consistent with intruder theory

consistent with intruder theory

Posted in the JonBenet Ramsey Forum

First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#1 Dec 2, 2013
Steve Thomas tells us that Burke is innocent and he gives Mr Ramsey a pass, but Kolar tells us that this was a family affair and that all the Ramseys were participants. The grand jurors didn’t seem to have any idea as to who did what but thought that somehow further investigation might reveal something. RDI posters are divided into camps: BDI, JDI, PDI, JPBDI, JPDI, etc. while some can’t decide.
The RDI theories that have emerged are all problematic. There is no evidence that supports one above the other. Virtually all of these theories are complex, convoluted, and incomplete, based more on speculation than on fact. This leaves room for doubt.

Of course, doubt is not evidence of anything. Doubt is just a crack in the door; it says, I’m not sure. I’m not sure because all of the various RDI (seven in all if we count by possible participant combinations) scenarios are flawed with none truly superior over the other. JDI and PDI can’t both be true. The evidence just does not clearly support either scenario. This is reason enough to consider another scenario: an intruder.

Still, the failure of RDI theories is not evidence for an intruder. It is merely a reason to consider a case for an intruder. However, along with this doubt there also exists a body of evidence that it, at least, consistent with an intruder theory. An intruder theory simply says that an unknown person committed this crime for an unknown reason.

Is there any evidence proves an intruder theory? No. Is there any evidence that is, at minimum, consistent with an intruder theory? Yes.
...

AK

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#2 Dec 2, 2013
The ransom note.

An intruder might write leave a ransom and body in the house for any of several reasons as outlined here; post 6 – 9: http://tinyurl.com/n6bhqmb However, there is no reason that the Ramseys would even consider writing a ransom note once they decided to keep the body in the house.

The ransom note is written as if the author did not believe that he would ever be investigated or have his handwriting, etc compared, and this is consistent with an intruder theory. The unnecessary length of the note provides too many opportunities for forensic identification. The supposed/unnecessary use of “inside information” reads to investigators,“look inside the house.” It is absurd to believe that a Ramsey would create 2 ½ pages of evidence that would point investigators inside the house, and towards themselves.

No author has ever been identified and this is consistent with an intruder theory. Pick and choose whatever expert one likes, the fact is that none of the credible experts – those used by BPD, those who met the Daubert standard - identified a Ramsey as author.

The ransom note IS intruder evidence, or if we want to get caught up in semantics, the ransom note is consistent with an intruder scenario.
...

AK

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#3 Dec 2, 2013
No evidence of forcible entry; locked doors.

If the Ramseys wanted investigators to believe that someone came into their home and murdered their child then they needed to “show” investigators that an intruder came into their home. They needed to at least say that the doors were not locked, or to actually stage a break-in, leave a window open, something...

Instead, they made their imaginary intruder’s entry appear a mystery; more than a mystery: unlikely. No evidence of forcible entry; locked doors. How could they fake a kidnapping without faking a kidnapper entry/exit point? This isn’t necessarily consistent with an intruder theory, but it goes to doubt. It cracks the door a little more, and on the other side of that door? The intruder theory.
...

AK

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#4 Dec 2, 2013
The nature of the crime and cause(s) of death.

There are a lot of people out there, too many, who are capable of committing these acts upon a child; some of those people are parents. However, we have no evidence, despite massive investigation, to show that these parents were capable of performing these acts upon this child. We cannot say the same for the intruder: an unknown person.

Theories and speculation of motive abound, but no evidence of motivation has emerged. In fact, some theories – Thomas’ for example – say that the crime was motiveless! Surely we need more than this if we are to believe that these parents committed such extreme acts of violence against their own child?

No identified motivation to explain the nature of the crime and the cause(s) of death and no evidence (behavioral, familial, etc) to show that these parents were capable of committing these extreme acts goes towards doubt, and are, at minimum, consistent with an intruder theory.
...

AK

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#5 Dec 2, 2013
There is trace evidence.

Trace evidence of the exact kind and in the exact locations that we might expect to find if an intruder had committed this crime: fibers and DNA. Could they have innocent explanations? Sure. Was effort put into finding those innocent explanations? Yes. Were any found? So far: no. Could they have an intruder explanation? Yes. The trace evidence is consistent with an intruder theory.
...

AK

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#6 Dec 2, 2013
Where are the missing pages from the notepad? Where is the end of the paintbrush (possibly used for the molestation); the brown, cotton source (gloves) for the fibers “found on four items closely associated with the body of Jonbenet and implements used in her murder;” the roll of tape, the rest of the cord?

There may be innocent explanations for these missing items, but none have so far been shown to be true, or likely; but, these missing items are all also consistent with an intruder theory.

