For IDI's: What is the Evidence of an Intruder?

New Posts

S

SleuthingSleuth

New Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2006
Messages
251
Reaction score
2
Straight up for the IDI's out there...I am curious to know what is the evidence you see for an intruder having committed the murder in the Ramsey case, and that which exonerates the Ramseys.

I ask this because when I try to look at the case objectively, that is, looking from both RDI and IDI theoretical sides, I come up rather empty when it comes to intruder evidence.

It seems like much that is considered "official intruder evidence", the evidence that was presented at the Ramsey civil trial I believe, doesn't hold up very well at all.
A major Achilles heel is the basement window itself as a POE...I don't believe anyone went in or out of it...the evidence doesn't appear to support it.

It just seems to me when it comes to RDI there's a lot to work with...while with IDI...there isn't.
So...I'd like to hear.
Also, in terms of IDI...what was the crime supposed to be? A botched kidnapping? A planned murder? Something else?
 
Good questions SS, I have no idea what the answers are. Hopefully someone who really believes an intruder did it will present actual evidence instead of speculation to support their position.

There has never been a civil trial. All the lawsuits were settled or dismissed.
 
I've asked this same question before and would love to hear the answer.

The civil trial would the one with the infamous Judge Carnes presiding? The one where she made a decision that the evidence supported an intruder, without seeing some 40,000 pages of police documentation.

The evidence she was shown supporting the intruder theory, things like the palm print, has pretty much been shot down and explained by now.

I'm still wondering where the forensic evidence of anyone other than Ramsey being that house that night is.
 
Well, SS, I'm not an IDI, I'm a FS. (fence sitter) Or maybe a TCMMSCIJCD'er.
(This Case Makes Me So Crazy, I Just Can't Decide 'er)
smile.gif


I have a tendancy to see both sides of this. Kinda like Newton's third law...

But I'll take a shot at your question.

When I start on the IDI thinking, it mainly lies in feelings, not so much in evidence. There is the DNA-X, that's always in the back of my mind.

The fibers that are consistant with the Ramsey's could also be consistant with an intruder. We just don't know as much about the fibers as I'd like.

There was a baseball bat found outside with a fiber consistant with the basement carpeting on it.

Mostly, I can't see these people killing JonBenét. Especially on Christmas night. I do understand what people are saying when they talk about how grateful you are for each day after you've gone through what Patsy went through. That's not evidence, though, is it?

I do believe someone told JonBenét she'd be getting a special visit, and that it was secret. Could that person have done it? I know, that's not evidence either.

I don't think an intruder used the window.
I don't think an intruder used a stun gun.

I do think JonBenét knew him/her/them.

I can't for the life of me figure out how an intruder could take the time necessary and:
1. not get caught
2. not leave more forensic evidence.

See? I stink at being an IDI. I have to end on a doubtful note. But to be fair, if I was trying for RDI, I'd have to end on a doubtful note, too.
 
Not all of it - I've left off, because there's not really any point to discussing this - but it's not so much the evidence of an intruder, because we've seen several other cases where intruders come through the house and leave no evidence of an intruder. So the lack of evidence doesn't mean IDI is not possible. But then, nor does any idea that parents couldn't do something like that - I know they could (just like all the serial killers who seemed like nice, quiet neighbors). The thing is that there is a lack of evidence, to me, for RDI. The DNA doesn't help any, and I find it unlikely (although possible) that the fingernail DNA that doesn't match the Ramseys came from someplace other than JBR's fingernails. Lacking anything that really says to me, "Her parents did it", and with a ridiculous amount of investigation energy and time focused totally on them that never found any hard evidence, I go with an intruder as being more likely.

Option 1: RDI, without leaving anything at all that could be found by zealous and obsessed police investigators.
Option 2: IDI, without leaving any evidence found by police who were not really looking for IDI evidence, and were willing to (and did!) ignore IDI leads.

That's my view of the case.
 
