the psychology of intruderphobia

Why are so many of us opposed to the so-called intruder theory?

Could it be that there is only a very remote possibility that any of us will ever identify an intruder culprit, in view of the vast pool of potential suspects, whereas in focusing our attention on the occupants of 755 15th street, the pool is narrowed considerably and the individuals who comprise it are incontrovertibly identified ?

RedChief said:

Why are so many of us opposed to the so-called intruder theory?

Could it be that there is only a very remote possibility that any of us will ever identify an intruder culprit, in view of the vast pool of potential suspects, whereas in focusing our attention on the occupants of 755 15th street, the pool is narrowed considerably and the individuals who comprise it are incontrovertibly identified ?

Click to expand...

There was no intruder because the Ramseys wouldn't be lying their heads off, and refusing to cooperate fully with the investigation, and be carrying out an obvious coverup, to protect an intruder who molested and murdered their daughter

The parents would be doing this for only one reason -- to protect Burke from his involvement somehow in the death of JonBenet.

I think so many, myself included, tend to view the parents as suspect, if not suspects, because of their behavior. While we know that there is no one-shoe-fits-all behavior after the murder of one's child, the way the Ramseys did not avail themselves to LE beginning the very day their daughter's body was discovered, makes them appear suspicious. In comparison to other parents whose child was murdered, the Rs stick out like a sore thumb. I'd like for there to be an intruder. I really hope there is. Given that the Rs eluded LE, immediately lawyered up every member of the family with separate attys, wouldn't polygraph even by the FBI, hired their own polygrapher who administered such vague and few questions...etc...etc.;
need I go into more things?....

That's just my opinion about why the Rs to this day continue to be viewed as at least covering up the death of their daughter.

BlueCrab said:

There was no intruder because the Ramseys wouldn't be lying their heads off, and refusing to cooperate fully with the investigation, and be carrying out an obvious coverup, to protect an intruder who molested and murdered their daughter

Click to expand...

I agree. The parents are protecting somebody. And who would you be willing to protect after they had killed your child? It's a pretty short list.

The Ramsey's left their home 30 minutes after JonBenet was found and never returned. If an intruder killed JonBent, I could understand why the family might not feel safe in the home at night.

However, who better to look for clues as to what happened than the Ramseys? (Look for something out of place or missing) The Ramseys should have felt less threatened to return to the home in daylight with police protection.

If my child was killed by an intruder, regardless of the pain caused by returning to the house, I would have returned to help with the investigation inside the home, in any way I could.

The Ramseys have stated that they felt the LE were biased against them; the reason for working through attorneys rather than working directly with police. However, the Ramseys' own private investigators should have had no such bias. Returning to the home might have helped their own investigators find clues. That didn't happen.

To me, this seems to be another example of the Ramseys' disinterest in helping the investigation prove there was indeed an intruder. Could there be a reason that their own attorneys would advise them not to revisit the crime scene?

:woohoo: :woohoo: I've read this site for years and posted lots in the past. It's been interesting to rejoin those old posters from the past as well as discovering new posters with intriguing ideas. Much as I'd like to believe Patsy did it, I think she didn't. She helped cover for it. Sorry, BroMoon,'cause I like your well-thought-out ideas based on good knowledge, but you are wrong. Patsy is what you think she is, but she didn't kill JonBenet. I really do believe Burke and perhaps someone else (a friend his age?) did it. BroMoon, please research Burke more. Put your excellent thinking cap on and apply your little gray cells in that direction.


BlueCrab, I'm not totally convinced, but I'm lingering in your ballpark at this time.

gaia said:

BlueCrab, I'm not totally convinced, but I'm lingering in your ballpark at this time.

Click to expand...

gaia,

Good. Make yourself comfortable and grab a hot dog and a cold beer. We're gonna win this game. This is only the seventh inning stretch.

Burke is 18 now, and hopefully he may soon decide to reveal the truth. He can't be prosecuted for anything because he was under 10 when JonBenet died.

People keep saying that because the Ramseys didn't talk for quite awhile, that is suspect. I think that their lawyers ordered them not to talk, being the good and expensive lawyers they probably were. Someone probably told the Ramseys that the parents are always the first suspects, so they hired lawyers to protect them. And it worked. The police didn't have enough to arrest them on anyway, so what is the big deal?

It bothers me that they never admitted in their book to not doing things because their lawyers advised against it. They never said anything of what their lawyers told them. They may be liars but that doesn't make them murderers. And maybe an omission isn't quite a lie....

I also think that their lawyers "advised" them that they had better return to Boulder promptly after the burial in Atlanta. (Even though they would not admit this in their book, and said it was for Burke's school stability and to "find the killer"). They knew they had to return so as not to raise eyebrows. I don't think they were intent on doing anything themselves to find the killer because those people were so used to everyone else doing everything for them. They are just plain spoiled, but had to follow the attorney's advice.

As much as people would like to believe that the Ramsey's were the perfect Christian family,who loved their daughter,and a terrible person came into the house and murdered Jonbenet while the rest of the house slept soundly-as much as we'd all like to believe that,and see a killer brought to justice,theres just too much evidence to rule out the possibility that one,two or ALL of the Ramseys were involved.THEY did this.There was no crazy homicidal pervert roaming the streets that night,Jonbenet knew her killer and her killer was in the house.This murder took place behind closed doors,there was no other party involved.If there was an intruder,WHERE IS HE? Why hasn't he been found?

Good questions and points, BlairAdele.

I would add just one more question to the heap: If the Ramseys are guilty, why haven't they been prosecuted?

If you really live in Australia, I envy you.

As much as I lean toward intruder, I do wonder why he hasn't struck again.

Like I said before, the only other person I can think of that they'd cover for would be Grandpa Paugh. But I don't know what his alibi was... does anyone know?

I don't pretend to know for certain which R did what, but the RN served only one purpose: to serve as evidence that someone other than the Rs was in the house that night. If the killer were an intruder, the RN (as it was) would not have been left.

As for the Rs not cooperating with LE on the orders of their lawyers, these are the people who supposedly found a note saying their daughter would be beheaded if they called the police. Yet they instantly called not only the police, but their pastor and numerous friends. How little they cared for orders!

Yet an hour or two later, they were helpless and meek before the demands of the hired help (attornies)? I don't think so.

It seems to me that any item of evidence that can be equally satisfactorily explained by two disparate explanations, which are not evaluated in a vacuum; are viewed in light of the case as a whole--as a component of the evidence in it's entirety, cannot be deemed germane to the analysis, and must be wisely ignored.

Take for example a bootprint in the wine cellar, alleged to have been made in fresh, fast-growing mold. If it can be shown that the bootprint could have been made days, weeks or months before the murder, by an authorized person--contractor, housekeeper, family member, friend of the family, or whomever, why treat it as highly relevant?

There is the realm of the possible, the realm of the probable, and the realm of the indisputable. Which realm do you prefer?