, inside and out, then leaving it behind, duh!

There is no IDI theory to tell you who was chronically molesting JonBenet?

There is no IDI theory to tell you why the intruder left John's fibers on JonBenet's naked crotch or Patsy's fibers entwined into the ligature.

In fact the only thing the IDI can demonstrate is that there was never any intruder in the Ramsey household, that is simply their defense and their only one!

.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 192 more.
Total: 4,611 (members: 193, guests: 4,418)

Online statistics

Members online
193
Guests online
4,418
Total visitors
4,611
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,472
Messages
17,969,414
Members
228,777
Latest member
Jojo53
Back
Top