intruder murders of Lindy Sue Biechler 19, JonBenet Ramsey and Jeffrey R. MacDonald

tricia griffith wrote:
Anti-K, this whole forum has example after example after example that an intruder did not commit this crime.

No one can show one scintilla of evidence of an intruder.

As owner, I do my best to stay out of actual discussions about a crime.

The JBR case is the one expection.

Websleuths is a leader in true crime information as well as discussion. People come here to get information. It is imperative we deal with the facts. Not fantasy.

All I ask for are facts and a logical connecting of the dots. Logic and facts.

When I get time I will be going through the forum to make sure the JonBenet Ramsey forum is being held up to the high standards just like all our other forums on Websleuths.

The days of allowing anyone to post anything because it's part of their "theory" are gone. Facts and logic. Very simple.

Host Tricia Griffith is a veteran radio disc jockey and owner of Websleuths.com and owner of Forums for Justice.org.

tricia griffith wrote:
Anti-K, this whole forum has example after example after example that an intruder did not commit this crime.

No one can show one scintilla of evidence of an intruder.

delmar england wrote:
Letter to Boulder Colorado District Attorney, Mary Keenan

The crime scene consisted of an obviously bogus multi-page "ransom note" utilizing local materials. JonBenet's body was left in the basement of the Ramsey home with crude trappings falling woefully short of presenting a convincing kidnap\murder scene as it was intended to do. Even without pointing out more of a very long list of corroborating facts, the bogus note and inept staging is more than sufficient to isolate the perpetrators to the Ramsey household. Only a few minutes in examining and evaluating the evidence is required to reach this conclusion. It is impossible to reach any other conclusion on the facts. There was and is no evidentiary reason to look anywhere else. The only mystery to be solved was and is which Ramsey did what in relation to JonBenet's death.

Although it is not possible to reach any other conclusion from the evidence, it is possible to ignore the evidence and mentally invent "evidence" to take the place of truth and keep it hidden. Prompted by preconceived notions set in a context of money and political influence in conjunction with investigative cowardice and incompetence, this is precisely what has been going on for over six years.

delmar wrote:
Handwriting? Patsy has not been ruled out by several examiners. By my own analysis, not of the writing, but of the mind match between the note and Patsy is clear. This is explained in my analysis of the "ransom note." So far, neither you nor anyone else has quoted and challenged it. So, to say the handwriting does not match the Ramseys, thus all Ramseys are excluded as author, is just another arbitrary declaration without substance. Note the exclusion of Ramseys necessarily depends on the intruder idea of no factual substance.

DNA? So, it does not match the family. So what? Who does it match? Unknown? If unknown, how can it be known to connect to the crime and be "evidence?" If the source of this DNA were known, then factually connected to the crime scene, then it is evidence. Absence this, it is just more speculation that caters to intruder mental creation.

Does the DNA have to be connected to the crime? Could it not be from a benign source totally removed from the crime scene? Again, the alleged evidence evidences nothing except itself with no known connection to the crime. No outsider as perpetrator is required to explain the DNA since no connection is known as crime related.

The same is true for boot print, hairs, fibers, etc.. A close look into anyone's house would most likely turn up all sorts of things whose source were unknown whether there is a crime or not. To call something whose source and cause is unknown as evidence is to say it causal related while simultaneously saying cause is unknown, thus relationship unknown; more "negative evidence." If my recollection of high school Latin is correct, this could be called "ignotium per ignotius", the unknown by the more unknown.

This "Ramsey defense" "thinking" is a direct and absurd contradiction that is without limit. With this kind of "investigative latitude", I dare say that one could "prove" anything; or at least, convince the deluded self that he or she has done so. "negative evidence?" Surely, thou jest. I repeat: All known evidence is local.

delmar england wrote:
For every "could be", there is a "could be not", therefore, inconclusive until cause is known. Right? No thing is evidence until evidentiary cause is known. Right? Are we in agreement so far? If not, please point out what you think is my error in thinking, and why you think it is error.

A shoe print is found in the basement whose cause is unknown. It "could be" evidence of an intruder. "Could be not" is forgotten and "evidence" of an intruder is declared to be fact. There is a palm print with cause unknown; a rope with source unknown that "could be" something brought in by an intruder; an unidentified fiber, a baseball bat that "could have" been used by the intruder; a bit of dirt or leaves at a window well which "could have" been disturbed by an intruder. The list goes on and on and on.