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but the DNA that was found on both the panties and under the fingernails. Doesn't the DNA from both places match? If the DNA on the panties came from a factory worker, it could not end up under JonBenet's fingernails also. If JonBenet somehow innocently got DNA from someone under her fingernails it would not explain how it also got onto those panties.
Also the shoe print, wasn't it able to show this was fresh due to the mold on the floor? If it had been older then mold would have been built up on it.

Then there is the neighbor who says he heard what sounded like metal hitting right after the scream. That wouldn't make sense if everything was just being done inside the house.

IMO if the Ramseys spent a good part of the night covering up the murder, they would not have the forsight to not have the house lit up. If suddenly my daughter was killed, on purpose or accidently, I would not immediatly think, oh I have to have lights shut off so no one can see me walking around inside while I think about what to do and stage a cover up. I would be in such a state of shock and disbelief there is no way I would start thinking clearly for many days. If I was a parent who found out my spouse or other child had just killed my daughter, you better believe there would be a lot of yelling going on inside that house. If neighbors heard a scream, they also would have later heard that kind of yelling, crying etc.

There were to many keys to the house floating around, wasn't it their neighbors who had "lost" a key and given a second one. What happened to that first key, could it have been stolen and not just lost?
Also it was to convenient that this happened on a night where the dog was not in the house, IMO that works better for an intruder who knew what was going on in the household, it would be a good night to get to JonBenet, especially when she was going to be gone the next day for a long trip!

I don't believe whoever did kill her had that in mind when they came in, there was no planned kidnapping so no need to have a note written beforehand, something went very wrong and the injury to her head happened. I think they tried to cover that up by fixing her hair the way it was. Hiding her body and leaving the note gives the killer the idea the house will not be well searched and her body not found for some time, which did work for a while.

If it was just the Ramsey's, they had no idea just how badly the police would bungle this investigation, why would they have called 911 when they did? They could have bought a lot more time, do a much more well thought out cover-up by not calling when they did. It could have easily been explained later by saying they were just following the orders on the RN, to afraid to call because "they" were watching!

Yes I understand that seemingly good loving parents can kill, but there are enough things that are left unexplained that I just can't say the ones inside the house that night did it.

OB
 
Old Broad said:
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but the DNA that was found on both the panties and under the fingernails. Doesn't the DNA from both places match? If the DNA on the panties came from a factory worker, it could not end up under JonBenet's fingernails also. If JonBenet somehow innocently got DNA from someone under her fingernails it would not explain how it also got onto those panties.
Also the shoe print, wasn't it able to show this was fresh due to the mold on the floor? If it had been older then mold would have been built up on it.

Then there is the neighbor who says he heard what sounded like metal hitting right after the scream. That wouldn't make sense if everything was just being done inside the house.

IMO if the Ramseys spent a good part of the night covering up the murder, they would not have the forsight to not have the house lit up. If suddenly my daughter was killed, on purpose or accidently, I would not immediatly think, oh I have to have lights shut off so no one can see me walking around inside while I think about what to do and stage a cover up. I would be in such a state of shock and disbelief there is no way I would start thinking clearly for many days. If I was a parent who found out my spouse or other child had just killed my daughter, you better believe there would be a lot of yelling going on inside that house. If neighbors heard a scream, they also would have later heard that kind of yelling, crying etc.

There were to many keys to the house floating around, wasn't it their neighbors who had "lost" a key and given a second one. What happened to that first key, could it have been stolen and not just lost?
Also it was to convenient that this happened on a night where the dog was not in the house, IMO that works better for an intruder who knew what was going on in the household, it would be a good night to get to JonBenet, especially when she was going to be gone the next day for a long trip!

I don't believe whoever did kill her had that in mind when they came in, there was no planned kidnapping so no need to have a note written beforehand, something went very wrong and the injury to her head happened. I think they tried to cover that up by fixing her hair the way it was. Hiding her body and leaving the note gives the killer the idea the house will not be well searched and her body not found for some time, which did work for a while.

