Page 1 of 28 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 408
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    4,984

    A New Look at Intruder Theories

    For the sake of argument, since several posters have reopened the question of RDI's being unable to consider anyone except the R's being guilty, let's explore the possibility of an intruder did it on an entire thread and in a new light.

    The only rule for looking at this from a fresh perspective is that we must Take Away All LE/DA Blunders which ultimately caused the arrow of guilt to point toward the Ramsey Family.

    example:
    ~remove the fiber evidence which would not have had the opportunity of contamination if the crime scene had been secured properly

    After we remove all facts and evidence which can't be used because the LE/DA tainted it, lets see what Intruder theories could fit the crime without those pieces of tainted evidence or facts.
    "Opinion is the medium between knowledge and ignorance."~ Plato
    ~The above reflects only my opinion...


  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    11,733
    I'll take the first shot.

    For me, an intruder would have to be someone with at least a passing familiarity with the family. Someone who'd been in the house before. There's no way someone could learn the whole layout in just a few hours, especially in the dark, unless he was one of those blind ninja masters.
    Vae Victus! (May the conquered suffer!)
    Celerem vindictam manu! (Swift hand of vengeance!)


  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    4,984
    An intruder would have also had to have known the Ramsey's well enough to have known their schedule.

    The Ramsey's came and left through the garage. They could easily have been leaving for their Christmas trip to Mich. instead of going to the White's dinner party, planning to return home later that same evening.

    An intruder with little or no knowledge of their schedule would have been waiting for a very long time for their return if that had been the case.
    "Opinion is the medium between knowledge and ignorance."~ Plato
    ~The above reflects only my opinion...


  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,555
    an intruder would need prior knowledge of the family;this is why what's- his -name in that fiasco orchestrated by Lacy couldn't have possibly written the note..he didn't know the family,so things like 'good southern common sense' (which was also an inside family joke),couldn't be written by someone without that prior(and inside family) knowledge.
    ..that would also include an intruder who knew the amt of JR's bonus that yr.
    and to think...all that prior knowledge,and they still can't find anyone to match the dna! surely someone should have come to mind,if there had really been an intruder.
    something to ponder:

    When the corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and the mortal have put on immortality, then shall we be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

    O death, where [is] thy sting? O grave, where [is] thy victory?

    The sting of death [is] sin; and the strength of sin [is] the law.
    But thanks [be] to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
    1 Corinthians 15:54-57


  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    4,984
    For the sake of argument, let's assume that an intruder entered the Ramsey home early in the evening on the 25th and had the entire length of time that the R's were at the White's dinner party to ramble, gather and prepare... Assume he/she found information which included the amount of JR's bonus while plundering in the home for the items needed for the kidnapping or assume it was an AG fromer or current employee or significant other of an AG employee.

    Assume that the intruder did indeed need to know the layout of the home better than he/she actually did, because when attempting to bring JBR from her bedroom, down the stairs he caused her head trauma which made him/her have to alter plans...

    No that theory won't fly.. , there was also sexual assault. So...

    AG personel did not know the home prior to the murder so they entered the home early in the evening and spent several hours gathering all the things needed to do the crime and to familiarize themselves with the house... (SD, pretend they also had Ninja night Vision...)

    Ok, the AG person wants to pin the murder on the R's so he/she devises and carries out this horrific bungled up mess of a kidnapping, sexual assault, murder because it is so absolutley unbelievable to attempt to fathom that an intruder did it, the R's will have to be blamed. The intruder kills three birds with one shot. JR and his family loses their daughter causing deep emotional pain, JR ends up leaving AG causing financial pain, both PR and JR are made to look guilty causing emotional and financial pain.

    IF, this theory IS at all possible what makes it possible?

    IF it is NOT possible what disputes its possibilities?
    "Opinion is the medium between knowledge and ignorance."~ Plato
    ~The above reflects only my opinion...


  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,555
    JB was staged to appear an intruder did it..an intruder would have staged her to appear a parent did it...things like leave her in her own bed,and asphyxiate her manually (no garrote).and most of all...NO ransom note!
    something to ponder:

    When the corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and the mortal have put on immortality, then shall we be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

    O death, where [is] thy sting? O grave, where [is] thy victory?

    The sting of death [is] sin; and the strength of sin [is] the law.
    But thanks [be] to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
    1 Corinthians 15:54-57


  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    4,984
    Quote Originally Posted by JMO8778 View Post
    JB was staged to appear an intruder did it..an intruder would have staged her to appear a parent did it...things like leave her in her own bed,and asphyxiate her manually (no garrote).and most of all...NO ransom note!
    JMO...I undersatand... just for the sake of argument, for a moment we are trying to not thinking logically.