The Ramseys could still be solely responsible, but that has not yet been demonstrated and the evidence that is consistent with an intruder theory exists. It exists because these things have not yet been innocently explained, the most that we can say is that these COULD have innocent explanations, but they COULD also have intruder explanations.
...

AK

Since: Feb 12

San Diego, CA

#7 Dec 2, 2013
HiAK,
There isn't a soul who can enter a home, stay for a few hours, and not leave a trace of his/her appearance. There isn't a trace of anyone's appearance in the Ramsey home other than the Ramseys themselves. No one enters a home, leaving only one show print, or just one fingerprint, or only a cell of organic material for DNA.

This phantom intruder had to enter the home, write a 3 page RN, and the practice RNs, feed JBR pineapple, sexually assault her, then murder her by strangulation and bludgeoning her with a blunt object, causing an 8 inch skull fracture.

Remember, it was freezing temperatures outside? This intruder had to wear some winter clothing, stay in the house for several hours, either never removing any of his clothing, or a taking some of it off, but forgetting nothing. He also had to have entered the home bringing NOTHING, because everything he used came from inside the house. He had to know where JBR's clothing was, Patsy's art material was, and he had to have the intent of kidnapping asking for chump change from a very wealthy family, OR, he wrote a bogus ransom note.

If you expect people to buy that, I have some genuine Hawaiian ocean water for sale. As much as you want for about $100 per fluid ounce.
CC
Autumn

AOL

#8 Dec 2, 2013
Great posts Anti-K....:o)

I love your straight to the point common sense way of analyzing the available evidence...

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#9 Dec 2, 2013
The opening six posts on this thread address the question of evidence that can be explained by an intruder theory. To say that this evidence does not exist is a blatant display of ignorance. You can offer alternative explanations, that’s fine. Alternative explanations do exist, but none of them have been shown to be true.

It is not true or even likely that an intruder had to have fed the victim. It isn’t even true that a Ramsey had to have fed the victim. This is a nonsensical claim unsupported by any evidence.

This crime could have been committed in less than an hour. An intruder who was forensically aware and who took care to minimize/prevent leaving forensic evidence could have come and gone leaving little trace evidence behind.

It is also not true that an intruder had to have brought nothing with him. He could have brought the tape and the cord with him, items not sourced to the house and, perhaps, that he could not do without. Also, as shown above (post 6), he could have taken items out of the house.

He didn’t need to know where Jonbenet’s clothing was; but, if he could find Jonbenet, he could find her clothing! He didn’t have to know where Mrs Ramsey’s art supplies were at, he merely had to “stumble” across them: they were right outside the door to the windowless room, finding them could have simply been a matter of coincidence and convenience.

As for your comments regarding a kidnapper “asking for chump change from a very wealthy family,” or writing “a bogus ransom note,” maybe that’s exactly what he did; one or the other; or both! This has already been addressed and is not a reasonable objection.
...

AK
Autumn

AOL

#10 Dec 2, 2013
Bakatari wrote:
HiAK,
There isn't a soul who can enter a home, stay for a few hours, and not leave a trace of his/her appearance. There isn't a trace of anyone's appearance in the Ramsey home other than the Ramseys themselves. No one enters a home, leaving only one show print, or just one fingerprint, or only a cell of organic material for DNA.
This phantom intruder had to enter the home, write a 3 page RN, and the practice RNs, feed JBR pineapple, sexually assault her, then murder her by strangulation and bludgeoning her with a blunt object, causing an 8 inch skull fracture.
Remember, it was freezing temperatures outside? This intruder had to wear some winter clothing, stay in the house for several hours, either never removing any of his clothing, or a taking some of it off, but forgetting nothing. He also had to have entered the home bringing NOTHING, because everything he used came from inside the house. He had to know where JBR's clothing was, Patsy's art material was, and he had to have the intent of kidnapping asking for chump change from a very wealthy family, OR, he wrote a bogus ransom note.
If you expect people to buy that, I have some genuine Hawaiian ocean water for sale. As much as you want for about $100 per fluid ounce.
CC
There is unidentified male DNA never linked to the Ramseys', many unidentified fibers that were not linked to the Ramseys', animal hairs never linked to the Ramseys', two shoe prints not linked to the Ramseys', unidentified handwriting not linked to the Ramseys', an unidentified rope not linked to the Ramseys', a missing roll of duct tape not linked to the Ramseys', an unidentified backpack not linked to the Ramseys' a flashlight that was never proven to be linked to the Ramseys' and a large knife found on the counter in the basement that was not linked to the Ramseys to name a few things.... So no not everything found at the crime scene was proven to have come from inside the house....

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#12 Dec 2, 2013
I’ve been asked who my suspect is. My suspect is the guy whose DNA is commingled in the victim’s blood and on her leggings. My suspect is the guy who left 2 ½ pages of unidentified handwriting. My suspect is the guy capable of inflicting the sort of extreme acts of violence that were committed. My suspect is the guy who transferred fibers and hairs and such that have so far not been traced.