If it was just the Ramsey's, they had no idea just how badly the police would bungle this investigation, why would they have called 911 when they did? They could have bought a lot more time, do a much more well thought out cover-up by not calling when they did. It could have easily been explained later by saying they were just following the orders on the RN, to afraid to call because "they" were watching!

Yes I understand that seemingly good loving parents can kill, but there are enough things that are left unexplained that I just can't say the ones inside the house that night did it.

OB
Click to expand...

See the "Separating Fact from Fiction" thread. It's a sticky, near the top. In there it says it hasn't been established that the panty DNA and fingernail DNA match.

The neighbor who "heard" the scream wasn't sure if it was a scream or JBR's "energy" - whatever that means. She settled on a scream, perhaps because that sounded saner than sensing her energy. The metal on concrete sound is a description - not a fact. Lots of sounds can be misinterpreted. I won't go into all the stuff about the grate because it's covered elsewhere, but I will say that no one went through that window.

Your point about the lights is interesting. We know the lights were on briefly around midnight (I think that right) but otherwise they weren't on all night. If an event with JBR had caused PR to go into a rage, it seems like lights would have been turned on. The fact that they were mostly off all night suggests that they didn't want neighbors to know they were up.

Same with the yelling - no yelling because they both knew what happened, and how, and were in on it.

Seems to me the dog being gone was equally convienient for the Rs - especially with respect to concocting an intruder theory.

I don't buy the idea that an intruder would think the note would really buy any time. It did here, but it's just a fluke that FW and the cops did a lousy search - or it could be the body wasn't in the wine room when they searched, and JR put it there when he was down the basement out of supervision of the police. Why would an intruder who had accidently killed her bother with any staging or with a note? It just wastes time that one could use to get out of there and far away.

The Rs had to call 911, or as an alternative, they'd have had to call their pilot and make up an excuse for not flying to Michigan - which would have been pretty easy to do. But calling 911, not to mention friends and neighbors contradicts the instructions in the note. If they were taking the note seriously, they'd have called the pilot, said they'd changed their mind, and then not called 911/neighbors.
 
OldBroad,as far as the R's going against the RN's instructions,that is quite understandable as far as calling the police--doubt any family would NOT call the police after leaning their daughter is supposedly kidnapped,no matter what the note says---that in and of itself does not imply guilt,but there are a million other things that do
 
Peter Hamilton said:
OldBroad,as far as the R's going against the RN's instructions,that is quite understandable as far as calling the police--doubt any family would NOT call the police after leaning their daughter is supposedly kidnapped,no matter what the note says---that in and of itself does not imply guilt,but there are a million other things that do
Click to expand...
But wouldn't you tell police about the warnings?? PR's explanation was that she didn't read the whole thing, but she knew how it was signed. My hinky meter starts going up at this point.
 
but of course--I was just commenting on one small point that oldbroad made on just one part of the RN regarding calling the police---that's why I commented "but a million other things do'--Obviously Patsy read the whole note
 
and--lol btw I love that term "hinky meter"--its a funny but apt expression of suspicion--Mine usually go off imediately,like with this case,OJ's case,Blake'scase,and Peterson's
 
Peter Hamilton said:
and--lol btw I love that term "hinky meter"--its a funny but apt expression of suspicion--Mine usually go off imediately,like with this case,OJ's case,Blake'scase,and Peterson's
Click to expand...
I like that term, too, but alas, I can't take credit for it. I've picked it up from here somewhere along the way.
smile.gif


But, yeah, with OJ, Blake, Peterson... the Ramsey case has put mine on overload for a long time now!
 
Quote:
I'm a fence sitter. But there's no way I'm gonna take Lin Wood's opinion on ANYTHING in this case seriously. Nopey nope, as Camper would say
Click to expand...
Me either.

I only referenced this because Lin Wood IS the Ramsey lawyer and official spokesperson.