    Accept as illogical as it is, that the intruder knew the family inside-jokes and their schedule and their business well and someone who wanted the crime scene to appear as if an intruder did it.../no the parents did it type of crime scene...

    How could he/she have done it and who would benefit most from that intentional pain placed on the Ramsey's?

    Could it have been this type of intruder? If yes, support it with a profile of who and with how that matches the facts...

    If no, support it with the why nots...
    "Opinion is the medium between knowledge and ignorance."~ Plato
    ~The above reflects only my opinion...


  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by JMO8778 View Post
    JB was staged to appear an intruder did it..an intruder would have staged her to appear a parent did it...things like leave her in her own bed,and asphyxiate her manually (no garrote).and most of all...NO ransom note!
    There are many, many examples of killers not making it look like the parents did it. You're taking a leap just so we can lead the trail back to Patsy. The moment I saw this thread, I knew that was gonna happen, but didn't expect it to happen so quickly.

    Think outside the box......and "Patsy, Patsy, Patsy!! doesn't exist there.

    for a moment we are trying to not thinking logically.
    Oh really? So anyone who doesn't lead it back to Patsy is an illogical airhead?

    This thread is pointless.


    The thread title means well but is obviously deceiving, as we all know(even us illogical airheads) what direction it's going.



    The thread should be retitled "Patsy did it".




    Having said that, I'll offer my opinion on the actual topic of the thread....

    I think LE and everyone who has speculated on the case over the years made a mistake by simply labeling it an "intruder". It insinuates that the killer(s) were unknown to the family and just happened to walk up that night and pick their house out of the blue. I highly doubt anyone in the world actually thinks this crime was committed by a total stranger. Most murder victims are killed by someone they know, and that statistic is even higher regarding child murder victims. So whether or not it was a parent, the percentages are in favor of Jonbenet being murdered by someone she knew.

    Of course, that can of worms being opened brings up the trillion dollar question.......who?

    Well. pretty obvious we'll never know who exactly, mainly because of the authorities and the publics constant "Patsy did it! No, John did it! No, a strange intruder did it!, You're wrong! Patsy did it!!" This went on since the day it happened. The killer(s) is dead already from laughter.

    So, lets take a look at a couple possible scenarios......

    "The Stalker"

    Why this isn't considered is mind boggling. She lived her life in the child pageant world surrounded by old men. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that men other than fathers or close relatives at these shows aren't there just to mingle. They're at these pageants to look at young girls. Jonbenet was a cute kid, so it wouldn't be surprising if one man became infatuated with her. In the pageant world, he could easily follow her from event to event and get to ogle her when he wants, and if local, would know her routine.

    "The relationship/abuser"

    Sounds gross, but don't really know how else to put it. As all of you know, she grew up in a sexual environment and a LOT of inappropriate things went on. While most kids her age aren't thinking about sex, a kid brought up in her environment would start getting those types of feelings. She would already know her looks bring her a certain status, power, etc. It doesn't take much of a leap from her undressing in front of strangers to having actual sexual contact with one(or more) of them. Not only was she a prime target for abuse, she was brought up in an environment where the abuse/relationship/whatever you want to call it could have been consensual. Don't take that out of context. Not blaming her for what happened, but when you are brought up from birth to be worshiped like some doll, its not very many steps away from abuse of some sort. When looking at her childhood and how she was raised, you literally start drowning in red flags. Its sickening that any child could be raised in such an environment, and probably plays a role in so much suspicion on her parents.

    The abuser would have seen his/her life unraveling at just the thought of her leaving(the trip, moving). Not only would he not get to see her again, he would be risking her eventually telling someone. Once she was away from the abuse, she would be more likely to report it. So IF an abuser killed her, its like a "since I cant have you, no one can" situation.

    This abuser could either be someone that was a stranger somewhat or an actual family friend/relative. Hell, it could even be a teenager in the neighborhood.

    Also cant discount the possibility of some business associate either committing this crime, or paying someone else to do it.

    Like I said in that other thread, she was killed basically hours before that trip was gonna take place. That isn't a coincidence no matter who killed her. Its a piece of the puzzle that was just tossed aside because it would have required actual brainstorming by investigators. Why bother thinking when her mother's sitting there loaded on downers and is an easy target? They took the easy way out by aiming their sights on Patsy, and the public followed like sheep to the slaughter.

    Where did that line of thinking get them after twelve years?