My suspect is outside of any reasonably constructed suspect circle; my suspect is an outsider, not an insider. My suspect is an unknown subject; he has not yet been identified.
..

AK

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#13 Dec 2, 2013
I’ve also been asked about my theory.

I don’t think that topix is a place for IDI theories. IDI theories are for people who already accept the possibility of IDI. That being said, my theory is that an unknown person committed this crime for an unknown reason.

I do have a favorite theory, but I have no interest in arguing for it because I have no idea if it is true, or how likely it is to be true. It just seems to me that this crime could have been committed “for” the authorities, that the ransom note and hiding of the body could have been designed to create a pristine scene for investigators to discover. The ransom note prevents anyone else from finding the body, essentially preserving the scene, and the ransom note acts as a (suspicious, to investigators) invitation to investigators with the Ramseys acting as the mailman.

As noted in post 2, above, several reasons (theories) are outlined here; post 6 – 9: http://tinyurl.com/n6bhqmb These are all my theories.
...

AK

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#14 Dec 2, 2013
Capricorn,
I’m not sure if I’ve answered all your questions. Let me know what I missed, and thank you for being patient while I cranked all this out.
:)
...

AK

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#15 Dec 2, 2013
Autumn wrote:
Great posts Anti-K....:o)
I love your straight to the point common sense way of analyzing the available evidence...
OMG, Autumn! Is that you? How’ve you been?:)
...

AK

Since: Feb 12

San Diego, CA

#16 Dec 2, 2013
Autumn wrote:
<quoted text>
There is unidentified male DNA never linked to the Ramseys', many unidentified fibers that were not linked to the Ramseys', animal hairs never linked to the Ramseys', two shoe prints not linked to the Ramseys', unidentified handwriting not linked to the Ramseys', an unidentified rope not linked to the Ramseys', a missing roll of duct tape not linked to the Ramseys', an unidentified backpack not linked to the Ramseys' a flashlight that was never proven to be linked to the Ramseys' and a large knife found on the counter in the basement that was not linked to the Ramseys to name a few things.... So no not everything found at the crime scene was proven to have come from inside the house....
Hi Automn,
The DNA found was a simple trace, which could have come from as far away as China. There is no source for the DNA, and it has no time stamp, so we don't know when it was applied to where it was found.

There is no valid evidence of any intruder. The initial observation by the police first at the scene was that there was no footprints in the snow. No human that I know of can walk on snow without leaving footprints.

As TOP FORENSIC SCIENTIST, Dr Henry Lee said, "This is NOT a DNA case." It isn't.

There simply isn't any evidence that definitively proves an intruder. We know for a fact, that the living members of the immediate Ramsey family were in the home. No matter how much others try to create an intruder, they cannot, simply because you cannot make something from nothing.

The only possible intruder is the Tooth Fairy if you believe it it.
CC

Since: Sep 11

Alberton, South Africa

#17 Dec 3, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
Where are the missing pages from the notepad? Where is the end of the paintbrush (possibly used for the molestation); the brown, cotton source (gloves) for the fibers “found on four items closely associated with the body of Jonbenet and implements used in her murder;” the roll of tape, the rest of the cord?
There may be innocent explanations for these missing items, but none have so far been shown to be true, or likely; but, these missing items are all also consistent with an intruder theory.
The Ramseys could still be solely responsible, but that has not yet been demonstrated and the evidence that is consistent with an intruder theory exists. It exists because these things have not yet been innocently explained, the most that we can say is that these COULD have innocent explanations, but they COULD also have intruder explanations.
...
AK
Excellent posts, AK! You have very nicely summarised most of the reasons I believe IDI. As regards missing items, here's another to add to the list; if John broke the basement window THAT NIGHT, as many RDI believe, rather than months before as he said, what became of the broken glass?

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

#18 Dec 3, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
Is there any evidence proves an intruder theory? No.
...
AK
Nice job in laying out one side of the discussion. I will be back to discuss some of these points, but wanted you to know I appreciate the effort.

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#19 Dec 3, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
Capricorn,
I’m not sure if I’ve answered all your questions. Let me know what I missed, and thank you for being patient while I cranked all this out.
:)
...
AK
Good morning AK,

You have definitely answered my questions; however what I really wanted to know was what you are not prepared to discuss here and that sentence would have answered the question without going through all the work

Basically, you are IDI and don't really seem prepared to entertain the notion of RDI other than to "say" you are prepared LOL but nonetheless thank you for your response and while much of it is arguable, I do appreciate the effort
Delta88