And, THIS, weak DNA that is suspect because there was so little of it and the ransom note are the best evidence that he thinks CLEARS his clients and that points to an intruder?
 
RDI's believe there is compelling argument that supports their theory.
IDI's believe there is compelling argument that supports their theory.
The answer is that nobody on this board knows the answer, no matter how much they think they do.
 
Jolynna said:
Quote:

Me either.

I only referenced this because Lin Wood IS the Ramsey lawyer and official spokesperson.

And, THIS, weak DNA that is suspect because there was so little of it and the ransom note are the best evidence that he thinks CLEARS his clients and that points to an intruder?
Click to expand...
Ah, gotcha. :doh:

It does bother me that the DNA was degraded, but the blood was fresh...
 
"Mostly, I can't see these people killing JonBenét. Especially on Christmas night. I do understand what people are saying when they talk about how grateful you are for each day after you've gone through what Patsy went through. That's not evidence, though, is it?"

Not by a damn sight. I've lived with what cancer does to you. It made my father and engine of destruction. I hate to say it, but death was merciful for him.

"Not all of it - I've left off, because there's not really any point to discussing this - but it's not so much the evidence of an intruder, because we've seen several other cases where intruders come through the house and leave no evidence of an intruder. So the lack of evidence doesn't mean IDI is not possible."

True, but in all of those cases, the intruder was in and out.

"with a ridiculous amount of investigation energy and time focused totally on them that never found any hard evidence"

"Never found any hard evidence?" Are you kidding? There's enough evidence for three cases against them. The police spent two days outlining all of it to the DA, and that was BEFORE some of the evidence we know about now had come back. Would you like to see a LIST? I can give you one.

"Option 2: IDI, without leaving any evidence found by police who were not really looking for IDI evidence, and were willing to (and did!) ignore IDI leads."

No, they didn't ignore leads. They even went to other states to check out intruder leads.

"Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but the DNA that was found on both the panties and under the fingernails. Doesn't the DNA from both places match?"

No.

"If the DNA on the panties came from a factory worker, it could not end up under JonBenet's fingernails also."

Yes, it could. It's called a secondary transfer. JB scratches herself, picks it up, badda-bing.

"If JonBenet somehow innocently got DNA from someone under her fingernails it would not explain how it also got onto those panties."

Just in reverse.

"If it was just the Ramsey's, they had no idea just how badly the police would bungle this investigation, why would they have called 911 when they did?"

I'll tell you why: because EVERYONE knew they were leaving early to catch the plane. If there scheduled time had come and gone, SOMEONE would have come looking for them.

"And, THIS, weak DNA that is suspect because there was so little of it and the ransom note are the best evidence that he thinks CLEARS his clients and that points to an intruder?"

I'm afraid so! And since ten experts say she wrote it, I'd say he's hanging by his fingernails.
 
SuperDave said:
"


True, but in all of those cases, the intruder was in and out.


Yes, it could. It's called a secondary transfer. JB scratches herself, picks it up, badda-bing.

.
Click to expand...
Except of course, the case of the young girl, sexually assaulted in Boulder, 2 miles from the Ramsey house, 10 months after the JonBenet killing, where the intruder lay in wait for 4 hours INSDIE the victims home prior to the attack, who gained access into the home with no evidence of forced entry, who wasn't able to complete his crime because the girls mother woke up, interrupted him, and chased him off......
But it can't possibly be connected.....way out of the realm of rational thinking.:rolleyes:

If one is willing to accept the secondary transfer of the DNA from her panties to under her fingernails that potentially originated from a factory workers sneeze half a world away, one would think one would consider the secondary transfer from fibers, also.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 230 more.
Total: 2,847 (members: 231, guests: 2,616)

Online statistics

Members online
231
Guests online
2,616
Total visitors
2,847
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,229
Messages
17,965,463
Members
228,727
Latest member
AggressiveFruit
Back
Top