This massive "evidence" stated to be more consistent with a theory of intruder than Ramsey guilt is hot air, nothing more than a string of unknowns verbally laced together on "could be", simultaneously divorced from the known, and declared to be much evidence of an intruder. Ridiculous to the max. No wonder no one will step forward and answer questions about alleged evidence of an alleged intruder. Its indefensible.

The beauty of truth is that it is consistent. Every fact is a complement of and blends with every other fact without contradiction. The presence of a contradiction is also the presence of error. Are we in agreement up to this point?

DNA? So, it does not match the family. So what? Who does it match? Unknown? If unknown, how can it be known to connect to the crime and be "evidence?" If the source of this DNA were known, then factually connected to the crime scene, then it is evidence. Absence this, it is just more speculation that caters to intruder mental creation.

Does the DNA have to be connected to the crime? Could it not be from a benign source totally removed from the crime scene? Again, the alleged evidence evidences nothing except itself with no known connection to the crime. No outsider as perpetrator is required to explain the DNA since no connection is known as crime related


The same is true for boot print, hairs, fibers, etc.. A close look into anyone's house would most likely turn up all sorts of things whose source were unknown whether there is a crime or not. To call something whose source and cause is unknown as evidence is to say it causal related while simultaneously saying cause is unknown, thus relationship unknown; more "negative evidence." If my recollection of high school Latin is correct, this could be called "ignotium per ignotius", the unknown by the more unknown.

This "Ramsey defense" "thinking" is a direct and absurd contradiction that is without limit. With this kind of "investigative latitude", I dare say that one could "prove" anything; or at least, convince the deluded self that he or she has done so. "negative evidence?" Surely, thou jest. I repeat: All known evidence is local.

For 46 years, seven months and 12 days, David Vincent Sinopoli had to have thought he’d gotten away with killing Lindy Sue Biechler.

That’s the timespan between Dec. 5, 1975, when Biechler’s aunt and uncle found the 19-year-old stabbed to death in her Manor Township apartment, and July 17, 2022, the date Lancaster County detectives arrested him at his East Hempfield Township home.

On Thursday in a Lancaster County courtroom, Sinopoli, 69, admitted his terrible secret by pleading guilty to third-degree murder.

Sinopoli will almost certainly die behind bars.

Sinopoli also pleaded guilty to burglary and aggravated assault under a plea agreement. He was sentenced to 25 to 50 years in prison, receiving the maximum possible sentences for each separate crime — as the penalties existed in 1975. He also must pay prosecution costs of about $25,210.

Sinopoli did not explain why he killed Biechler.

“I’d just like to apologize to everyone including my wife,” Sinopoli said as he dabbed his eyes with a tissue.

Other than that, Sinopoli’s only other words were simple “yes, sir” and “I understand” as Lancaster County President Judge David Ashworth explained the rights Sinopoli was giving up by pleading guilty and questioned Sinopoli to ensure he was pleading guilty by choice and knew what he was doing.

Biechler’s murder had been Lancaster County’s oldest cold case. And Sinopoli had never been on investigators’ radar until 2018.

That’s when Craig Stedman, formerly the county’s district attorney and now a county judge, suggested Parabon NanoLabs take a look at DNA evidence from the Biechler case.

In December 2021, genetic genealogy — analysis of DNA evidence in conjunction with family trees — pointed investigators to Sinopoli.

From there, county investigators learned Sinopoli, his wife and another couple would be flying out of Philadelphia International Airport in February 2022. Detectives followed him and retrieved a coffee cup he threw in the trash.

From that cup, investigators obtained Sinopoli’s DNA sample. The sample was then compared with DNA samples taken from blood on Biechler’s pantyhose, and in June 2022, testing showed the samples matched.

‘Pain and suffering for so many’

It is unclear how well Biechler and Sinopoli knew each other, but their lives would have crossed while living as young married couples at 104 Kloss Drive, a four-unit building at Spring Manor Apartments, in 1974 and ’75.

At the time, Sinopoli was married to his first wife and Lindy was married to Philip Biechler. Sinopoli moved out sometime prior to August 1975.

In court, Philip Biechler spoke of how he met Lindy and the impact the murder had on him.

Philip Biechler said he met Lindy through her stepsister and husband, who worked with him, when he went to help paint their apartment.

“I was pleased and surprised that a pretty girl like Lindy found me interesting and wanted to get to know me,” Biechler said.

Lindy encouraged him to enroll in college to become an art teacher. As for herself, she worked in a greenhouse and wanted to open a flower shop one day.

“My family adored her and she loved them. She wanted to have a family someday and grow old together. The fairytale marriage,” Biechler said.

But after the murder, Biechler said he was lost in grief and sorrow.