United States

#20 Dec 3, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
Steve Thomas tells us that Burke is innocent and he gives Mr Ramsey a pass, but Kolar tells us that this was a family affair and that all the Ramseys were participants. The grand jurors didn’t seem to have any idea as to who did what but thought that somehow further investigation might reveal something. RDI posters are divided into camps: BDI, JDI, PDI, JPBDI, JPDI, etc. while some can’t decide.
The RDI theories that have emerged are all problematic. There is no evidence that supports one above the other. Virtually all of these theories are complex, convoluted, and incomplete, based more on speculation than on fact. This leaves room for doubt.
Of course, doubt is not evidence of anything. Doubt is just a crack in the door; it says, I’m not sure. I’m not sure because all of the various RDI (seven in all if we count by possible participant combinations) scenarios are flawed with none truly superior over the other. JDI and PDI can’t both be true. The evidence just does not clearly support either scenario. This is reason enough to consider another scenario: an intruder.
Still, the failure of RDI theories is not evidence for an intruder. It is merely a reason to consider a case for an intruder. However, along with this doubt there also exists a body of evidence that it, at least, consistent with an intruder theory. An intruder theory simply says that an unknown person committed this crime for an unknown reason.
Is there any evidence proves an intruder theory? No. Is there any evidence that is, at minimum, consistent with an intruder theory? Yes.
...
AK
I'm RDI but I admire the analysis.

I have to disagree on a couple points. First, not all RDI theories are on par. JDI as explained on Doc's blog is, imo, very much superior to other RDI theories.

Second, while you did a good job of replying to some posts about what the intruder would/wouldn't have to do, how would you account for the intruder locking doors behind himself as he left? Why would he do that?

While it's possible an intruder borrowed a pad and pen from the home to write a RN, doesn't it seem far more likely they were used by a family member who couldn't just jump in the car and go to the all night stationary store? Isn't it more likely an intruder who meant to collect ransom would come with a note prepared?

For me it's not the evidence for/against an intruder, it's the unlikeliness of an intruder doing the various things he'd have to have done. Why did he change from kidnapper to molester? Why did he redress the body? Why did he leave the RN when it was clear that he'd never collect?

Then there is John. Why did he lie about the window? Why did he change his story about the window. He "forgets" to tell the police that the window was slightly ajar and that he himself closed it, and he forgets this the morning of the 911 call, while the police are investigating the disappearance of his daughter. Then he remembers it months later during the police interviews.

I especially like your analysis of the RN as regards showing it to the police. It is crazy to think the author wrote a note in his own handwriting then allowed that to be shown to police who might be able to identify the writing. As you correctly point out, there are only a few credible handwriting experts, the ones working for BPD, and none of them could ID either JR or PR as the writer.(Ubowski thinks it was PR but admits that the evidence doesn't support that) So the handwriting is either that of an intruder (but why would he leave his handwriting to be ID'd?) or it's disguised which is why no credible analyst can say who wrote it.
Delta88

United States

#21 Dec 3, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
The ransom note.
An intruder might write leave a ransom and body in the house for any of several reasons as outlined here; post 6 – 9: http://tinyurl.com/n6bhqmb However, there is no reason that the Ramseys would even consider writing a ransom note once they decided to keep the body in the house.
The ransom note is written as if the author did not believe that he would ever be investigated or have his handwriting, etc compared, and this is consistent with an intruder theory. The unnecessary length of the note provides too many opportunities for forensic identification. The supposed/unnecessary use of “inside information” reads to investigators,“look inside the house.” It is absurd to believe that a Ramsey would create 2 ½ pages of evidence that would point investigators inside the house, and towards themselves.
No author has ever been identified and this is consistent with an intruder theory. Pick and choose whatever expert one likes, the fact is that none of the credible experts – those used by BPD, those who met the Daubert standard - identified a Ramsey as author.
The ransom note IS intruder evidence, or if we want to get caught up in semantics, the ransom note is consistent with an intruder scenario.
...
AK
It really is key that the RN and the body are inconsistent. The R's, if they were in on it together, would not have bothered with the RN, or they'd have decided to dump the body. The reason we have both is not because it was an intruder, but because they were not in on it together. There was a plan to dump the body, but it was foiled by PR's 911 call. "They" didn't decide to keep the body in the house.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

JonBenet Ramsey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Didn't the Ramseys recognize the note pad paper? (Jul '09) 24 min KCinNYC 900
Alex Hunter refused to indict a case BEFORE Jon... (Jan '13) 30 min Tex- 32
John's "There were a lot of people there at 3:0... (Feb '15) 35 min Tex- 25
The plot sickens: John wants whole GJ records r... (Oct '13) 36 min Tex- 27
News Geraldo&#x27;s Selective Fairness (Nov '12) 38 min Tex- 8
Motive and Opprtunity 40 min Tex- 5
Garnett will lose (Feb '13) 41 min Tex- 13
Dean Ryan Investigation: The Letter 16 hr Stinky Cheese Man 34
More from around the web