    Nowhere.

    Hell, Patsy might have been able to actually help solve the case if the right questions had been answered. Instead, Barney Fife and society start blaming her before her daughter is even buried. Of course they're not gonna cooperate.

    Hopefully one of these days someone with a brain opens those case files. In my opinion it can no longer be solved(and was unsolvable a mere hours after the murder), but maybe a legitimate attempt at piecing things together can finally happen.


    By the way, whatever happened to Santa? Is he still giving "special presents" to little girls late at night, or is there some theory that Patsy is really Santa?


  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    2,715

    many possibilities

    To play along with the thread topic I mention a few possibilities. My own theories are a quite a bit different in some ways but I am willing to look at any and all possible solutions so I hope people will take this post in a positive way.

    1. If an intruder came into the home there is nothing I have read or heard about the case that would lead me to believe this person had never been to the home before.

    2. There is, on the other hand, some evidence which seems to indicate that the perp knew certain facts about the family, from the bonus amount to which movies the family had seen and those things tend to indicate someone had some inside knowledge of the family.

    3. Does that mean the perp was a family acquaintance? No, not necessarily, since BTK and other caught intruders have proven that someone can hide within a home on more than one occasion without being caught and stalkers have been known to listen in to private calls and even to get quite a bit of personal info about their victims.

    4. The window entrance/exit of the intruder seemed faked to some people and it may well have been faked if the intruder had his own way into the house but didnt want that fact advertised. Or it may have truly been what it presented itself as in the 1st place.

    5. Was this a random unplanned crime? I do not think so but, in keeping with the topic of this thread, it could have been something like this: A secretary that handles the bonus info in some form where Mr. R. Works has an affair with a guy & she mentions this amount that to her is seemingly higher than he deserves or is a sum she wishes she could get. Now lets say that for her it ends there in complete innocence as far as planning any crime but then her lover is, unknown to her, also seeing another younger woman who hears him mention the bonus in casual talk and she in turn has a young boyfriend more her own age on the side and the young woman and her boyfriend then plan how to get their hands on the bonus but they don't want to get caught if something goes wrong so they hire a lowlife to do the kidnap and to leave the pretyped ransom note (but one that had to be hand copied onto paper to look like a real ransom note.) But the perp they hired is a crack head and he is high on the stuff & goes nuts and harms the child and she dies. Perhaps he had already copied the note before he grabbed & harmed the child rather than doing it afterwards.

    So L.E. comes in and see what looks like a mishmash of details that sort of look like a kidnap attempt but also those details look like just a murder disguised as a kidnap attempt since the child was dead before the perp left the house which would make a ransome note seem unnecessary.

    This post doesn't cover all the possibilities but it at least mentions a few of them.


  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Tempe, AZ
    Posts
    4,217
    If you are going to focus on an intruder, you have to bring motive into the scene.
    Was an intruder (someone who knew the house and the family profile) there to sexually assult Jonbenet? Punish the parents or John by taking the child's life? Or acting out on some mental illness and evil. Or, did the motive get blown away because things went wrong and the intruder had to change plans.
    Motive, Motive, Motive. I think it's important if you're looking at an intruder.
    JMO
    The Hokey Pokey Clinic - A good place to turn yourself around:


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    27
    Quote Originally Posted by azwriter View Post
    If you are going to focus on an intruder, you have to bring motive into the scene.
    Was an intruder (someone who knew the house and the family profile) there to sexually assult Jonbenet? Punish the parents or John by taking the child's life? Or acting out on some mental illness and evil. Or, did the motive get blown away because things went wrong and the intruder had to change plans.
    Motive, Motive, Motive. I think it's important if you're looking at an intruder.
    JMO
    Yeah, and motive is just as important when pointing the finger at the parents.

    Its not out of the realm of possibility that "things went wrong". Its quite possibly the most bizarre crime scene in history. I doubt the killer(s) expected it to turn out like that.


  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,878
    OK, I'll play, and by the rules; no sarcastic remarks about IDI theory.
    We'll leave out tainted evidence, but we still have to deal with untainted evidence.

    So, first, if it's an intruder, we know he didn't come through the basement window. Crime scene photos clearly show that the dirt/debri are not disturbed. Of course we have the intact web of a hibrinating spider as well. (To see the photos, go to Forums for Justice, and look for cutter's website. I don't remember exactly which thread it's on, but it shouldn't take all that long to find it)

    So our intruder came through a door. One possibility is that he had a key, which means he was one of a relatively small circle of close friends, or someone who worked for the Rs. Another possibility is that the Rs left a door unlocked, either when they went to the Christmas party, or when they got home. The intruder either knew the alarm was not on, or he got lucky. He either knew the dog wasn't home, or he got lucky.

    We still have to explain the suitcase under the window. Possibly the intruder put it there in case he might have to escape that way ? (Turns out he didn't escape that way, but he may have been planning for any eventuality) Possibly the intruder broke the window while preparing it for an escape route? That of course leaves us wondering why JR claims to have broken it in August '96, and PR confirms. Maybe the housekeeper, who denies knowing about a boken window and denies helping PR clean up glass - as PR has claimed- just doesn't have a good memory? I'm not being sarcastic here. No one's memory is perfect. Maybe the window was broken in August. Maybe only PR cleaned up the glass but later misremembered doing it along with the housekeeper. Maybe the glass breaking didn't make a big enough impression on the housekeeper to bother retaining it in memory. Of course we might still wonder why millionaires leave a window broken for 6 months. Makes you wonder, but it doesn't prove anything.

    Motive. Well, I'll be odd man out here. I don't think motive is key to solving the case. I don't think motive can be ascertained until the killer is caught. It's nice to have motive to work with. But this isn't a bank robbery where motive can easily be infered. The motive here is weird and twisted -if it's an intruder- and we aren't going to know until we catch the guy.

    However, if we do look at motive in light of the RN, and for the moment, take the RN at face value, then the first motive is that of a small foreign faction wishing to harm the US - IMO we can dismiss this, because kidnapping/killing a 6 year old girl who's virtually unkown outside Boulder doesn't really harm the US in any way. 2nd motive is kiddnapping. This seems unlikely, as the body is in the basement, and if the Rs were not in anyway involved then a decent search by police/friends/family should have turned up the body well before the time for the ransom call. It's possible however that it's a kidnapping gone bad. The third motive is someone with a grudge against JR, who happened to know the amount of his bonus, and used it as a way to send JR a message. Most people who have a grudge against someone don't go so far as to kill the person's daughter, but I guess it can't be ruled out entirely. The fourth motive is paedophilia. There is a basic problem with our intruder theory, and the problem is there are too many motives. Possibly it's one guy, writing a wierd RN to throw out as many motives as possible, leading police down blind alleys, or it was a multiple intruder situation, where each actually had a different motive.

    This is getting long so I'll pick it up again in another post.
    I'm just playing detective here. I have no idea who killed JonBenet. It's just an opinion.


  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,878
    I just attempted a Part II to my intruder theory, but it didn't post. I'll retype the whole thing later after giving my fingers a rest.
    I'm just playing detective here. I have no idea who killed JonBenet. It's just an opinion.


  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    4,984
    My post suggesting to firm RDI's to attempt to not use their logic but to attempt to make an intruder theory work if possible was not intended as a sarcastic remark.

    In order to get to the point of being a "firm RDI" every person I am familiar with at WS's has gone throught the mountain of facts, behaviors, blunders, and physical evidence to "logically" come to their conclusion. The only way at this point in the case for them to attempt an intruder theory is to not use their logical mind, IMO. This is not to say that their logical mind is correct. It is possible that we've logically arrived at an incorrect conclusion, but it is to say that using our own LOGIC, is where we have gone to get where we are today.

    IDI's use your own logic... RDI's use whatever you must, but please at least attempt a workable intruder theory.

    My problem as an RDI is that every intruder theory which I come up with ultimately ends up expolding in my face as an impossible option due to adding an additional piece of the puzzle.
    "Opinion is the medium between knowledge and ignorance."~ Plato
    ~The above reflects only my opinion...


  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,878
    One other thing about entering through the door - PR apparently had quite a few keys made for friends, neighbors, and hired help. Just a possiblity here - maybe the guy at the hardware store knew who the Rs were - knew they were wealthy and knew they had a beauty pageant daughter- so he made himself a copy of the key.

    Another possiblility is that the intruder was skilled at picking locks.

    I'll get to my part II later.
    I'm just playing detective here. I have no idea who killed JonBenet. It's just an opinion.


Page 1 of 28 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 138
    Last Post: 11-01-2013, 09:41 PM
  2. Theories: Who and Why?
    By SeriouslySearching in forum Skyla Whitaker and Taylor Placker
    Replies: 521
    Last Post: 12-09-2011, 07:50 PM
  3. Theories
    By colomom in forum Madeleine McCann
    Replies: 163
    Last Post: 04-04-2009, 05:27 AM
  4. RDI theories
    By rashomon in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-05-2006, 12:53 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •