JBR: Santa Bill McReynolds
Rise
McReynolds. They acted very strangely after the murder. There are
actually about 15 strange facts that made them suspicious (google it
and you'll see them), but one I rarely see mentioned is the fact that
they took off for Spain within days of the murder. If I'm not mistaken,
Spain usually refuses to extradite suspects who will face the death
penalty in the U.S. Did they go there to seek sanctuary in case they
were suspected, or in case they had left behind more evidence than they
thought they had? Then, when they realized that they were "safe," i.e.,
the BPD was focused on the family (as their fake ransom note attempted
to do) and did not suspect them at all, they felt safe enough to
return, and promptly sought the spotlight on NBC Today show, Geraldo,
and LKL.
Presumably their DNA was not a match. However, they had a son who was a
burglar/kidnapper, and I'm not sure if his DNA was checked. I'm not
even sure if the DNA was the killer's, unless the same DNA was in the
panties.
When you start looking into them, there are about a zillion suspicious
things (including that Janet talked to JBR alone by the spiral
staircase two days before the murder, and could've easily stolen the
ransom note pad, that Bill got a tour of the house from JBR, etc.
etc.). But that "flight to Spain" always made me suspicious.
Rise
Bernie Woodham
"Rise" <RiseD...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1158432413.7...@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> I've always been suspicious of Santa Bill and his wife, Janet
> McReynolds. They acted very strangely after the murder. There are
> actually about 15 strange facts that made them suspicious (google it
> and you'll see them),
What you say is interesting, but I wish you would have posted a link
rather than refer people to a google search. That takes time and it gets
wearisom trying to verify everything a poster has to say.
I've put myself in the habit of providing links for things I say as much
as possible. (Especially in regards to this case as there are so many
differences in regard to what the facts are.)
tiny dancer
My first choice was always McReynolds and wife too. 'Strange' is putting it
mildly IMO. The coincidence of their own daughter being abducted on the
exact same date, 22 years earlier is mind-boggling. But what made it stand
out even more is seeing someone ask them about that event live, on Larry
King one night. And their reaction to the question, soemthing about 'until
that moment they'd completely forgotten about their own child having been
abducted on that same date years earlier.' I mean, who EVER forgets the
date their daughter was abducted? Especially when it's a date that is so
memorable, christmas!
'Santa's *shrine* to JonBenet was also troubling to say the least. The wife
actually writing a play about the event. What kind of people 'forget' their
child was kidnapped, and memorialize it by writing a play of a similar
nature? I'd think most people want to put an event such as that *behind*
them.
Boulder LE stated that McReynolds was too fragile to have carried out the
murder, yet only a month later there are photo's of him and the mrs.,
traipsing across Europe with santa lugging heavy suitcases.
I didn't know they had a son who was a burglar/kidnapper. Wonder if his DNA
has been checked? They were already strange/suspicious enough even without
the son IMO. Both of them gave me the creeps when I saw them on a couple of
the news programs. And it's a known fact that pedophiles often play roles
like 'santa' to have easy access to children.
JonBenet had told someone that 'she had a secret, santa was coming back to
see her *after* christmas.' Certainly she would accompany santa downstairs
willingly. And having a 'midnight snack' is something little kids associate
with santa. How many of us always left a plate of cookies out for santa
when our own kids were that age?
Santa and the mrs. had been in the Ramsey home on numerous occasions. And
IIRC, I heard somewhere that santa had a key to the ramsey home. JonBenet
had shown him her bedroom, he had a tour of the whole house. And the two of
them, santa and the mrs. gave me the willies big time.
td
>
Cliff and Linda Griffith
news:U-ydnZ7ZNrhG05HY...@insightbb.com...
>
> "Rise" <RiseD...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1158432413.7...@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> > I've always been suspicious of Santa Bill and his wife, Janet
> > McReynolds. They acted very strangely after the murder. There are
> > actually about 15 strange facts that made them suspicious (google it
> > and you'll see them),
>
> What you say is interesting, but I wish you would have posted a link
> rather than refer people to a google search. That takes time and it gets
> wearisom trying to verify everything a poster has to say.
I found this [below] about the McReynolds, but I'd like to see Rise's cite
for this statement...especially the zillion suspicious things:
When you start looking into them, there are about a zillion suspicious
things (including that Janet talked to JBR alone by the spiral
staircase two days before the murder, and could've easily stolen the
ransom note pad, that Bill got a tour of the house from JBR, etc.
etc.). When you start looking into them, there are about a zillion
suspicious
things (including that Janet talked to JBR alone by the spiral
staircase two days before the murder, and could've easily stolen the
ransom note pad, that Bill got a tour of the house from JBR, etc.
etc.).
The article below says that Bill McReynolds was given a tour of the house in
1995, not the year of the murder. Also, the police interviewed and took
samples from Mr. and Mrs. McReynolds on Feb. 7, after they returned from a
month-long trip to Spain. If they were in Spain for a month, beginning
shortly after Christmas, I feel certain they had had those reservations for
quite awhile. If they waited until Dec. 26 or 27, they would've had to pay
a high price...and they were probably on a fixed-income.
http://www.thedailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1997/03/03-1.html
Linda
Cliff and Linda Griffith
news:4QZOg.2912$eW5...@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> My first choice was always McReynolds and wife too. 'Strange' is putting
it
> mildly IMO.
> 'Santa's *shrine* to JonBenet was also troubling to say the least.
I don't know about a "shrine", but his handmade harps were eerie.
The wife
> actually writing a play about the event. What kind of people 'forget'
their
> child was kidnapped, and memorialize it by writing a play of a similar
> nature? I'd think most people want to put an event such as that *behind*
> them.
Are you referring to the play, "Hey, Rube" that Janet McReynolds wrote in
1976? It was fiction based on the Sylvia Likens kidnapping case. I'm not
familiar with that case, but reports were that she was kept in or killed in
a basement. As far as I know, Janet didn't write a play about JBR. I think
it was that you wrote "writing a play" (rather than "wrote") that made me
think you were talking about JBR in reference to a play.
Linda
Rise
Re: extradition from Spain. As shown below, even when it comes to
terrorism, Spain has qualms about extraditing suspects who might face
the death penalty:
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/custom/attack/bal-te.probe13dec13,0,6495194.story?coll=bal-attack-utility
"Even with such assurances, foreign policy analysts say, Ashcroft is
unlikely to easily erase concerns among countries such as Britain,
France and Spain, which have arrested suspected terrorists. Those
nations refuse to extradite suspects without guarantees that defendants
would not face the death penalty, either in federal courts or military
tribunals."
Various links on Santa Bill and wife:
http://jonbenetramsey.pbwiki.com/Intruder%20Theories
http://users.1st.net/mwells/JonBenet.htm
http://www.webbsleuths.org/dcforum/DCForumID35/25.html
http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/09241999petersonconference.htm
http://www.cu.edu/silverandgold/messages/1233.html
http://tinyurl.com/g6zr4
Rise
> differences in regard to what the facts re.)
Rise
> The article below says that Bill McReynolds was given a tour of the house in
> 1995, not the year of the murder.
Did I say it was the year of the murder? People can remember house
layouts for a year - especially if they're obsessed with a little girl
who lives there. He also might've drawn up a layout map of the house
right after the tour and kept it.
Also, the police interviewed and took
> samples from Mr. and Mrs. McReynolds on Feb. 7, after they returned from a
> month-long trip to Spain. If they were in Spain for a month, beginning
> shortly after Christmas, I feel certain they had had those reservations for
> quite awhile. If they waited until Dec. 26 or 27, they would've had to pay
> a high price...and they were probably on a fixed-income.
Yes, and murders can be planned. Especially if they were both involved.
Nothing says they didn't plan the trip after planning the murder.
Santa was overly affectionate toward JBR, imho. He kept her vial of
"stardust" from Dec '95 to Aug '96 and took it with him to his
open-heart surgery. This is a present from a little girl he sees one
time a year, at most! Very odd, if you ask me. At her funeral, he
mentioned talking to her "in her bedroom" (consciousness of guilt?) and
talked about his little harp of dead children's names on which he had
"left room for JonBenet" (did he know she was going to die
young?)....weird!
There was also a Christmas card from Santa Bill found in JBR's
wastebasket (in her bedroom) after the murder promising a surpise after
Christmas, or something like that phraseology. If I had been on the
BPD, that would've set off major red flags right then and there!
> http://www.thedailycamera.com/extra/ramsey/1997/03/03-1.html
Thanks for the link!
Rise
> Linda
EnEss
> 'Santa's *shrine* to JonBenet was also troubling to say the least. The
> wife
> actually writing a play about the event. What kind of people 'forget'
> their
> child was kidnapped, and memorialize it by writing a play of a similar
> nature? I'd think most people want to put an event such as that *behind*
> them.
There was no shrine that I've ever heard of. And as Linda said, the play was
not about JonBenet Ramsey. It was about a horrendous murder in the 1960s
involving a teenage girl who was turned over along w/ her sister by her
derelict parents to the care of a neighbor they barely knew (so the father
could get work traveling w/ a circus) and the girl suffered the most
horrific last months of her life imaginable---details too terrible for me to
relate even to a crime NG.
It's a weird thing to write a play about IMO, and a very eerie coincidence
in that years later, the author's neighbors would have a 6-year-old daughter
found murdered in the basement of her family home, and an eerie coincidence
the event transpired on the same date 22 years earlier the McReynolds'
daughter was abducted along w/ her friend.. But it doesn't make either of
the McReynolds killers. And the play is really not related in any way to the
trauma the McReynolds' daughter suffered.
> Boulder LE stated that McReynolds was too fragile to have carried out the
> murder, yet only a month later there are photo's of him and the mrs.,
> traipsing across Europe with santa lugging heavy suitcases.
Oh yes, photos. Where did those appear again? Not in one of those tabloids,
like The Globe or something? You know, the ones you're always decrying
people get their gossip-milled, unsubstantiated, so-called facts of the case
from?
> I didn't know they had a son who was a burglar/kidnapper.
Yes, according to The Globe.
> JonBenet had told someone that 'she had a secret, santa was coming back to
> see her *after* christmas.' Certainly she would accompany santa
> downstairs
> willingly. And having a 'midnight snack' is something little kids
> associate
> with santa. How many of us always left a plate of cookies out for santa
> when our own kids were that age?
That pineapple the autopsy found in the child's stomach indicated it had
been digesting about 2 hours before death occurred. Perhaps, after
JonBenet's pineapple snack w/ Santa, JonBenet played w/ the toys Santa
brought her in his secret visit to distract her a couple of hours while he
sat at the kitchen table writing out that long ransom note.
> Santa and the mrs. had been in the Ramsey home on numerous occasions. And
> IIRC, I heard somewhere that santa had a key to the ramsey home.
Oh yeah, I heard he had a key too. I remember now...I read it in The Globe!
There now, what more "proof" does anyone need?
> JonBenet had shown him her bedroom, he had a tour of the whole house.
> And the two of
> them, santa and the mrs. gave me the willies big time.
I remember a lot of people here saying the same thing about Jessica
Lunsford's family...they gave them the willies. But that was before they saw
the piece of slime bunking in the tralier kitty-corner from the family.
And what about Mike Helgoth? And Gary Oliva? And the pervert that assaulted
that little girl in JonBenet's dance class 6 mos. later? Weren't you "sure"
one of them had to be "the one" at one time or another?
NS
(add sbc before global to email)
ponyduck
Bill McReynolds was definitely an odd character. If you want to read
the transcript of the interview you refer to above, it's here:
http://www.webbsleuths.org/dcforum/DCForumID70/23.html
One thing he says in it that struck me as very odd when I first read
it was the following:
(Bill McReynolds): "She was not into material things as far as I
know. In fact, Wolf, I thought she was a little bit older than she
was. And when I first heard about the murder and saw it was a
6-year-old girl, I thought quickly, that "oh, I've got three more
years with her at least," and then, I realized that, that was not
true. That it was over. And I think that her spirit, in a way, has
been diminished because it's not going to be able to continue in the
way that it should be."
I mean, what's that part about "oh, I've got three more years with her
at least"? Back when I first read it years ago, I remember that
striking me as weird & nonsensical. It immediately came back to my
mind when reading the Karr emails--Karr mentioned several times that
he tended to lose interest in little girls after 9 years old. Just
kind of an odd coincidence.
I don't know if McReynolds had anything to do with JBR's death, but I
can certainly see why people might suspect him.
--pony
EnEss
> Linda Griffith wrote:
>> The article below says that Bill McReynolds was given a tour of the house
>> in
>> 1995, not the year of the murder.
> Did I say it was the year of the murder? People can remember house
> layouts for a year - especially if they're obsessed with a little girl
> who lives there. He also might've drawn up a layout map of the house
> right after the tour and kept it.
Dozens of people got a tour of the Ramsey home when the parents opened up
the house to visitors for some Boulder Christmas house tour, either or year
or 2 before the murder. There were also dozens of people who were in that
home in the years the Ramseys lived there, many of them multiple times.
> Also, the police interviewed and took
>> samples from Mr. and Mrs. McReynolds on Feb. 7, after they returned from
>> a
>> month-long trip to Spain. If they were in Spain for a month, beginning
>> shortly after Christmas, I feel certain they had had those reservations
>> for
>> quite awhile. If they waited until Dec. 26 or 27, they would've had to
>> pay
>> a high price...and they were probably on a fixed-income.
> Yes, and murders can be planned. Especially if they were both involved.
> Nothing says they didn't plan the trip after planning the murder.
A great many people who have the means to travel, do travel extensively,
especially in retirement years. And retired people who enjoy traveling quite
often take long trips to warmer climes during winter months when they live
places where winter is cold. Spain is such a place. Incidentally, the
Ramseys traveled to Spain too, later in 1997. I remember how the tabloids
too suggested the trip might be an attempt to flee the law.
> Santa was overly affectionate toward JBR, imho. He kept her vial of
> "stardust" from Dec '95 to Aug '96 and took it with him to his
> open-heart surgery. This is a present from a little girl he sees one
> time a year, at most! Very odd, if you ask me.
It sounded to me as though he was deeply touched by the gift of the glitter
JonBenet, a 4-year-old child gave him when they met, calling it stardust and
telling him it would bring good luck to him. I can fully understand why this
memorable gift from such a sweet little girl would mean so much to him that
he would bring it w/ him for heart by-pass surgery.
>At her funeral, he
> mentioned talking to her "in her bedroom" (consciousness of guilt?) and
> talked about his little harp of dead children's names on which he had
> "left room for JonBenet" (did he know she was going to die
> young?)....weird!
Did he say he left room on the harp for JonBenet's name from Day One?
Or--more likely--did he say would add her name to the harp now (after her
death)?
> There was also a Christmas card from Santa Bill found in JBR's
> wastebasket (in her bedroom) after the murder promising a surpise after
> Christmas, or something like that phraseology. If I had been on the
> BPD, that would've set off major red flags right then and there!
Not true. The mother of a friend and playmate of JonBenet's told police that
JB had played at her house the day before Christmas and excitedly told the
playmate's mother that she had seen Santa and he told her he would pay JB a
secret, special visit after Christmas. There was nothing about a card from
Santa found in the wastebasket saying he'd pay a visit.
When my older son was 4, he told us he'd stayed up Christmas night and kept
looking out his window and actually saw Santa Claus show up in his sleigh
with the reindeer and park outside in front of the apartment building and go
inside w/ his sack of toys. Kids say all kinds of things. Unfortunately, not
all of it completely reliable.
tiny dancer
"Cliff and Linda Griffith" <grif...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:tu_Og.29$zE...@newsfe03.lga...
Sorry, guess my writing like I speak has gotten me misunderstood yet again.
I was remembering the first time I saw Bill & Janet on LKL. I'd seen
Bill/santa on an earlier LKL once or twice. But then he was on with his
wife. That was the time that a caller asked the question about their own
daughters abduction. And Larry says "you had a daughter that was kidnapped
too?" And Janet says something to the effect of "well yeah, now that you
mention it, I guess we did" words to that effect. As though this was the
first time it dawned on the two of 'em, santa and the mrs, that 'yeah, I
guess our daughter was abducted on the same date twenty two years before.'
It was their totally off the wall reaction to the callers question that
floored me. I remember poking rico and saying "did you just hear what I
did?" I mean, I was flabbergasted by Janets reaction. And the caller said
something like 'didn't you write a book about your daughters abduction?"
And then Larry pipes in again, 'you wrote a book about it?' And mrs. claus
says "well not a book, I wrote a play based somewhat on it."
I mean even *dopey* Larry seemed taken aback at all this. the fact that
their own daughter had been abducted, the fact that it was on the exact same
date, the fact that they'd *apparently* forgotten all about it, down to the
'slap my forehead' reaction they had when the caller mentioned it, and then
the fact that the wife wrote something or other about it. Even dense as a
doorknob Larry King seemed flabbergasted by all this new information that
came from that one callers questions.
I'd already thought santa was very strange,. to say the least, when I saw
him on the one or two prior shows, minus the mrs. But then when I saw the
two of 'em together, and heard all this other stuff, I just couldn't believe
these two could have 'forgotten' they also had a little girl who was
abducted on christmas night.
IIRC, it was santa alone, on one of his first visits to LKL, who mentioned
his *shrine* to JonBenet. He talked really goofy about her. I can't
remember what it was he said right now, but I do know it made my stomach
churn and gave me the creeps listening to him discuss his *relationship*
with JonBenet. YOu know how some people have 'gay-dar'? Well old santa
set off my 'pedo-dar' big time. He talked very creepy about JonBenet. And
something about 'now she was his *little angel*. The whole time he was
talking my stomach was churning.
td
>
>
tiny dancer
"EnEss" <star...@global.net> wrote in message
news:2V3Pg.2460$IA....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
What happened to the *new* non-attack ng? Weren't you the one that was
promoting that?
td
tiny dancer
"ponyduck" <lab...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:3sipg2h40tg8ncv39...@4ax.com...
Thanks, yes, I remember seeing this program too. But the one where the
first mention of their own daughters abduction was before this one, with
Larry as the host.
>
> One thing he says in it that struck me as very odd when I first read
> it was the following:
>
> (Bill McReynolds): "She was not into material things as far as I
> know. In fact, Wolf, I thought she was a little bit older than she
> was. And when I first heard about the murder and saw it was a
> 6-year-old girl, I thought quickly, that "oh, I've got three more
> years with her at least," and then, I realized that, that was not
> true. That it was over. And I think that her spirit, in a way, has
> been diminished because it's not going to be able to continue in the
> way that it should be."
>
> I mean, what's that part about "oh, I've got three more years with her
> at least"? Back when I first read it years ago, I remember that
> striking me as weird & nonsensical.
It struck me the same way. Every time I saw santa on LKL, he seemed to get
wierder, more whack-o with his *thoughts*. Just reading it again brings
back the willies.
Here's a few more quotes:
W. MCREYNOLDS: Well, I will tell you that -- I won't tell you about what
happened to me as a child because that's not relevant
J. MCREYNOLDS: The basic thrust and the parallel that I am now seeing with
the JonBenet case is that the victim, in my play, was a scapegoat for the
sins of the community. My play was loosely based on, or suggested by, a
real-life murder, which occurred in Indianapolis in 1965, which another
coincidence happens to be the year of my daughter's birth.
J. MCREYNOLDS: I feel that she has been made a scapegoat. Exactly, that she
is being punished for the sins of the global village, that people are
heaping on her the sins that perhaps they themselves feel. And she's being
made a scapegoat.
She is being murdered again and again every time they put some of those
videos on the talk shows. They talk endlessly about the priority or the
impriority of having these beauty pageants.
To me, that is ...
W. MCREYNOLDS: Obscene.
But as I said, she believed in me so completely as Santa that we had a
different kind of relationship than we might have had otherwise.
It immediately came back to my
> mind when reading the Karr emails--Karr mentioned several times that
> he tended to lose interest in little girls after 9 years old. Just
> kind of an odd coincidence.
>
> I don't know if McReynolds had anything to do with JBR's death, but I
> can certainly see why people might suspect him.
>
> --pony
I don't know either pony. All I know is of all the 'cast of characters' in
this whole mess, the McReynolds were definitely very strange to say the
least.
I remember thinking to myself, 'I would never allow that man close to my
children' when contemplating that he'd played santa year after year. Gave
me the creeps.
td
d~
wrote:
(snip)
>(Bill McReynolds): "She was not into material things as far as I
>know. In fact, Wolf, I thought she was a little bit older than she
>was. And when I first heard about the murder and saw it was a
>6-year-old girl, I thought quickly, that "oh, I've got three more
>years with her at least," and then, I realized that, that was not
>true. That it was over. And I think that her spirit, in a way, has
>been diminished because it's not going to be able to continue in the
>way that it should be."
>
>I mean, what's that part about "oh, I've got three more years with her
>at least"? Back when I first read it years ago, I remember that
>striking me as weird & nonsensical.
In context, he could have meant that he thought Jon Benet was at least
9 and that it must have been a different girl (one who was 6) who was
killed.
I say that phrase quite a bit at work: "I've got 3 more/less
[measures] with that." Usually when I'm trying to explicitly point
out how woefully inaccurate the other person's data is.
just a thought / possibility.
d~ ( 2¢ )
--
* FYI: I don't check mail at this @ddy.
Rise
indicates quotations from other sources.
EnEss wrote:
> "Rise" wrote:
> > Did I say it was the year of the murder? People can remember house
> > layouts for a year - especially if they're obsessed with a little girl
> > who lives there. He also might've drawn up a layout map of the house
> > right after the tour and kept it.
>
> Dozens of people got a tour of the Ramsey home when the parents opened up
> the house to visitors for some Boulder Christmas house tour, either or year
> or 2 before the murder. There were also dozens of people who were in that
> home in the years the Ramseys lived there, many of them multiple times.
Two responses:
(1) Being in the house is not the same as getting a tour.
(2) Even so, as you say, lots of people got a tour. One of those, we
know for sure, was Bill McReynolds. Not only that, he got the tour from
JonBenet herself, including the basement. A child can be manipulated to
let you stay in a specific place and linger, to look for certain things
to do with a planned crime, etc., unlike a probably brisk "Home
Beautiful"-type tour. Even if I'm exaggerating the differences, the
fact remains that one person we know for sure received a tour was BM.
> > Also, the police interviewed and took
> >> samples from Mr. and Mrs. McReynolds on Feb. 7, after they returned from
> >> a
> >> month-long trip to Spain. If they were in Spain for a month, beginning
> >> shortly after Christmas, I feel certain they had had those reservations
> >> for
> >> quite awhile. If they waited until Dec. 26 or 27, they would've had to
> >> pay
> >> a high price...and they were probably on a fixed-income.
>
> > Yes, and murders can be planned. Especially if they were both involved.
> > Nothing says they didn't plan the trip after planning the murder.
>
> A great many people who have the means to travel, do travel extensively,
> especially in retirement years. And retired people who enjoy traveling quite
> often take long trips to warmer climes during winter months when they live
> places where winter is cold. Spain is such a place.
And your point is? I was merely adding a fact that could add to a
profile of B&JM as suspects.
Incidentally, the
> Ramseys traveled to Spain too, later in 1997. I remember how the tabloids
> too suggested the trip might be an attempt to flee the law.
Just adds to the validity of my original contention that the
McReynolds's trip might be seen, if taken as part of a profile, as an
attempt to flee as well.
> > Santa was overly affectionate toward JBR, imho. He kept her vial of
> > "stardust" from Dec '95 to Aug '96 and took it with him to his
> > open-heart surgery. This is a present from a little girl he sees one
> > time a year, at most! Very odd, if you ask me.
>
> It sounded to me as though he was deeply touched by the gift of the glitter
> JonBenet, a 4-year-old child gave him when they met, calling it stardust and
> telling him it would bring good luck to him. I can fully understand why this
> memorable gift from such a sweet little girl would mean so much to him that
> he would bring it w/ him for heart by-pass surgery.
I believe she was 5 when she gave him the gift (1995), if you want to
be precise about it. Apart from that, I could also see it the way you
present it. It could be seen either way -- as an innocent affection or
as an overdone affection. I guess I'm not tied to one interpretation,
it's just the fact that it was 8 months from the time of the gift to
his surgery makes me lean in favor of the second. Still, I agree that
your interpretation is quite possible. If that were the only factor we
were considering re: BM, we wouldn't be having this conversation. I'm
saying, you cannot deny that it would fit into a pattern of obsession
w/JonBenet and/or pedophilia. I'm not saying it proves it, but it does
fit into it.
> >At her funeral, he
> > mentioned talking to her "in her bedroom" (consciousness of guilt?) and
> > talked about his little harp of dead children's names on which he had
> > "left room for JonBenet" (did he know she was going to die
> > young?)....weird!
>
> Did he say he left room on the harp for JonBenet's name from Day One?
> Or--more likely--did he say would add her name to the harp now (after her
> death)?
You made me look this up more carefully. Here's one source:
http://ooscarboroughoo.eponym.com/blog/_archives/2006/9/11/2316848.html
<<McReynolds loved JonBenet. His fireplace was littered with
photographs of her. When Newsweek reporter Dan Glick visited McReynolds
at his Nederland home, McReynolds showed him a small wooden harp with
the names of dead children carved on it's side. When McReynolds held
the harp up, he shared a small secret with the veteran reporter, "I've
saved a small place right here for JonBenet's name." >>
The way I took that, back then when I first heard it, was that he saved
a place after she died. Still, it's kind of an odd statement (assuming
he was quoted correctly, that is), and might be taken as part of a
pattern of odd statements.
> > There was also a Christmas card from Santa Bill found in JBR's
> > wastebasket (in her bedroom) after the murder promising a surpise after
> > Christmas, or something like that phraseology. If I had been on the
> > BPD, that would've set off major red flags right then and there!
>
> Not true. The mother of a friend and playmate of JonBenet's told police that
> JB had played at her house the day before Christmas and excitedly told the
> playmate's mother that she had seen Santa and he told her he would pay JB a
> secret, special visit after Christmas. There was nothing about a card from
> Santa found in the wastebasket saying he'd pay a visit.
I've seen it cited in several sources, one of which was the above URL:
<<Bill McReynolds gave JonBenet a card that said she would "recieve a
special suprise" after christmas. The card was found in her trash
shortly after the murder.>>
I've seen this repeated in enough sources that I believe it's true,
although I can't cite a completely reputable source at the moment.
Notice that the card promised a "surprise," whereas JonBenet herself
announced she would be getting a special, secret visit from Santa after
Christmas:
http://www.webbsleuths.org/dcforum/DCForumID35/25.html
<<A friend of the Ramseys told police JonBenet had confided in her that
Santa promised her a special visit after Christmas was over.>>
When McReynolds was asked about this by Steve Thomas, he denied it.
However, as described by one website, the way the question was asked
was odd. According to Bonnie Wells:
http://users.1st.net/mwells/JonBenet.htm
<<Pages 111, 112 and 113 in Thomas's book were very interesting to me
}.....
"McReynolds, who hugged Patsy in church during the memorial service,
was anything but a roly-poly Jolly Old Elf. Instead he was a frail
sixty-seven year old man with a flowing white beard who was still
recovering from heart and lung surgery performed in August 1996, only
four months before the murder.
Sick or not, we weren't going to cut him any slack in our first
interview. The Ramsey's had put him on their early list of suspects,
and a witness had told police that JonBenet said a "Secret Santa" was
going to visit her. McReynolds knew nothing about that."
Wait...wait...wait a minute! Am I wrong here, or is there a vast
difference between a "secret visit from Santa," and a "visit from a
Secret Santa?" Anyone else catch this? I quoted what JonBenet told
Barbara on Christmas Eve. She did NOT say she was to receive a visit
from a "secret Santa," as Thomas states in his book. No wonder
McReynolds said he didn't know anything about a "Secret Santa!">>
Apart from the difference in meaning between "Secret Santa" and "secret
visit from Santa" that Bonnie Wells notices, which just confuses the
issue, I also wonder if Thomas just took McReynolds's word for it that
he "knew nothing about that." Did Thomas even question McReynolds on
what "surprise" he was going to give JonBenet after Christmas? Was he
going to send another card, or was it going to be a more sinister
"surprise"? Apparently, Thomas does not address that in his book
(although I haven't read it).
> When my older son was 4, he told us he'd stayed up Christmas night and kept
> looking out his window and actually saw Santa Claus show up in his sleigh
> with the reindeer and park outside in front of the apartment building and go
> inside w/ his sack of toys. Kids say all kinds of things. Unfortunately, not
> all of it completely reliable.
Your son presumably wasn't assaulted, thank God, within days of telling
you that. If he had been, God forbid, you might've later wondered if
he'd seen an intruder dressed as Santa wandering the neighborhood.
JonBenet, unfortunately, WAS murdered within 48 hours of making that
statement. That unfortunate outcome makes this evidence something that
should be given great consideration.
The other thing that makes it different is that you son said it to you,
whereas JonBenet insisted it was a "secret" and told only her "best
friend" (who either told her mom, or her mom overheard). That's a bit
different, and POSSIBLY more suspicious, becuase it's a common perp
tactic to tell the child something and say, "Let it be OUR little
secret."
The other obvious difference is JonBenet's statement indicated personal
contact with someone who called himself Santa (presumably Santa himself
told her he was going to make a visit), whereas your son's fantasy was
apparently a matter of seeing Santa at a distance, a much more benign
fantasy, imho.
I followed this case closely for a while when it happened, and I was
amazed that I never heard about this statement of JonBenet until just
recently. I'm not sure it's even in the Ramsey book (although I didn't
read it cover-to-cover). Things that need to be considered in
evaluating this statement are:
(1) Was JonBenet prone to invent "invisible friends" and assign
actions/thoughts/feelings to them?
(2) Was JonBenet prone to trying to impress her friend with stories and
tales of her own life?
(and probably other questions I can't think of right now...)
To sum up, I'm not saying that they did it. I'm only saying they are
pretty suspicious characters in all this, have no alibi except each
other, and until the case is closed, should be looked at closely. We've
only gone over a fraction of the oddities in coincidences, facts, and
their own behavior that I believe should set off red flags (OK,
"zillions" was an exaggeration in my first post, sorry!).
It may turn out they're both harmless as fleas, and the Santa was just
a Santa who loved children, as he claimed (that interview they posted
lower down in the thread actually made me suspect Janet a bit less in
some ways, but moreso in others -- but that's fodder for another post).
That's fine by me. I'm just looking at the other possibility.
This murder is so horrific. I'm not sure how much longer I can keep my
attention turned onto it. While I was doing so, though, I thought I'd
bring up my suspicions of this couple (and possibly their son). There
are certainly no dearth of other suspects (Helgoth, etc.) to discuss as
well. I'm sure that I will feel somewhat bad about these posts if the
McReynoldses are proven innocent by catching the real killer(s), but in
the meantime, I believe that seeking the truth about this horrific
crime is more important, even than honoring the dead unconditionally.
Similarly, I've now given a public "mea culpa" for suspecting the
Ramseys for a long time after this happened (but when I hear how the
police pushed and pushed this theory and the press as well, and brought
up no other real suspects for years and years I don't wonder that I
thought so; still, I'm a bit ashamed). In contrast, I have always been
somewhat suspicious of the McReynoldses, and time has not altered that.
Rise
Cliff and Linda Griffith
> You made me look this up more carefully. Here's one source:
> http://ooscarboroughoo.eponym.com/blog/_archives/2006/9/11/2316848.html
> According to Bonnie Wells:
>
> http://users.1st.net/mwells/JonBenet.htm
> <<Pages 111, 112 and 113 in Thomas's book were very interesting to me
> }.....
> Rise
Who is Bonnie Wells?
You do realize, don't you? that the "sources" you are quoting and for which
you are giving the URLs are websites and forums of individuals giving their
opinions. Webbsleuths has a lot of cites and factual information; but when
you go to a forum or a blog, you're getting an individual's or several
people's opinions, not necessarily facts. That "ooscarboroughoo" is not
"the Real Scarborough" (meaning Joe Scarborough, I assume), no matter what
he says on his site.
Linda
Rise
>
> You do realize, don't you? that the "sources" you are quoting and for which
> you are giving the URLs are websites and forums of individuals giving their
> opinions. Webbsleuths has a lot of cites and factual information; but when
> you go to a forum or a blog, you're getting an individual's or several
> people's opinions, not necessarily facts. That "ooscarboroughoo" is not
> "the Real Scarborough" (meaning Joe Scarborough, I assume), no matter what
> he says on his site.
Of course I realize that. Bernie asked me for links, so I provided some
of the links I've been looking at recently. These aren't all the lniks
I've been looking at -- sometimes I forget to save every link I look
at.
But, everything I've cited as evidence I've found substantiated on
several sites, including news sites. Like I said, apparently this
weekend I forgot to save some links so I can't find them again easily.
After all, I'm not being paid to do this. However, in the future, I'll
try and bookmark the sites I visit more assiduously.
And Bonnie Wells, I suppose, is a person who's created a webpage on
JBR, with both her opinions as well as reputable sources which she
QUOTES, giving sources and page nos. I presume she's not lying about
her sources or miquoting them significantly. If you can find a
misquote, please let us all know. Obviously, her opinions are just
that.
The story about the card being in JBR's wastebasket was in several
sources I saw on the internet, including reputable ones. One problem I
have is I haven't read the Thomas, Schiller, or, completely, the
Ramseys' book. Like I say, I really have a hard time delving into the
details of this case because it is so horrific. But I do what I can on
the internet, and I've been doing a pretty darn good job. If there's
some specific fact you don't believe, let me know and I'll try to
research it for you, as time allows. Or research it yourself. Whatever.
But Bernie asked for links, I gave him the links I had at that point. A
lot of those links led to OTHER links, newstories, such as the
following:
CBS ran a story last year that pretty much says it's "game over" for
the parents being guilty -- barring the extremely unlikely scenario of
them having an unknown male accomplice:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/16/48hours/main661569.shtml
==begin quote==
After a murder investigation that went nowhere, the answer to the
question, "Who killed JonBenet," is likely in the Denver police
department crime lab.
"I believe the technology of today makes it extraordinarily difficult
for a killer not to leave his calling card," says police forensic
specialist Greg LaBerge, referring to the suspect's complete DNA
profile.
He believes he has the DNA for the man he suspects is the killer of
JonBenet Ramsey: "It would be very, very helpful to the investigation
to have that DNA matched to an individual."
The crime lab has two spots of JonBenet's blood found on the underwear
she was wearing the night of the murder. Mixed in with that blood is
the DNA of an unknown person. It has taken years to isolate, but
forensic scientists in Colorado now have a complete DNA profile of the
killer. They know the killer is a male. What they don't know is his
name.
Augustin and Gray are convinced that the DNA sample belongs to
JonBenet's killer, because of a small amount of matching DNA that also
was found under the 6-year-old murder victim's fingernails.
[.........]
Boulder police worked almost single-mindedly to try to prove they
killed their daughter, JonBenet, but a grand jury failed to indict the
Ramseys -- in large part because of one critical piece of evidence.
It was the unexplained male DNA in JonBenet's underwear.
"Right now, the DNA profile that's in hand doesn't match anyone
associated with the investigation, so that would include the parents,"
says LaBerge, the Denver police scientist who believes this is the last
and best hope to crack the case. "If the DNA never matches someone, the
case, depending on the rest of the investigation, may never be
solved."
Now, the same DNA that saved the Ramseys from indictment is finally
being used to check out the dozens and dozens of suspects who were
ignored for years.
==end quote==
Rise
Bo Raxo
tiny dancer wrote:
>
>
> My first choice was always McReynolds and wife too. 'Strange' is putting it
> mildly IMO. The coincidence of their own daughter being abducted on the
> exact same date, 22 years earlier is mind-boggling. But what made it stand
> out even more is seeing someone ask them about that event live, on Larry
> King one night. And their reaction to the question, soemthing about 'until
> that moment they'd completely forgotten about their own child having been
> abducted on that same date years earlier.' I mean, who EVER forgets the
> date their daughter was abducted? Especially when it's a date that is so
> memorable, christmas!
Yes, that would be amazing...if it were true. But the McReynolds'
daughter was actually abducted December 26th, the day after Christmas.
Add to that the fact that McReynolds and his wife were excluded as
authors of the note; that McReynolds is hardly the type to write about
being a "small foreign faction" anyway; that McReynolds could hardly
have crawled through that basement window on which the intruder theory
turns.
>
> I didn't know they had a son who was a burglar/kidnapper.
And I don't know it either. If somebody provides a link to a credible
source (note: "credible" does not mean some idiot posted a comment
somewhere claiming this) I'll consider it.
>Wonder if his DNA
> has been checked?
Hair (and handwriting) samples were taken from Bill and his wife.
Since you seem to think the DNA on the underwear was so important, the
fact that there was no match should put your suspicions about
McReynolds to rest.
Bo Raxo
EnEss
"tiny dancer" wrote:
> What happened to the *new* non-attack ng? Weren't you the one that was
> promoting that?
First, I wasn't attacking you. Sorry if you thought I was.
Second, my only point was, you were the one that was saying here a couple of
weeks ago (and rightly so) that it's terrible for people to use
unsubstantiated rumors that were circulated by the tabloids as a credible
source and to think of such stories as fact. I agree that you are completely
right about this, but the same is as true of using tabloid reports
condemning anyone under the intruder theory as it is to condemn either of
the Ramseys or any of their family. Some of the things you were saying about
Bill McReynolds, like him having a key to the house or that he hauled heavy
luggage around Europe in the month after JonBenet's death, was "information"
straight out of the tabloids and not substantiated by any credible news
sources.
I do understand why you're suspicious of McReynolds. I was sure leary of him
too when I read all the stuff about him in the Schiller book. But I can't
argue he wasn't thoroughly investigated by LE, and I can't dismiss the
reasons he was eliminated as a credible suspect.
As for the my other comment (that I'm assuming you viewed as a possible
"attack" on you), I have read numerous theories by you why other suspects
that have been closely looked at in this murder are good bets for having
committed this crime. The ones I can recall off the top of my head are Gary
Oliva, Michael Helgoth and the pervert who was arrested for assaulting that
little girl from JonBenet's dance class about 6 mos. after the murder (or
was that person never apprehended? I can't remember now). Do you still think
any of these people could've been JonBenet Ramsey's killer? Or do you think
there's some way all of them/more than one of them could've been involved,
possibly including Bill McReynolds? Because if you focus on any one of these
people, it pretty much eliminates the others.
Which if any of the people mentioned do you think is the most likely
suspect? Or do you think someone not yet known or investigated is more
likely to be guilty than anyone so far named as suspects?
EnEss
<snip>
> When you start looking into them, there are about a zillion suspicious
> things (including that Janet talked to JBR alone by the spiral
> staircase two days before the murder, and could've easily stolen the
> ransom note pad, that Bill got a tour of the house from JBR, etc.
> etc.). But that "flight to Spain" always made me suspicious.
Interesting what you say about the possibility of the notepad having been
stolen. I haven't seen anyone suggest this before (although someone may have
and I just missed it) but I've been wondering when anyone would get around
to suggesting this. I think the more the ransom note has been discussed on
the NG (for one, as well as in other internet discussions), the more people
who lean toward the idea of an intruder are forced to come to grips with how
little sense it makes that anyone would enter a house to either molest or
abduct a child and take the time to write a note like that (length and
detail) in the house--either while people were sleeping, or while they were
out. How to address this very serious problem in the intruder theory and
still make it work? I wondered when any intruder theory promoter would come
up with the idea that perhaps the notepad was stolen from the house not long
before re-entry to the house to carry out the crime, and the note left on
the stairs and the notepad returned to the desk or area from where it was
taken.
The problem w/ that explanation, however, is, why? Why would anyone do this?
Why would anyone "steal" -- or more accurately "borrow"--a notepad from the
Ramsey home to write a ransom note at another location, then return the
notepad to the house when the killer re-enters the home the night of the
murder? It's not as though notepads suitable for writing ransom notes are
hard to come by. It's not as though an ordinary notepad purchased from an
ordinary store selling stationary supplies would be particularly easy to
trace to its real source.
One theory I've heard tossed out there--a grasping at straws theory, if you
ask me--is that perhaps the killer used the notepad in the home deliberately
to "frame" the Ramseys by someone who wanted revenge against one of
them--John or Patsy. I find that one too convoluted to consider seriously
for more than a few seconds. Why would someone choose this particular crime
as a means for revenge? It's way too complicated, too convoluted and too
thriller novelesque to be a reliable and clever plan for bringing revenge
against an enemy.
In short, I see no credible reason why anyone plotting an abduction, sexual
molestation or murder of a little girl would steal a notepad from the
child's home to use for a ransom note. On top of that, the idea of returning
the notepad to its rightful place at the time of the crime is too absurd to
merit serious consideration. This would have to be the most consciencious
psycho-killer of all times.
As many problems as there are in trying to explain or understand why the
Ramseys would do all this to their own child, and as part of a cover up, the
main problem I have w/ any intruder theory is that, invariably, I have to
work too hard to explain answers to details that defy logic and leap out as
completely preposterous and unprecedented in the history of crimes committed
by home invaders.
waltbrad
EnEss wrote:
>
>. I think the more the ransom note has been discussed on
> the NG (for one, as well as in other internet discussions), the more people
> who lean toward the idea of an intruder are forced to come to grips with how
> little sense it makes that anyone would enter a house to either molest or
> abduct a child and take the time to write a note like that (length and
> detail) in the house--either while people were sleeping, or while they were
> out. How to address this very serious problem in the intruder theory and
> still make it work?
I don't see your point here. Why is it so difficult to imagine someone
being in the house and thinking about his crime? He/she may have been
in that house for quite some time. Coming upon a notepad may have
inspired the idea of leaving a note. Who's to say?
But, I can vividly imagine a person dwelling on his purpose for being
there as he waited the time through. The time and the excitement his
anticipation was causing him may have inspired this wild, irrational
note.
It's all speculative, but the point is I don't see why the note would
be a problem.
EnEss
"waltbrad" wrote:
> I don't see your point here. Why is it so difficult to imagine someone
> being in the house and thinking about his crime? He/she may have been
> in that house for quite some time. Coming upon a notepad may have
> inspired the idea of leaving a note. Who's to say?
OK, fine. So you're one who believes an intruder would write a lengthy
ransom note in the victim's house. My comments were directed to another
intruder theory in which the perpetrator was in the house prior to the night
of the crime and stole the notepad for the purpose of writing out the ransom
note at his or her leisure, in the privacy of his or her own home. What
would be the point of a theory like this? To address the very serious
problem of why an intruder, breaking into a house w/ the intent to abduct a
child, or kill or molest the child, would spontaneously develop the plan to
leave a ransom note. This would entail the author of the note feeling
perfectly at leisure to write out a long note, possibly putting his or her
thoughts into writing on the basis of information gleaned in his or her
search of the home, w/ no sense of being rushed or in fear of discovery,
hiding in a stranger's home while waiting to carry out some kind of
crime---an abduction for ransom (decided impromptu on the spot), an
abduction for purposes of sexual molestation (then why the ransom note?), a
sexual molestation on the premises (again, then why the ransom note?) or a
molestation-murder on the premises (again, why the ransom note?).
Anyone who supports an intruder theory but suggests the notepad in the
Ramsey home was more likely stolen in advance of the entry into the home to
commit the crime, written out elsewhere and then the notepad returned to the
home along w/ the ransom note when the intruder returns to carry out the
crime--whatever it was supposed to be at that point---sounds like someone
who sees why the idea of an intruder writing a ransom note in the Ramsey
home is such a major problem to the intruder theory.
Such a theorist is not you, obviously. You suggest you see no problem w/ the
notion that an intruder in the home to carry out some fiendish plan,
whatever it was, would decide to write a ransom note on the spot. But it
would seem that some people trying to make the intruder theory work *are* in
fact having a problem w/ that piece of things. They see it as a stumbling
block and are trying to come up w/ some explanation that works around that
implausibility factor. My response to that was to illustrate how that
alternate theory is as or more riddled w/ implausibility as the original
stumbling block problem--that the note was written on the premises of the
victim's home at the time of the crime.
You don't see why an intruder writing on a ransom note on the premises, at
the time of the crime, is implausible or unlikely. So my comments would not
be directed to you. But it would seem as though there are a number of people
who would like very much to make the intruder theory work but are having a
big problem w/ the part where the ransom note is written on the spot.
Iarnrod
> I think the more the ransom note has been discussed on
> the NG (for one, as well as in other internet discussions), the more people
> who lean toward the idea of an intruder are forced to come to grips with how
> little sense it makes that anyone would enter a house to either molest or
> abduct a child and take the time to write a note like that (length and
> detail) in the house--either while people were sleeping, or while they were
> out.
Could you explain why you think something as simple as this -
breaking in, having up to three or four hours alone waiting for your
victim to return, and with all the psycho crap the planned crime
entails, writing that utter piece of fantasy on the notepad, makes no
sense to you? It's all so very simple, it seems to me.
> How to address this very serious problem in the intruder theory and
> still make it work?
What serious problem? Your simply calling it a serious problem
doesn't make any serious problems materialize here. Especially with
the evidence that points to an intruder but not to parents, as opposed
to all the evidence against the parents working equally well with the
intruder theory.
Well, let's see. Your intent is to molest/kidnap/harm the little
girl. You see the family leave, you go around back and get in through
the open basement window, or maybe the butler door which was found
unlocked (maybe an escape route, hard to know now). You wander around,
you find the father's paycheck stubs that have the name of your
victim's family on it, and which shows the $118,000+ which, of course
being a stranger you don't know this is deferred compensation and not
cash on hand. You take your paper bag with the rope upstairs, case the
bedroom scene, leave your bag in the guest room and forget to retrieve
it, you find the notepad, your imagination is all juiced up already
from your anticipation so you live out some weird fantasy and write
that note. Honestly, I don't see how you think this is something that
takes any great effort to "come to grips" with.
Of course, it makes sense to use a notepad from the house as opposed to
bringing your own note. Foremost, if you use your own paper you leave
open the possibility of having it tracked back to you somehow. To me it
makes MORE sense to use something at the scene, if it were a true
kidnapping. But I don't think it was, as evidence suggests. It was a
sick fantasy role playing. It actually shows very little more than a
rudimentary familiarity with the family. It knows the last name and
father's first (easily ascertained from material at hand) and that he
is with a company. Maybe, just maybe, the supposed ransom amount is
based on his bonus - that's open to debate - but even that argues
against the parents. They would have known since it was their finances
that the $118,000 wasn't cash - it was deferred.
> I wondered when any intruder theory promoter would come
> up with the idea that perhaps the notepad was stolen from the house not long
> before re-entry to the house to carry out the crime, and the note left on
> the stairs and the notepad returned to the desk or area from where it was
> taken.
I agree. I don't think the perp is someone whose name is known at
this point.
> In short, I see no credible reason why anyone plotting an abduction, sexual
> molestation or murder of a little girl would steal a notepad from the
> child's home to use for a ransom note.
I agree. I don't believe it ever left the house. If the perp broke in
after the family left for the White's house, he'd have had plenty
of time to fantasize and write the note, maybe even on an impulse.
> As many problems as there are in trying to explain or understand why the
> Ramseys would do all this to their own child, and as part of a cover up, the
> main problem I have w/ any intruder theory is that, invariably, I have to
> work too hard to explain answers to details that defy logic and leap out as
> completely preposterous and unprecedented in the history of crimes committed
> by home invaders.
Are you saying it is unprecedented that someone has left a note at the
scene of a crime that was written by the perp from materials at the
scene? I don't believe that. For instance, I've read of bank
robberies in which the perp writes his demand note on a bank deposit
slip at the counter before approaching the tellers.
I can't understand why you believe it would be "preposterous" for
the perp in the Ramsey case to have written his note on the family's
pad while he waited in secure quietude fantasizing about his upcoming
crime. This makes much more sense - given that the note is highly
delusional and role-playing - than to try to imagine the parents
writing it up at the last minute in a panic after slaughtering their
child.
Iarnrod
> My comments were directed to another
> intruder theory in which the perpetrator was in the house prior to the night
> of the crime and stole the notepad for the purpose of writing out the ransom
> note at his or her leisure, in the privacy of his or her own home. What
> would be the point of a theory like this?
Agree this is ridiculous.
> To address the very serious
> problem of why an intruder, breaking into a house w/ the intent to abduct a
> child, or kill or molest the child, would spontaneously develop the plan to
> leave a ransom note.
This isn't a problem. I don't know why you label it a serious
problem, any more than attributing such a far-fetched thing to the
parents would be.
> This would entail the author of the note feeling
> perfectly at leisure to write out a long note,
Well, the family was gone for three or four hours. That would certainly
give the perp a sense of leisure, and even so, he's there to do what
he did, so staying in the house, leisurely or not, is not only NOT
unthinkable, it's the ONLY thing to think. He was there for the girl.
Why would he NOT stay?
> possibly putting his or her
> thoughts into writing on the basis of information gleaned in his or her
> search of the home, w/ no sense of being rushed or in fear of discovery,
> hiding in a stranger's home while waiting to carry out some kind of
> crime---an abduction for ransom (decided impromptu on the spot), an
> abduction for purposes of sexual molestation (then why the ransom note?), a
> sexual molestation on the premises (again, then why the ransom note?) or a
> molestation-murder on the premises (again, why the ransom note?).
If you understand that it was a very sick mind that produced this
crime, not of your objections would even rise to the unthinkable range.
Hiding while waiting? Check. No problem, that's why he broke in. Why
the ransom note? Sicko fantasy.
> Anyone who supports an intruder theory but suggests the notepad in the
> Ramsey home was more likely stolen in advance of the entry into the home to
> commit the crime, written out elsewhere and then the notepad returned to the
> home along w/ the ransom note when the intruder returns to carry out the
> crime--whatever it was supposed to be at that point---sounds like someone
> who sees why the idea of an intruder writing a ransom note in the Ramsey
> home is such a major problem to the intruder theory.
The stolen notepad theory was advanced off the cuff by someone else
here. I don't know that anyone who believes in a non-family perp has
actually stated they believe that's what happened. I sure don't. To
me the evidence is clear of an intruder not known to the family.
> Such a theorist is not you, obviously. You suggest you see no problem w/ the
> notion that an intruder in the home to carry out some fiendish plan,
> whatever it was, would decide to write a ransom note on the spot. But it
> would seem that some people trying to make the intruder theory work *are* in
> fact having a problem w/ that piece of things.
Who? The poster who suggested the stolen notepad scenario didn't
confess to having any problems with the suggestion that someone wrote
it in the house; only if one considered Santa a suspect did that
suggestion come into play since McReynolds had been in the house
earlier.
Logically, that doesn't imply that the poster was also having a
problem with the notion that an unknown perp could just as well have
written it in the house while the family was out.
> They see it as a stumbling
> block and are trying to come up w/ some explanation that works around that
> implausibility factor.
One, there's not an implausibility factor, at least not any less than
with the theory that the parents somehow did all this. Two, to suggest
more thinking about the issue with regard to McReynolds doesn't
logically suggest there's a problem with other unknown perps. That
doesn't follow.
> My response to that was to illustrate how that
> alternate theory is as or more riddled w/ implausibility as the original
> stumbling block problem--that the note was written on the premises of the
> victim's home at the time of the crime.
Can you explain how that's a stumbling block?
> You don't see why an intruder writing on a ransom note on the premises, at
> the time of the crime, is implausible or unlikely. So my comments would not
> be directed to you. But it would seem as though there are a number of people
> who would like very much to make the intruder theory work but are having a
> big problem w/ the part where the ransom note is written on the spot.
I think you may be reading way too much into the other poster's
intent.
Bo Raxo
Iarnrod wrote:
> EnEss wrote:
> > I think the more the ransom note has been discussed on
> > the NG (for one, as well as in other internet discussions), the more people
> > who lean toward the idea of an intruder are forced to come to grips with how
> > little sense it makes that anyone would enter a house to either molest or
> > abduct a child and take the time to write a note like that (length and
> > detail) in the house--either while people were sleeping, or while they were
> > out.
>
> Could you explain why you think something as simple as this -
> breaking in, having up to three or four hours alone waiting for your
> victim to return, and with all the psycho crap the planned crime
> entails, writing that utter piece of fantasy on the notepad, makes no
> sense to you? It's all so very simple, it seems to me.
>
Crimes follow patterns - *especially* sexually motivated crimes. Show
me another crime where someone snuck in to a house, and while the
family slept molested and killed the child, leaving her body in the
home. And left aransom note.
Or show me another case where an intruder left a three page ransom
note, *and* the victim's body in the house.
On the other hand, I can show you cases where a parent killed her
child, and then tried to stage the crime scene to look like a stranger
intruder did it.
Bo Raxo
waltbrad
I don't accept the thinking that says this crime has to fall into a
pattern when it doesn't fall into any pattern.
You might find cases where parents killed their children and staged a
crime scene, but it will not have the specifics this one does.
EnEss
> Are you saying it is unprecedented that someone has left a note at the
> scene of a crime that was written by the perp from materials at the
> scene? I don't believe that.
Well, you'd be wrong then. Not only is it a fact that there is no crime on
record in which an abductor wrote a ransom note on paper and w/ pen found in
the family's home, but it's also the case that there is no abduction or
murder on record in which a ransom note of any kind was left in the home AND
the child's body was found in the home.
This fact was revealed by the FBI who ran these specific facts through their
database of all crimes on record and they came up empty--except in one case:
JonBenet Ramsey. This was mentioned in the Lawrence Schiller book and
reiterated in a recent artticle in Crime Magazine. I can provide the cite to
it if you want to see it. But yes, both specifics are unprecedented and
completely unique to the JonBenet Ramsey murder.
> For instance, I've read of bank
> robberies in which the perp writes his demand note on a bank deposit
> slip at the counter before approaching the tellers.
This isn't the same thing at all. The 2 aren't even close to comparable.
> I can't understand why you believe it would be "preposterous" for
> the perp in the Ramsey case to have written his note on the family's
> pad while he waited in secure quietude fantasizing about his upcoming
> crime.
I've explained in at least 2 other posts why I find this preposterous--and
not only why I do, but why professionals in different branches of LE do as
well. I know you've seen what I've written because you've replied to every
one of my posts--and to every post in every Ramsey thread as far as I can
tell. If you reject this explanation, that's your choice. But it's pointless
to go over and over such things.
I get that you can't understand why I think it's preposterous. And I don't
understand why you don't see how preposterous it is.
> This makes much more sense - given that the note is highly
> delusional and role-playing - than to try to imagine the parents
> writing it up at the last minute in a panic after slaughtering their
> child.
I agree that the parents writing a ransom note on a pad in the house and
leaving the pad lying around after finishing the note would be an incredibly
bizarre, non-sensical and foolish thing to do. I agree that it would take an
incredibly twisted state of mind for a parent to do such a thing after
killing a child, especially so when no effort was made to remove the body
from the home. A parent doing such a thing quite obviously could not have
thought through any sort of coherent plan. But do I think it's impossible
that a parent having killed a child accidentally and deciding to engage in a
cover up of the accident rather than seek immediate help for the child,
inventing a story if necessary for how the accident occurred, could be in a
state of mind that was that twisted and irrational? It's very hard to
imagine, but I can't say it's impossible. I think a person in a situation
like that would be nearly out of his or her mind w/ a host of overwhelming
emotions. Under such circumstances, how could I say any sort of bizarre and
irrational behavior on the part of a parent/s would be impossible? I can't.
Iarnrod
> "Iarnrod" wrote:
> > Are you saying it is unprecedented that someone has left a note at the
> > scene of a crime that was written by the perp from materials at the
> > scene? I don't believe that.
>
> Well, you'd be wrong then.
No, I wouldn't. You didn't get the context that led to my
statement. It was to disagree with your more general pronouncement that
it made no sense to you that someone would write a note at the crime
scene with material (pad and pen) found at the scene, as opposed to
bringing a pre-written note with them on their own paper. I explained
this is not unprecedented at all; in fact I often hear of bank
robberies, as I wrote up the thread, in which the perp writes out the
demand note on a deposit slip at the bank. We've all heard of this.
So the notion of preparing a note at the scene with material found at
the scene is in fact a common enough thing not to be unthinkable in
this context simply because it's an abduction/molesting gone bad as
opposed to a bank robbery.
> Not only is it a fact that there is no crime on
> record in which an abductor wrote a ransom note on paper and w/ pen found in
> the family's home, but it's also the case that there is no abduction or
> murder on record in which a ransom note of any kind was left in the home AND
> the child's body was found in the home.
>
> This fact was revealed by the FBI who ran these specific facts through their
> database of all crimes on record and they came up empty--except in one case:
> JonBenet Ramsey. This was mentioned in the Lawrence Schiller book and
> reiterated in a recent artticle in Crime Magazine. I can provide the cite to
> it if you want to see it. But yes, both specifics are unprecedented and
> completely unique to the JonBenet Ramsey murder.
That makes it all that much harder to apply generalities to it. If
there were a larger database of such crimes, we would have a greater
expectation for how they would go down. Since there isn't, who's to
say what would be normal.
> > For instance, I've read of bank
> > robberies in which the perp writes his demand note on a bank deposit
> > slip at the counter before approaching the tellers.
>
> This isn't the same thing at all. The 2 aren't even close to comparable.
Yes they are, in the larger context. The larger context of your
original remark was why the perp wouldn't bring his own
already-written note rather than use material at the scene - or even
sillier, steal it earlier and return it at the time of the crime, which
I agree is nonsense.
First, it is completely logical for a perp NOT to want to use his own
pad of paper. Just as CBI was able to determine the ransom note came
from the Ramsey's pad by comparing the tear patterns of each sheet
with what remained in the pad, the perp would be leaving a singular
clue by importing yet another foreign piece of evidence to the scene.
It's bad enough he left behind all other sorts of foreign forensic
clues that didn't come from the house. Those he might not have
anticipated or left behind in a rush - the coil of rope and bag he
forgot to retrieve in the guest bedroom, the unsourced baseball bat on
the ground outside the butler door that had fibers from inside the
house on it, the mix of fibers on JonBenet that couldn't be sourced
to the house, etc. Those could be inadvertent or left in a panic (bat
and rope). But to actually bring in something of your own that you
INTEND to leave behind is nuts.
Secondly, the fact that perps in other types of crimes will construct
and have constructed notes with materials at the crime scenes does mean
that it is not unthinkable in this case, even if it might be
unprecedented in such the highly unusual and extremely rare
circumstances of the Ramsey case. In fact, the extreme rarity of cases
with these circumstances makes it not unusual at all that ANYTHING
about it would be unprecedented. There's simply not enough of these
cases of abduction/molestation/murder/leaving the body and a note to
make ANY valid conclusions about how it ought to normally be done.
> > I can't understand why you believe it would be "preposterous" for
> > the perp in the Ramsey case to have written his note on the family's
> > pad while he waited in secure quietude fantasizing about his upcoming
> > crime.
>
> I've explained in at least 2 other posts why I find this preposterous--and
> not only why I do, but why professionals in different branches of LE do as
> well. I know you've seen what I've written because you've replied to every
> one of my posts--and to every post in every Ramsey thread as far as I can
> tell. If you reject this explanation, that's your choice. But it's pointless
> to go over and over such things.
Cite then. Molesters are sick fantasizers; I hope we can agree on that.
With three to four hours in the house, free to roam and examine things,
it's hardly preposterous to imagine him writing that awful, stupid
and immature note.
After all, it's not preposterous to think that a perp whose intent is
to kidnap/molest/harm the girl would wait at the house to do so.
That's the very intent of the crime, so it would be preposterous to
think he WOULDN'T wait. All you're doing is saying that something
that to me seems completely reasonable for the perp to do is for you
unthinkable and preposterous, but you're not presenting a compelling
argument for that impression.
And it's equally unprecedented for parents to slaughter their child
and then concoct a ransom note. So it cuts both ways.
> I get that you can't understand why I think it's preposterous. And I don't
> understand why you don't see how preposterous it is.
Because it plainly isn't. Your thinking defies the intent of the
crime.
> > This makes much more sense - given that the note is highly
> > delusional and role-playing - than to try to imagine the parents
> > writing it up at the last minute in a panic after slaughtering their
> > child.
>
> I agree that the parents writing a ransom note on a pad in the house and
> leaving the pad lying around after finishing the note would be an incredibly
> bizarre, non-sensical and foolish thing to do. I agree that it would take an
> incredibly twisted state of mind for a parent to do such a thing after
> killing a child, especially so when no effort was made to remove the body
> from the home. A parent doing such a thing quite obviously could not have
> thought through any sort of coherent plan. But do I think it's impossible
> that a parent having killed a child accidentally and deciding to engage in a
> cover up of the accident rather than seek immediate help for the child,
> inventing a story if necessary for how the accident occurred, could be in a
> state of mind that was that twisted and irrational? It's very hard to
> imagine, but I can't say it's impossible. I think a person in a situation
> like that would be nearly out of his or her mind w/ a host of overwhelming
> emotions. Under such circumstances, how could I say any sort of bizarre and
> irrational behavior on the part of a parent/s would be impossible? I can't.
Nor can you say, with equal vigor, that it's unthinkable for a sicko
pervert child molester to fantasize about his crime and construct that
note while he lay in wait. To me, that is far more believable, if we
accept that either scenario is unprecedented.
To me, the weight of all this points clearly to an unknown intruder -
the note, the foreign evidence - and not to the parents (although I
hasten to add, no, this doesn't exclude the parents! I just find it
preposterous to exclude the intruder on the same evidence of lack of
precedence when that factor also extends to the parents).
Iarnrod
The irony here of course is that the skepticism you extend to an
intruder doing something out of the pattern also applies to the
parents, but you've glossed over that.
If crimes follow patterns, then show me another crime when parents
accidentally harm their child, decide to finish her off rather than
seek help by cruelly garroting her with an intricate noose-like device
hastily constructed, then wrote a bizarre ransom note, stacked a
suitcase near a basement window after first trying to put her body into
it, go out and find duct tape they don't have, and then instead of
just laying low and trying to evade detection, they immediately call
police in, hand them the pad on which the note was written to compare
their handwriting to the note, and so on and so on.
OTOH, I can show you cases in which a molester tried to kidnap a
victim, molested her/him in the process and ended up killing the
victim, then tried to cover his tracks. If you want to be THAT general
about describing the parent theory above, I can make the intruder
theory just as reasonable by being as general too.
Skepticism works both ways, but it has to work a lot of overtime to
believe the parents did it versus an intruder already predisposed to
bizarre and sick behavior.
EnEss
"Iarnrod" wrote:
> The irony here of course is that the skepticism you extend to an
> intruder doing something out of the pattern also applies to the
> parents, but you've glossed over that.
I don't see how he's glossed over it. There's no case that's exactly
identical to the JonBenet Ramsey murder, from any perspective.
Bo's point, as I took it, is that there are crimes on the book of parents
staging a crime scene to cover up a death resulting from an act of violence
gone over the top, although nothing on the scale of what JonBenet's parents
would've had to do in the most bizarre and unique instance. By contrast,
there is no example in the history of documented crime of a person breaking
into a home, or getting in somehow surreptitiously for the purpose of
committing a crime and then doing all the things that were done in this
particular murder....writing a ransom note on the scene, demanding a ransom
sum of such an odd-ass, lowball amount, leaving the ransom note behind,
molesting the child w/ an object, murdering the child w/ both a blow to the
head and designing the intricate garrote (w/ implements found in the home)
to further strangle the victim AND leaving the body behind. And it's not
just a matter of there's no crime in which all those specific things
happened in a single murder before committed by either a pedophile, a
kidnap-for-ransom perpetrator or a revenge seeker, but that there's no crime
of any those types in which any combination of those things occurred.
In either case, it's an extremely bizarre and unique murder. However,
leaving aside the long list of specific peculiarities of the crime, it's
much closer to a cover up by family members for an accidental/child abuse
murder than to any crime committed by a non-family-member, either as a child
molestation, a kidnap for ransom or a crime of revenge.
> If crimes follow patterns, then show me another crime when parents
> accidentally harm their child, decide to finish her off rather than
> seek help <snip>
There have been cases of cover up of child abuse deaths in which the parent
or parents have not sought medical help to try to save the child, and some
in which more was done to a child near death to finish the child off.
> by cruelly garroting her with an intricate noose-like device
> hastily constructed,
The hastily constructed business is not material. In any cover up crime, the
cover-up events are "hastily enacted" by their very nature. I have read of
child abuse death cover ups where a strangulation was simulated on top of
another fatal or severely brtual injury, most likely to give the appearance
of psycho child killer at work, and possibly to detract from the true source
of the fatality. I've never heard of a garroting in a death of that kind,
but that's an example where there's a specific detail unique to this
particular murder. And the garroting would not have been as cruel as one
would imagine it to be if the victim was deeply unconscious and totally
non-responsive at the time it occurred. That could've been the case if the
gorroting and other brutalities were a cover-up to the fatal head injury.
> then wrote a bizarre ransom note, stacked a
> suitcase near a basement window after first trying to put her body into
> it,
The suitcase by the window detail is not material. If you want to theorize
there's evidence someone attempted to put the child's body into the
suitcase, then scratched the plan, that could be said in either case.
There's nothing especially noteworthy or unique w/ the suitcase that either
implicates or exonerates a parent in such an instance, or points more
forecfully to an intruder. The suitcase has no relevance to the discussion.
>go out and find duct tape they don't have,
What evidence do you have that a parent would have to run out for duct tape
in the middle of the night, or that the Ramseys didn't own a roll of duct
tape? There's no evidence they didn't have duct tape in the home. There is
some evidence OTOH that one of them might have bought duct tape not long
before the murder. Granted it's not *proof* there was duct tape in the home
at the time of the murder. But there's certainly no proof that there
*wasn't* any duct tape either. So the duct tape part of it has no relevancy
to the discussion either.
> and then instead of
> just laying low and trying to evade detection, they immediately call
> police in,
Lay low? Evade detection? To what end? How long could they go before they
would be forced to go public w/ the fact that their daughter was no where to
be found? They were due in Michigan to reunite w/ other family members
within hours of daybreak. They couldn't very well show up in Michigan and
pull a "Home Alone" moment, claiming their daughter's absence had escaped
their notice. If they cancelled the trip on some pretense that would have to
be invented just to buy some time, how far would that get them? At some
point, sooner rather than later, they would have to tell someone their child
was missing. If they "lay low" at home a few days, attempting to "evade
detection", reporting the child missing after hastily cancelling the trip to
Charlevoix, that would bring that much more suspicion on themselves than
reporting the disappearance right off the bat.
If the crime was a cover up for an accidental or child abuse death, they
really would've had no choice but to alert LE immediately that the child was
missing.
> hand them the pad on which the note was written to compare
> their handwriting to the note,
Oversight?
> OTOH, I can show you cases in which a molester tried to kidnap a
> victim, molested her/him in the process and ended up killing the
> victim, then tried to cover his tracks.
But no case like that in which a ransom note was left. Or in which a
kidnap-for-ransom plan spontaneously morphed into a murder and sexual
molestation by object situation. Or in which a ransom note was left w/ the
body of the intended victim found in the home. Or in which a ransom note was
written in the victim's home. Or in which an abductor-child molester-killer
tried to cover his tracks by leaving a ransom note.
> If you want to be THAT general
> about describing the parent theory above, I can make the intruder
> theory just as reasonable by being as general too.
You can't make the intruder theory "reasonable" by any adjustment of detail.
The best you've been able to come up w/ as far as the ransom note being
written in the home as an established precedent was mention of bank robbers
who have written robbery demands on a bank deposit slip in the bank when
they went in to rob the place. That's an example of how far a theorist must
work and stretch to make an intruder a possible suspect in the Ramsey murder
w/ a precedent to a crime "like it".
> Skepticism works both ways, but it has to work a lot of overtime to
> believe the parents did it versus an intruder already predisposed to
> bizarre and sick behavior.
In your opinion maybe. But there are a lot of people who find it takes a lot
more work, a lot more stretching the imagination and a lot more allowance
for multiple coincidences and odd-ass explanations to make any intruder
theory work.
EnEss
"Iarnrod" wrote:
> EnEss wrote:
>> "Iarnrod" wrote:
>> > Are you saying it is unprecedented that someone has left a note at the
>> > scene of a crime that was written by the perp from materials at the
>> > scene? I don't believe that.
>> Well, you'd be wrong then.
> No, I wouldn't. You didn't get the context that led to my
> statement. It was to disagree with your more general pronouncement that
> it made no sense to you that someone would write a note at the crime
> scene with material (pad and pen) found at the scene, as opposed to
> bringing a pre-written note with them on their own paper.
I got what you were saying. Why do you say I "didn't get the context"?
Because I don't buy it, doesn't mean I didn't get it.
>I explained
> this is not unprecedented at all; in fact I often hear of bank
> robberies, as I wrote up the thread, in which the perp writes out the
> demand note on a deposit slip at the bank. We've all heard of this.
I did see that comment of yours. It's a wonder to me you'd repeat it. How
can you promote a comparison of that nature w/o thorough embarassment? It's
so absurd, it's almost as though you're parodying yourself.
There's no comparison between a bank robber going into a bank, writing out a
robbery demand on a bank slip w/ a pen at the counter, then presenting the
note to a teller, pointing a gun or indicating an explosive device,
whatever, taking the money and running out of the bank to flee the law to a
child being found dead in a home following a brutal murder that included a
forceful blow to the head and a bizarre, ritualistic garroting
strangulation, and evidence of a molestation by object w/ a ransom note
found on the scene and traced to being written in the home at the time of
the crime, on materials found in the home. It's light years father apart
than comparing apples to oranges. It's more like comparing elephants to
caterpillars by saying they're both animals.
Now if you could show me a bank robbery in which the bank manager opens up
the bank in the morning to find a note left in some corner of the bank
demanding $118,000 which happens to be the amount of the bank CEOs bonus the
year before and then a few hours later, the vault is opened and all the
money is found inside along w/ the body of a teller who has been bludgeoned,
strangled w/ a garrote, sexually molested by an object and loosely bound w/
rope and her mouth covered w/ a strip of duct tape, then I would say you
have a scenario that's somewhat more analogous.
Btw, have you ever heard of a "bank robbery" fitting that description?
Please do share if you have--it would be a most interesting one for
disucssion.
> So the notion of preparing a note at the scene with material found at
> the scene is in fact a common enough thing not to be unthinkable in
> this context simply because it's an abduction/molesting gone bad as
> opposed to a bank robbery.
"Simply because"?? Where does the "simple" part come into it? Show me the
logical comparison to the 2 crimes please.
A bank robbery is a straight-forward crime in which a criminal enters a bank
for the specific purpose of getting a large sum of money out of the bank as
fast as possible. The robber knows he/she must make direct contact w/ people
in the bank to carry out the crime. The crime is very specific to getting
out of the bank w/ money. The plan does not morph from getting out of the
bank w/ money as fast as possible to one of hanging around the bank for
hours to getting into the vault w/ the money to spend time w/ the money and
possibly play w/ it. It does not morph into a murder plot or a sexual
molestation plot. If the robber does write the demand on a bank slip, the
demand will be short and to the point. The robber will order the teller to
put X amount of money, possibly of specified denominations, into a sack and
will not ask for an uneven sum, like $118,000. The note may warn the teller
not to alert police or put any detection devices in the money and there will
probably be a threat of harm if the teller does not comply. The note will be
a few sentences at the most. It will not go on for 2 or 3 pages. The note
will be presented to the teller and if the money is handed over, the robber
will flee the bank immediately, getting as far away as possible PDQ. The
robber will most likely not kill anyone unless it becomes necessary in the
escape, or possibly if he's recognized by someone.
It's amazing to me that you would offer this as a comparison. The 2
scenarios side by side could not be more different and IMO serve only to
underscore how utterly unthinkable it is for any criminal entering a home to
carry out an abduction for ransom to abandon that plan/object in favor of a
sexual molestation and murder, or for any criminal entering a home to molest
or murder a child to opt to write a ransom note while waiting to carry out
the crime, either on a whim or for any other imaginable reason.
>> This fact was revealed by the FBI who ran these specific facts through
>> their
>> database of all crimes on record and they came up empty--except in one
>> case:
>> JonBenet Ramsey. This was mentioned in the Lawrence Schiller book and
>> reiterated in a recent artticle in Crime Magazine. I can provide the cite
>> to
>> it if you want to see it. But yes, both specifics are unprecedented and
>> completely unique to the JonBenet Ramsey murder.
> That makes it all that much harder to apply generalities to it. If
> there were a larger database of such crimes, we would have a greater
> expectation for how they would go down. Since there isn't, who's to
> say what would be normal.
The fact that there are no abductions for ransom or sex crimes/murders
anywhere on the books at all in which the specifics to the JonBenet Ramsey
murder are duplicated speaks for itself. There's an enormous database of
such crimes--both of kidnap-for-ransom crimes and of child sex murders. What
you're looking for as an investigator is even a single case in either
scenario (kidnap-for-ransom or child sex murder) where the particulars to
JonBenet Ramsey's murder is replicated--even remotely. The fact that the
crime records could not produce even 1 where there was anything even
remotely similar tells you exactly what you were looking to find out. It
tells you that this is not the way a crime for either reason--a
kidnap-for-ransom or a child sex crime "would go down", as you say.
I don't think there's anything in crimes like abductions or molestations or
brutal murders that can be characterized as "normal"; but there are certain
patterns in all crimes that will be consistent, at least in certain aspects
of it, to other crimes of that nature or similar kind. Patterns that will
repeat themselves in some areas of the crime. When that doesn't happen and
it's imnpossible to match up more than 1 or 2 specifics of a crime w/ any
other like it on record, that casts extremely serious doubt on the theory
that a criminal under any of the scenarios suggested by the crime scene
likely perpetrated the crime.
But if the details of the crime match up more consistently w/ the history of
crimes staged to perpetrate a cover-up for an accidental death, it's only
natural that the investigator will be led in that direction. The specific
details of a crime don't have to match up in every single aspect to tell you
you're looking at the same kind of crime. You just have to look at which
type of crime it shares the most in common w/.
I doubt many people would look askance at the Ramseys if it was determined
the ransom note was written in the home and the child was not found in the
home AND had any attempt been made to collect the ransom. Whether the child
was recovered alive or not, or whether a body was recovered or not, not
nearly as many people would suspect the Ramseys, even if it was proved the
note was written in the home. If the note was shorter and to the point,
demanding a large, even sum of money w/ few specifics given, I'm pretty sure
a lot more people would find it more believable that a kidnapper did enter
the home, even if the note was written on the spot. I think everyone would
find this particular detail bizarre and shocking and would wonder why in the
world an abductor would do such a weird thing. But I doubt they would find
it impossible to believe, as long as the other facts of the case matched at
all consistently w/ an abduction for ransom.
The problem comes in w/ the combination of details that are completely at
odds w/ each other and cry out as contradictory.
> Yes they are, in the larger context. The larger context of your
> original remark was why the perp wouldn't bring his own
> already-written note rather than use material at the scene - or even
> sillier, steal it earlier and return it at the time of the crime, which
> I agree is nonsense.
In the context of a bank robbery, there's no advantage to the robber to use
the materials at the bank. The robber knows he must make direct contact w/
at least one person in the bank. So using the paper in the bank will not
provide the robber w/ any significant buffer to avoid being identified over
writing out the note in advance on his own paper. If you have to go in and
face someone directly to demand money, it hardly makes any difference what
paper you use. The hard part will be getting out of the bank w/o being
stopped (or killed), or just avoiding arrest after escaping the bank. It
hardly matters what paper you use--unless you use a paper w/ your name and
address on it.
Bank robbers who wait until they're in the bank to write the robbery demand
are probably the least competent criminals. I would bet among bank robbers
who have done this, the vast majority were apprehended.
> First, it is completely logical for a perp NOT to want to use his own
> pad of paper. Just as CBI was able to determine the ransom note came
> from the Ramsey's pad by comparing the tear patterns of each sheet
> with what remained in the pad, the perp would be leaving a singular
> clue by importing yet another foreign piece of evidence to the scene.
There must be billions of plain notepads in the world. Among them, there
must be millions that are identical and the paper has no distinguishing
feature that would lead a forensic scientist to a means of tracing the
originator of the notepad. I would think anyone so concerned w/ being traced
back by leaving a note he or she wrote it in advance on paper he/she
purchased somewhere before coming to the home would be way, way more
paranoid and anxious about sitting around in the house, taking all that time
to write out that fairly lengthy message when the occupants of the home
might return at any moment, or get up and go into some other part of the
house where the intruder would be discovered, or alternatively, evidence of
his presence or his crime would be discovered.
Why is the intruder of your imagination so utterly consumed w/ concern in
being traced by use of paper he or she purchased or found elsewhere while
being so totally blasé to the possibility of discovery while in the house
for what had to be an hour or more at least to write the ransom note and
carry out all aspects of the crime? Aren't the 2 facts a total dichotomy?
And for that matter, if the abductor is so concerned w/ using paper that
can't be traced back to him/her, why leave a ransom note at all? Why not
leave the house with the child and follow up w/ a phone call to the parents
soon after to make the ransom demand? That's how the great majority of
abduction-for-ransom schemes operate.
And if you argue there was never any thought or serious thought given to
collecting a ransom, why write the note at all? If the killer was so
concerned about leaving evidence that could be traced back to him that he
wouldn't want to use his own paper, why would he write out a ransom note
that provides a hand-writing sample and that also involves touching more
objects in the house that could collect forensic evidence from the cirminal,
like fingerprints or hairs or clothing fibers?
> It's bad enough he left behind all other sorts of foreign forensic
> clues that didn't come from the house. Those he might not have
> anticipated or left behind in a rush - the coil of rope and bag he
> forgot to retrieve in the guest bedroom, the unsourced baseball bat on
> the ground outside the butler door that had fibers from inside the
> house on it, the mix of fibers on JonBenet that couldn't be sourced
> to the house, etc. Those could be inadvertent or left in a panic (bat
> and rope). But to actually bring in something of your own that you
> INTEND to leave behind is nuts.
But you contend that the intruder in your theory DID bring in some of his
own materials which were left behind--you allude to them in your paragraph
here. So what's the difference? And why would that be any more "nuts" than
taking all that time writing out a ransom note in the house when the
occurpants of the home might discover him at any time? Or writing the ransom
note at all, which you suggest might've been some sort of fantasy role play?
If he's "nuts" enough to do any of that, how much more "nuts" would he be to
write a ransom note on a few sheets of generic writing paper that is
identical to millions of other sheets just like it all over the world?
> Secondly, the fact that perps in other types of crimes will construct
> and have constructed notes with materials at the crime scenes does mean
> that it is not unthinkable in this case, even if it might be
> unprecedented in such the highly unusual and extremely rare
> circumstances of the Ramsey case.
And I have just explained several times in addition to other people here
that what you're talking about has NOT been done in other crimes. There is
absolutely ZERO precedent for an abductor to write a ransom note in a
victim's home, using paper and writing implements found on the scene. And
there is NO precedent of a pedophile-sex molester-killer going into a house
to abduct a child or molest him or her on the premises or even taking the
child from the home AND LEAVING A RANSOM NOTE OF ANY KIND--WRITTEN ON THE
SCENE OR BEFORHAND.
Yet here you now refer to this happening previously as though there was even
one precedent of it. All you've been able to cite are attempted bank
robbers, probably on crack and probably getting arrested before the leave
the bank, writing their robbery demand on a bank slip and offer this up as
if it was in any way comparable to the subject of this discussion.
>In fact, the extreme rarity of cases
> with these circumstances makes it not unusual at all that ANYTHING
> about it would be unprecedented. There's simply not enough of these
> cases of abduction/molestation/murder/leaving the body and a note to
> make ANY valid conclusions about how it ought to normally be done.
Not only is there "not enough of these cases" (though one might argue one is
enough!), there is NOT ONE OTHER SUCH CASE IN THE HISTORY OF CRIME. That is
the whole point. The combination of factors in this particular murder do not
fit even in a very general way to any crime in history where a child was
abudcted for ransom, or molested and murdered, or killed for revenge against
someone in the family.
The fact that the crime in question doesn't fit any pattern of crime
specific to any of the above motives, yet many components of it fit the
pattern of staging as a cover-up in a domestic violence death tells the
objective observer a great deal.
>> I've explained in at least 2 other posts why I find this
>> preposterous--and
>> not only why I do, but why professionals in different branches of LE do
>> as
>> well. I know you've seen what I've written because you've replied to
>> every
>> one of my posts--and to every post in every Ramsey thread as far as I can
>> tell. If you reject this explanation, that's your choice. But it's
>> pointless
>> to go over and over such things.
> Cite then.
Cite what? The posts in which I've explained why this is preposterous?
Why on earth should I? If you don't recall any of it--oh that's right, you
have Alzheimer's, right?--then how will repeating any of it one more time
make any difference? I certainly have no desire to invest the wasted energy
and time into that effort.
> Molesters are sick fantasizers; I hope we can agree on that.
> With three to four hours in the house, free to roam and examine things,
> it's hardly preposterous to imagine him writing that awful, stupid
> and immature note.
Fine. You've made your position known many times over. Why do you find it
necessary to restate the same opinions over and over? You don't add anything
new to the discussion--you just restate again and again that you don't find
it perposterous that someone would enter a house illegally and take hours to
sit around and write a long ransom note. Exhaustive restatement does not
strengthen an argument.
Rise
>
> The hastily constructed business is not material. In any cover up crime, the
> cover-up events are "hastily enacted" by their very nature. I have read of
> child abuse death cover ups where a strangulation was simulated on top of
> another fatal or severely brtual injury, most likely to give the appearance
> of psycho child killer at work, and possibly to detract from the true source
> of the fatality. I've never heard of a garroting in a death of that kind,
> but that's an example where there's a specific detail unique to this
> particular murder. And the garroting would not have been as cruel as one
> would imagine it to be if the victim was deeply unconscious and totally
> non-responsive at the time it occurred. That could've been the case if the
> gorroting and other brutalities were a cover-up to the fatal head injury.
Note: this message will be discussing some very unpleasant details of
this crime; I will put spoiler space before and after it, but some of
the content may creep into my comments as well.
Not only have you "never heard of a garroting in a death of this kind"
(i.e. a supposed parental homicide), it has never happened. Why not?
Because the ties of parenthood mitigate strongly against such a method
of torture. Even parents who abuse their children usually do not kill
them on purpose. If they deal them a fatal blow accidentally, they do
not then proceed to then finish them off by torture.
I just don't get it: Do people who think the parents did it think
JonBenet was dead or not after the fatal head blow, presumably dealt in
anger? If she was dead, why concoct this bizarre scenario with the
ligature, etc.? Why not just put her in the basement and let her be,
construct the ransom diversion, and call the police? Wouldn't THAT have
been a lot simpler and easier?
If she were alive, why not take her to the hospital and try to revive
her? THIS has plenty of precedent. No doubt they would've tried to
cover up the source of the injury (claiming a fall or accident caused
it).
But to imagine that parents so loving toward their children as these
were, suddenly because of a loss of temper took a half-dead girl and
TOTURED her to death with a complicated LIGATURE constructed with
strange knots and using odd combinations of implements, all in the
space of thirty minutes or so, is just bizarre. To coin a phrase,
EnEss, it's just preposterous.
To further support what I'm saying, here is some of the injury info (no
pictures), somewhat graphic, to follow. Spoiler space left:
SPOILER
SPOILER
SPOILER
SPOILER
SPOILER
According to Lou Smit's site, the autopsy shows that JonBenet was
clearly alive while being garrotted, and fingernail marks in her neck
show that she struggled to get free (however, a conflicting view is
also presented below):
http://www.lousmit.com/intrudertheory.htm
==begin quote==
Smit's argument: Evidence shows JonBenet's injuries are vicious and
came before death -- not as part of an act of "staging" afterward. The
violence seems beyond the capability of even an enraged parent. "This
is a brutal murder -- this is not a kid knocked out and her death
staged."
Struggling to escape: Fingernail marks on JonBenet's neck indicate she
was trying to get the ligature off her neck, contrary to one police
theory that she was unconscious. "She is not knocked out, she is not
near death, she is fighting to stay alive," Smit said.
Depth of ligature mark: Autopsy photos show the ligature was tightened
deeply into her neck. "That was brutally, forcibly, deeply dug into the
furrows of her neck. This was not an easy strangulation. This was a
brutal strangulation."
Redness of ligature marks: Redness indicates injuries came before death
-- not after as part of staging. "If you try to put a rope around a
kid's neck after she's dead, you're not going to get a red mark like
that at all, you're going to get a white mark." Other abrasions on her
shoulders and leg also left reddish marks. "That means she was alive
and struggling, she was not dead. This is not staging."
Tiny eye hemorrhages: When a person is strangled, small blood vessels
in the eye and eye lid burst. "It will not happen unless a person is
alive." JonBenet's eyes showed these injuries.
Vaginal injuries: Something -- possibly one end of the broken
paintbrush -- was forced into JonBenet's vagina because her hymen was
partly torn. It was bleeding, so it happened before death. Smit said it
was the only tear in her vagina, so he doesn't think somebody was
sexually assaulting her over a long period of time. Plant materials
similar to the paint brush's wood shards are found in her vagina.
Head injury: Smit calls head injury very severe, but little bleeding
resulted -- only about two tablespoons of blood. In fact, he said, the
head injury wasn't noticed when she first was examined. There was no
cut on the scalp. Only after removal of the skull cap was the fracture
on the right side of her head apparent. Such an injury, he said, would
usually result in massive bleeding, and blood should have been found in
the house. "So when this happened, she was near death. I believe the
garrote was in place and huge pressure had been put there. . . . That's
why I believe the head blow came last, not first. . . . This was the
coup de grace on the job."
Response: Marks on JonBenet's neck come from attempt at manual
strangulation, with perpetrator's knuckles causing the abrasions.
Thomas theory doesn't dispute that JonBenet was alive when strangled by
the garrote. Experts disagree on whether JonBenet's vaginal injuries
point to prior abuse. Experts also disagree on when the head injury
happened. At least two have said it could have been before the
garroting. One of those, Ronald Wright, head of the forensic pathology
department at the University of Miami, reviewed the autopsy report for
the News n 1997. He said the blow to the head could have been 20 to 60
minutes before the strangulation because the brain showed swelling,
something that takes time to happen.
==end quote==
SPOILER
SPOILER
SPOILER
SPOILER
SPOILER
However, even Dr. Cyril Wecht (as I posted on another thread), who
apparently believes one of the parents did it, believes the garrotting
preceded the head blow. I believe that the "at least two" experts who
believe the blow could've come first are in the minority, if I'm not
mistaken.
But all agree, JonBenet was clearly alive when garrotted. It's totally
unpleasant -- no, it's digusting, sleep-depriving, and horrific -- to
think about those fingernail marks on her neck -- what they signify. I
cannot understand anyone who could imagine parents EVER doing that to
their child. But to imagine loving parents doing this torture to a
child, when they have NO history of prior violent, sicko fantasy
behavior, not to mention no history of even ABUSING their children at
all, is just, once again, preposterous.
> The suitcase by the window detail is not material.
"Not material"? Why not? Does it not allow an intruder to get in and
out quite easily by the window? There's a picture of Lou Smit crawling
in that window here:
http://www.acandyrose.com/lousmit.htm
It's a quite plausible entrance/exit point for an intruder. How can you
possibly say it's "not material," except to justify your irrational
contention that an intruder theory is "preposterous"?
> The hastily constructed business is not material. In any cover up crime, the
> cover-up events are "hastily enacted" by their very nature.
I love how you just summarily rule things "immaterial." I'm hoping
you're not a judge IRL, LOL!! Of course this is material. The
paraphernalia were not only "hastily enacted" (according to your
parent-killing/torturing scenario), they were extremely complex,
requiring extensive knowledge of knots, the technique of garrotting,
etc. Not to mention materials not found in the home (the rope). Not to
mention the further issue as detailed above that the parents would
suddenly have to transform from "angry and lost control" parents to
"highly in-control, so in-control that they could manufacture a
little-known torture device with obscure knots, then torture and
mutilate and slowly murder their child" parents.
Once again, preposterous.
Oh, and all that falderal about taking the pad out of the house: I just
saw that idea mentioned on one website (a "non-reliable" post to a
newsgroup, I'm sure). I didn't say I supported the idea, I was just
intrigued by it, so I threw it out there. A big objection to this idea
is that, JM would probably have not done it just because Patsy might've
noticed a pad missing and gotten suspicious -- maybe even of JM
herself. If JM did this crime, she was very methodical and organized,
and I doubt she would've left the plan open to being ruined by one
small detail like Patsy becoming suspicious because of stolen items.
Even such a small item as a pad might've been used every day -- how
does JM know? So I don't think JM would've done that.
I think, like Iarnrod, that the perp (whoever it was) had loads of time
in the house to write it. And they knew they would -- after all they no
doubt spied on them leaving, piling all the kids in fancy dress outfits
into the car. I suspect they either knew somehow from other sources
that they were going to a dinner that would last hours. Alternatively,
they might've trailed them to the Whites' house, seen them going into a
clearly "dinner-type situation" and doubled back to invade the Ramsey
house at their leisure.
Smit also brought up a good point: why would a perp carry in a ransom
note when it could clearly be presumed there would be paper in the
house, what with two schoolchildren there? Why carry around evidence
against oneself before one's even committed a crime? I also think the
perp enjoyed the feeling of the thrill of invading these people's homes
and lives and screwing with them, IN THEIR OWN so-called "SECURE ABODE"
(while possibly knowing that the prospect of being caught was minimal
because they'd seen them enter the Whites' for dinner). Clearly, the
ransom note supports such malice. Here's what Smit told Katie Couric:
http://www.acandyrose.com/lousmit.htm
==begin quote==
"Smit: "Well, there's a couple of good reasons for not taking a
ransom note into the house. If you're caught, for instance, taking in
a ransom note, you have it in your pocket when you come into the house,
for instance, and there's an alarm that goes in or the police check
the house or somebody sees you, it's pretty obvious what your plan
would have been."
Smit: "That's a very important part of this too. And that, I think,
shows that the person who was writing this note had plenty of time to
do it. And it starts off with "Dear Mr. And - " and it starts the
word M on Mrs. Then it stopped. Between that practice note and the
ransom note, by looking at the torn out pieces of the - of the ransom
note, I believe there was close to six pages that are missing. Those
pages are not found in the house either, Katie."
==end quote==
> In your opinion maybe.
In my opinion as well.
> But there are a lot of people who find it takes a lot
> more work, a lot more stretching the imagination and a lot more allowance
> for multiple coincidences and odd-ass explanations to make any intruder
> theory work.
I find the exact opposite. The intruder theory works just fine.
Intruder comes in, writes note during the hours the Ramseys are out,
hides, waits for family to return/fall asleep, grabs JonBenet, leaves
note on steps as diversionary tactic, takes JonBenet to basement and
tortures/murders her, and climbs out window. What's the difficulty?
Sure, it requires a violent sicko to do this, but it would also require
a sicko violent parent to garrotte and torture their daughter to death.
To me, the latter is about a "zillion" times more unlikely.
Rise
Rise
> The fact that there are no abductions for ransom or sex crimes/murders
> anywhere on the books at all in which the specifics to the JonBenet Ramsey
> murder are duplicated speaks for itself. There's an enormous database of
> such crimes--both of kidnap-for-ransom crimes and of child sex murders. What
> you're looking for as an investigator is even a single case in either
> scenario (kidnap-for-ransom or child sex murder) where the particulars to
> JonBenet Ramsey's murder is replicated--even remotely. The fact that the
> crime records could not produce even 1 where there was anything even
> remotely similar tells you exactly what you were looking to find out. It
> tells you that this is not the way a crime for either reason--a
> kidnap-for-ransom or a child sex crime "would go down", as you say.
Unless it was being made up by a very sick and perverted person as she
goes along, a movie reviewer perhaps, who wanted to "write her own
script," so-to-speak, break all the rules, and prove she could do it
better than any screenwriter. Brings a sicko pervert male with her for
the dirty work, but she's the mastermind.
A woman with a great power of imagination who'd used it before, but
wanted to enact it now in real life. Who knew about another sicko woman
who masterminded a torture/killing in a basement. Who'd even written a
play about it, but then denied on a TV show that the torture took place
in a basement, even though she had to know that one of the few books
written on the case was ENTITLED "The Basement."
The ransom note also provides motivation for the sicko pervert male,
who thinks he's going to get money as well as his sicko fantasies
fulfilled. She uses all the cliches in the movies she's reviewed in the
ransom note. (I'm not saying the sicko male is her husband, by the way.
He may not even have had to be there. Her association with him alone,
may have calmed the child enough to lure her from the bedroom quietly.)
Obviously, this is just a theory. I'm not saying it happened this way,
or that it is even likely. But it explains the dual nature of the crime
you mention above.
The ransom was for one party to the conspiracy (not the mastermind; she
knew that would be too risky; her motivation was simply to be the
mastermind). The sexual gratification was for one to commit, and the
other to watch. The killing was inevitable.
One needs imagination to understand this crime. Sickos have plenty.
Remember Manson? The Manson case also involved a psychopath with
imagination. I think this perp may turn out to be very similar in
psychology to Manson.
All is just my 2 cents.
Rise
EnEss
> Not only have you "never heard of a garroting in a death of this kind"
> (i.e. a supposed parental homicide), it has never happened. Why not?
> Because the ties of parenthood mitigate strongly against such a method
> of torture. Even parents who abuse their children usually do not kill
> them on purpose. If they deal them a fatal blow accidentally, they do
> not then proceed to then finish them off by torture.
I agree. Neither of the Ramsey parents are likely candidates, IMO, for death
by torture of one of their children. Nor do I believe either of them would
turn to garroting as a means of discipline. I've seen suggestions in a few
places re John Ramsey (or less often, Patsy) using the garrot as part of a
bizarre sexual abuse ritual, but I find this extremely difficult to believe.
It's a pretty huge leap IMO to go from someone getting off on dressing up
her daughter in clothes and make up that appear to sexualize her in a
competition environment where all contestants are doing the same to getting
off on something as sick and bizarre as the garroting and molesting by
object. As for John Ramsey, it's unfathomable to me that if he had something
like this in his personal make up that there would not be some sort of red
flag pointing to it somewhere in his past or in the details if his life that
were invasively investigated. Same thing with the brother. If the boy had
this kind of sickness in him, something would've turned up in his life since
then pointing to serious trouble IMO. Can I say any of those things w/ 100%
certainty. No. I can't. But I would find it extremely difficult to believe.
I have heard of some child abuse deaths, however, where the parent/caregiver
attempted to cover up the death by staging a fake molestation so that it
appeared the child was a victim of a pedophile killer. In some of those
cases, I've heard of fake strangulations added to the staging, but
admittedly never one where there were indications the child was still alive
at the time, or one involving the horrible, bizarre garrote. I must admit
that one is a singularly unique and gruesome touch.
> I just don't get it: Do people who think the parents did it think
> JonBenet was dead or not after the fatal head blow, presumably dealt in
> anger? If she was dead, why concoct this bizarre scenario with the
> ligature, etc.? Why not just put her in the basement and let her be,
> construct the ransom diversion, and call the police? Wouldn't THAT have
> been a lot simpler and easier?
That scenario would certainly have been far, far simpler and much more
straight-forward than all the rest of it, w/ the garroting and the ransom
note and the fake sexual molesting. I haven't seen many people suggest
either of the parents could've garroted the child first. A much more
prevailing theory among those who reject the intruder theory is that it was
either a cover-up of the brother, or a cover-up of an accident at the hands
of one of the parents that resulted in a horrific head injury, and that
everything else followed and was a panicked cover-up. I've seen several
people suggest about the garroting either that it was done w/o the person
realizing the child was still just barely alive or done in a panic to hasten
death after discovery the child was not quite dead yet. But either scenario
presumes the child was so near death that it would not have been a torturous
end for her in which she struggled or was aware of what was happening--just
a stomach-turning one for a parent committing it, if that was how it
happened.
What would be the reason for a parent using a garrote like this to cover up
an accidental death? It's hard to imagine, but one thought is the person
concocting the idea might be thinking something like this would appear more
like a mad sex killer committed all of it and possibly also distract from
the fatal head injury. It would be an unbelievably sick thing to do, and it
would take a certain level of cold-bloodedness for a parent to perform this
kind of staging on a beloved child fallen victim to an accidental head
injury. I never imagined that either John or Patsy Ramsey could be sick or
cold-blooded enough to be likely candidates for something of this nature.
But admittedly I know nothing about them. I never met them or talked to
either of them or had anything to do w/ them. All I know about them is
pretty much like everyone else--just what I've read and seen via the media.
That doesn't make me (or anyone in the same position as me) the best judge
of what someone unknown to me might be capable of. In a NG like this, all of
us have come across stories where people did the most shocking and
unimaginable things. And in these stories, how many times have we heard
comments from people who knew them that they never would've believed it in a
million years? Not her, not him...he was the sweetest guy, no mother loved
her children more, he was always gentle and kind, she was quiet and kept to
herself, they seemed completely in love and to have the happiest marriage.
Who ever would've guessed or imagined? We all know how it goes.
So when I say I can't imagine either of the Ramseys or the brother doing any
of these things, I must also acknowledge that I don't know anything about
them personally, and that people sometimes do things that defy imagination,
logic or explanation....things about which no one would have thought the
person capable.
> If she were alive, why not take her to the hospital and try to revive
> her? THIS has plenty of precedent. No doubt they would've tried to
> cover up the source of the injury (claiming a fall or accident caused
> it).
Agreed, this is the much more likely course of action, and the one that the
vast majority of parents in a tough situation like that would probably turn
to. It's what I think I would do if I hurt either of my kids so badly in a
moment of rage or by accident that I thought they might die or be dead. I
can't imagine giving up on them w/o trying to get help for them, even at
risk to my own liberty. The most I could see myself doing is calling 9-1-1
and making up a story about how the injury occurred in a way that would
point away from wrong-doing on my part. And if the story fell apart under
scrutiny, I'd take my chances, I think. Maybe I'd break down under pressure
and confess, or maybe I'd stick to my story come hell or high water, no
matter how many people concluded I was lying.
I think the last thing I'd think up would be writing a fake ransom note and
using a garrote to simulate strangulation on my near-dead child and the sick
fake molestation. It's difficult to believe any parent less than totally
psychotic turning to such a strategy as a cover-up for a child abuse or
accidental injury. For one thing, I know I don't have the balls for such a
thing. I'm such a totally lousy liar, it would be hard enough to lie my way
through the cover-up story of how the accident happened. I would never
attempt to pass off the ransom note---I would know I could never pull it off
or convince anyone. I think I would also realize how stupid and ridiculous
it would be to write a ransom note and report a kidnapping w/ my kid's body
down in the basement. At least I hope I would know that. I can't say what
I'd do if I lost my mind temporarily. But sitting where I am right now,
knowing what I know about myself, I can say I'm close to 100% certain I
could not and would not do that.
I also can't see myself using a garrote or any type of strangulation on a
child I had killed accidentally. It's an effort for me to screw up the
courage to smash an insect. No way do I have the balls of steel it would
take to carry out such a gruesome task. I don't even *want* to get inside
the mind of a person who could do this.
And if it had happened that way in the case of JonBenet Ramsey--an
accidental head injury from a hard smack or getting slammed against a wall
or piece of furniture in a moment of rage and then covered up w/ a story
invented by the parents about a fall that doesn't mesh with the medical
evidence of the injury--we would never have heard about it most likely.
Probably it would've only made local news and would be clucked over sadly
and in shock by the community, but soon forgotten. The way it is w/ 99.9% of
deaths of children occurring this way. But every once in a blue moon there's
going to be that bizarre variance where people do the most unthinkable
things to cover for an accident or a truth too terrible to face --where they
make choices few would make under similarly trying circumstances, choices
that leave people scratching their heads and saying "why?" and "how?"---"Why
would anyone do such a thing? How could they? Who could imagine it?" And no
one can figure it out and make any sense of it, especially when there were
so many other things that could've been done that would've made so much more
sense, and seem like they would be so much more obvious to anyone w/ half a
brain..
And those are the ones that capture public attention and get talked about
everywhere. The ones that never get answered to anyone's satisfaction.
Could JonBenet Ramsey's death be one of those variances? As unbelievable as
it seems, who am I to state authoritatvely that it's impossible? Who are any
of us to state that?
> But to imagine that parents so loving toward their children as these
> were, suddenly because of a loss of temper took a half-dead girl and
> TOTURED her to death with a complicated LIGATURE constructed with
> strange knots and using odd combinations of implements, all in the
> space of thirty minutes or so, is just bizarre. To coin a phrase,
> EnEss, it's just preposterous.
Yeah, it's pretty far out there, I agree. The problem is, so is any intruder
theory, given the totality of the circumstances.
> To further support what I'm saying, here is some of the injury info (no
> pictures), somewhat graphic, to follow. Spoiler space left:
(I'm removing the spoiler space for bandwidth sake; no one should be reading
if he or she is faint of heart after this point)
> According to Lou Smit's site, the autopsy shows that JonBenet was
> clearly alive while being garrotted, and fingernail marks in her neck
> show that she struggled to get free (however, a conflicting view is
> also presented below):
>
> http://www.lousmit.com/intrudertheory.htm
<snip>
If he's right about this, I would agree it's beyond reason that any parent
would carry out such a thing, short of demonic posession, while his or her
child was struggling w/ her hands to be free of the noose. However, I have
not seen anything anywhere other than in Lou Smit's opinion about these nail
marks in her skin around the rope. Every other source I've consulted on the
description of the body and how the crime took place points to a complete
lack of struggle--much more suggesting of the child being completely
unconscious and unmoving while all atrocities took place.
It would be important to know what the truth is. Either theory tells a very
different story and presents a very different picture for how this crime
took place and what the circumstances were while the various horrendous
things were happening. Unfortunately, I don't know any way we'll ever know
w/ confidence what the real story is, as it seems either is subject
completely to individual interpretation.
> Redness of ligature marks: Redness indicates injuries came before death
> -- not after as part of staging. "If you try to put a rope around a
> kid's neck after she's dead, you're not going to get a red mark like
> that at all, you're going to get a white mark." Other abrasions on her
> shoulders and leg also left reddish marks. "That means she was alive
> and struggling, she was not dead. This is not staging."
I agree there's strong evidence the child was still alive at the time of the
garroting, though I disagree the abrasions on the arms and legs are proof of
struggle at the time of the strangling. If her heart was still pumping, even
very weakly, it would be enough to leave the red marks on the neck and the
tiny hemorrhages around the eyes, etc. It does not, however, prove a
struggle took place.
> Vaginal injuries: Something -- possibly one end of the broken
> paintbrush -- was forced into JonBenet's vagina because her hymen was
> partly torn. It was bleeding, so it happened before death. Smit said it
> was the only tear in her vagina, so he doesn't think somebody was
> sexually assaulting her over a long period of time. Plant materials
> similar to the paint brush's wood shards are found in her vagina.
Celluloid was found, IIRC, which is a protein produced by plant material,
including wood. The internal injury looked like a jabbing that could've been
done with a sharp stick. It did not give the appearance of what's found in a
more conventional type of molestation, w/ penetration by a penis, or done
while the victim is struggling or moving.
> Head injury: Smit calls head injury very severe, but little bleeding
> resulted -- only about two tablespoons of blood. In fact, he said, the
> head injury wasn't noticed when she first was examined. There was no
> cut on the scalp. Only after removal of the skull cap was the fracture
> on the right side of her head apparent. Such an injury, he said, would
> usually result in massive bleeding, and blood should have been found in
> the house. "So when this happened, she was near death. I believe the
> garrote was in place and huge pressure had been put there. . . . That's
> why I believe the head blow came last, not first. . . . This was the
> coup de grace on the job."
Well, there's a lot of debate about that. I agree if the garroting came
first, this points way more to a predator murder than a parental murder or
cover up of an accident. The problem is, there are enough experts who see
evidence that the head injury came first to call Smit's determination into
question.
> Response: Marks on JonBenet's neck come from attempt at manual
> strangulation, with perpetrator's knuckles causing the abrasions.
There's no one in the world debating that the child was strangled. That's a
known fact. Who ever strangled this child could've left knuckle marks.
> Thomas theory doesn't dispute that JonBenet was alive when strangled by
> the garrote. Experts disagree on whether JonBenet's vaginal injuries
> point to prior abuse. Experts also disagree on when the head injury
> happened. At least two have said it could have been before the
> garroting. One of those, Ronald Wright, head of the forensic pathology
> department at the University of Miami, reviewed the autopsy report for
> the News n 1997. He said the blow to the head could have been 20 to 60
> minutes before the strangulation because the brain showed swelling,
> something that takes time to happen.
> ==end quote==
I've seen a few opinions suggesting the same as Wright's, including by
Robert Kirschner, MD, a leading pediatric neurologist w/ a national
reputation. He said that massive bleeding and swelling from a severe head
injury does not always occur immediately--in some cases, that can be slower
to occur, maybe even take 30 min. or longer.
So that's a problem. If it could be determined w/ certainty which occurred
first, it would help clarify things a great deal. If it was known for
certain that the child had been strangled first, then hit over the head,
this would point away quite decisively from the parents. Unfortunately, I
don't see any way this will ever be decided.
> However, even Dr. Cyril Wecht (as I posted on another thread), who
> apparently believes one of the parents did it, believes the garrotting
> preceded the head blow. I believe that the "at least two" experts who
> believe the blow could've come first are in the minority, if I'm not
> mistaken.
No, I think you're right.
> But all agree, JonBenet was clearly alive when garrotted. It's totally
> unpleasant -- no, it's digusting, sleep-depriving, and horrific -- to
> think about those fingernail marks on her neck -- what they signify.
If it's known her fingernails left marks near the rope around her neck, I
would agree that would support rather decisively that she was conscious at
the time, and yes, it's beyond horrible to contemplate (although any murder
of this kind would be so).
> I cannot understand anyone who could imagine parents EVER doing that to
> their child. But to imagine loving parents doing this torture to a
> child, when they have NO history of prior violent, sicko fantasy
> behavior, not to mention no history of even ABUSING their children at
> all, is just, once again, preposterous.
If you can prove the fingernail marks, I would agree. But there's only one
source I've seen that supports that (Lou Smit) and there's certainly no way
to prove or disprove this now. If you knew for certain there was no struggle
because the girl was completely unconscious at the time, would it be more
within the realm of what you could imagine a parent doing as part of a cover
up? IMO this is an important question to ask.
>> The suitcase by the window detail is not material.
>
> "Not material"? Why not? Does it not allow an intruder to get in and
> out quite easily by the window? There's a picture of Lou Smit crawling
> in that window here:
> http://www.acandyrose.com/lousmit.htm
> It's a quite plausible entrance/exit point for an intruder. How can you
> possibly say it's "not material," except to justify your irrational
> contention that an intruder theory is "preposterous"?
1. An intruder would not need to crawl "out* the window. Once someone has
gained access to inside a home via a basement window, the person need not
exit the same way. Granted, a person could if he/she wanted to go out that
way. But once inside, it's easy enough to go out a door.
2. My comment about the suitcase is that it's immaterial to the question of
whether there's precedence for a parent committing the crime as a cover up
by the details of it. The suitcase by the window does not prove or disprove
a parent was involved. You could say it supports the notion of an intruder
using it to boost himself up to window level to escape after the crime.
Certainly it could. But that's not provable. It's not as though it would be
surprising to find a suitcase anywhere in a basement, even under a window,
as a basement is a common space for storage of misc. household items. It's
also not proven to me that any attempt was made to place the child in the
suitcase. But if we knew for a fact that attempt had been made, it wouldn't
prove an intruder was responsible. If a parent was involved, it's just as
possible the parent might've contemplated smuggling the body out of the
house in the suitcase and then decided against it--possibly as too
problematic.
That's why I say the suitcase is immaterial to the discussion. In the
question of precedence to a crime occurring in this way before at the hands
of a parent per a cover-up, the question of a suitcase by a window is
immaterial.
3. My statement that an intruder writing a ransom note of that length and
degree of detail in the home of the victim, either before or after the crime
itself, being preposterous (and that was the thing I was referring to as
preoposterous--please quote people accurately) is *not* irrational. Maybe in
your opinion perhaps, but that doesn't make it irrational. It just makes it
your opinion that is. For me to concede that point, I'd have to see a list
of your qualifications that make you the proper authority to set the
standard for rational and irrational contentions. I doubt you can do that.
>> The hastily constructed business is not material. In any cover up crime,
>> the
>> cover-up events are "hastily enacted" by their very nature.
> I love how you just summarily rule things "immaterial." I'm hoping
> you're not a judge IRL, LOL!!
If I was, I think it's highly likely I would've mentioned it. I'm sure you
realize that too.
No one needs to be a judge to enter an opinion in an internet forum. We're
all just sharing opinions here. IMO the issue of the garrote being hastily
constructed is not material to the question of a parent or an intruder being
behind the construction. Who ever constructed it, it was done hastily in the
sense that it was constructed on the spot, w/ at least some materials
borrowed from the scene and had to have been completed within a fairly
narrow window of time. That window is bordered by the very most the time the
family was last seen by anyone and the time the first police officer arrived
on the scene, and had to have been squeezed into all the other aspects of
the crime that occurred in that time period. The idea that it might've been
thought up or thrown together at the last minute does not IMO point more
decidely to an intruder committing the crime.
>Of course this is material. The
> paraphernalia were not only "hastily enacted" (according to your
> parent-killing/torturing scenario)
No, not according to me. Your collaborator in the intruder theory was the
one who first suggested the garrote was hastily constructed. My response to
this comment was to point out that if it was hastily constructed, that
wouldn't make it more likely to be done by an intruder than a parent. Either
person involved would have to construct the device rather hastily, as there
was a fairly narrow window of time for all events of the crime to be carried
out. If you're arguing that the device was NOT hastily constructed, take
your argument up w/ the fellow who supports you in the intruder theory. He
was the one who asserted it was hastily constructed.
> they were extremely complex,
> requiring extensive knowledge of knots, the technique of garrotting,
> etc. Not to mention materials not found in the home (the rope).
You don't know the rope wasn't found in the home. There's no proof the rope
wasn't already in the home. There's no proof that it *was*, but that doesn't
mean it wasn't. It's an unknown. You can't turn to it as a known fact.
>Not to
> mention the further issue as detailed above that the parents would
>suddenly have to transform from "angry and lost control" parents to
> "highly in-control, so in-control that they could manufacture a
> little-known torture device with obscure knots, then torture and
> mutilate and slowly murder their child" parents.
No to the last 3 things you say...it's not known that the child suffered
torture, or how fast or slow the death was. Strangulation can be fairly
fast. If it was known the child was conscious during the garroting, I would
agree completely that this would've been a torturous death. If it was known
that she was completely unaware because she was unconscious and near death,
then it would not be torturous. Still gruesome, but not torturous.
But we don't know, so no one can say.
Yes, the process would've had to invovle a major transformation from an
out-of-control moment in an instant of rage to slowed down, methodic
planning. But that would always be the case in a cover up of a fatal
accident.
> Once again, preposterous.
Horrifying and bizarre, certainly. Preposterous? I couldn't say w/ authority
w/o knowing intimately the people involved. And I don't, do you?
> Oh, and all that falderal about taking the pad out of the house: I just
> saw that idea mentioned on one website (a "non-reliable" post to a
> newsgroup, I'm sure). I didn't say I supported the idea, I was just
> intrigued by it, so I threw it out there.
A perfectly OK thing to do. There's nothing wrong w/ bringing up an idea
tossed out by someone one has talked to or has seen somewhere, like in
another internet forum. No one is faulting you for that. Why the sarcastic
remark about the NG? There's no need to get defensive.
The idea about the notepad being taken from the home and used elsewhere to
write the note, then returned to the scene at the time of the crime I agree
is an intriguing one. It's one I entertained myself for a while when I was
exploring the intruder theory. The ransom note seems more plausible as
written by someone other than a family member if there's a way it could've
been written outside the home, prior to the crime. But it's quite firmly
established that the note came from the notepad being used by the Ramseys in
their home. So how could it be that it could've been written elsewhere? The
only possibility I could think of was if someone was in the home prior to
Dec. 25 and deliberately took the pad out of the home to another location
where the note was composed. I mulled over that one a while, considering the
possibilities. Pretty quickly, though, I had to conclude that it didn't add
up; it made less sense in fact than an intruder writing the note on the
premises. For all the reasons I shared in the previous post.
> A big objection to this idea
> is that, JM would probably have not done it just because Patsy might've
> noticed a pad missing and gotten suspicious -- maybe even of JM
> herself. If JM did this crime, she was very methodical and organized,
> and I doubt she would've left the plan open to being ruined by one
> small detail like Patsy becoming suspicious because of stolen items.
> Even such a small item as a pad might've been used every day -- how
> does JM know? So I don't think JM would've done that.
No, I agree. I don't see anyone doing this as part of a kidnapping or murder
plan. It would boost the intruder theory if it could be proved feasible or
plausible, but it can't be. It just doesn't work.
> I think, like Iarnrod, that the perp (whoever it was) had loads of time
> in the house to write it. And they knew they would -- after all they no
> doubt spied on them leaving, piling all the kids in fancy dress outfits
> into the car. I suspect they either knew somehow from other sources
> that they were going to a dinner that would last hours. Alternatively,
> they might've trailed them to the Whites' house, seen them going into a
> clearly "dinner-type situation" and doubled back to invade the Ramsey
> house at their leisure.
The last thing you suggest I think is least likely. I would think it would
make more sense it was someone who knew where they were going so he could be
confident they'd be away a fair amount of time. That's if one is trying to
make the intruder theory work at all.
> Smit also brought up a good point: why would a perp carry in a ransom
> note when it could clearly be presumed there would be paper in the
> house, what with two schoolchildren there? Why carry around evidence
> against oneself before one's even committed a crime?
The idea that it could be presumed there would be writng paper in the house
is not the issue. Whether there are school children living in the home or
not, it's a very comfortable assumption that a 25-room home is going to have
some paper to write on somewhere inside.
As to risk, anyone who enters a house uninvited and is detected by the
police runs into the same problem of evidence against himself whether he has
a ransom note on him or not. Breaking into a home is illegal and is evidence
in itself of a serious crime. Carrying a ransom note on one's person does
not make the intruder more likely to be detected by the homeowner or the
police.
Furthermore, in cases of kidnaps-for-ransom where ransom notes were left in
the home, the note was always written elsewhere and brought in. As has been
discussed. There is no crime on record of a ransom note being written in the
victim's home. This means that people who have written ransom notes in
anticipation of a kidnapping have always brought the note in w/ them, thus
incurring the very risk to which you refer.
More to the point, if this is a concern, why write a note at all? Why not
kidnap the child and call the home soon after to make the ransom demands and
give instructions for delivery?
It's a silly question, though. Very clearly, this is not a crime where a
serious plan to collect a ransom was ever a motive. Pedophiles who commit
sex crimes don't leave ransom notes. People w/ a serious plan to kidnap for
ransom don't engage in the various activities that went on in this crime. If
someone serious about kidnapping for ransom bungled the getaway somehow,
resulting in the death of the victim, they would either leave w/ the body
anyway, hoping to collect the ransom before a body turned up somewhere, at
some remote location, or they would scotch the whole plan and get out of
Dodge 23-skiddoo. They wouldn't mess w/ all that bizarre stuff, like the
garroting and fake molesting, etc.
The ransom note is the piece of it that makes the least amount sense as an
intruder crime IMO. It really clouds the picture considerably and becomes
too difficult to explain plausibly as to why an intruder would engage in all
of it.
I'm snipping most of the last of your comments simply because I've run out
of time I can put into responding. As to your last graph, though:
> I find the exact opposite. The intruder theory works just fine.
No, not really. It doesn't work "just fine" at all. When applying logic, it
shreds pretty quickly. It really doesn't hold up to logical scrutiny.
> Intruder comes in, writes note during the hours the Ramseys are out,
> hides, waits for family to return/fall asleep, grabs JonBenet, leaves
> note on steps as diversionary tactic,
Diversionary tactic for what?
>takes JonBenet to basement and
> tortures/murders her, and climbs out window. What's the difficulty?
"What's the difficulty??" How is the ransom note enough of a diversionary
tactic to justify the significant time investment in writing it on the
premises, when someone could wake up or come home at any time and there's no
real intention of kidnapping for ransom? What is gained by the intruder in
leaving the ransom note that aids the crime in any way? Not a thing that I
can see.
> Sure, it requires a violent sicko to do this, but it would also require
> a sicko violent parent to garrotte and torture their daughter to death.
> To me, the latter is about a "zillion" times more unlikely.
To you, perhaps. But I would say to a majority of people, the intruder
theory does not hold up to logic. If that theory is eliminated by total
implausibility, that leaves only one other possibility--as bizarre and
unlikely as it seems.
Cliff and Linda Griffith
news:1158677756.3...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> Molesters are sick fantasizers; I hope we can agree on that.
> With three to four hours in the house, free to roam and examine things,
> it's hardly preposterous to imagine him writing that awful, stupid
> and immature note.
Wouldn't you think that a sick fantasizing molester would (intentionally or
accidentally) include in the long ransom note some hints of his fantasies as
to what he planned to do to the child? If he were so into his sexual
fantasies, how could he switch over to such a "business-like" style of
writing?
Linda
Wild Monkshood
Cliff and Linda Griffith wrote:
Interesting point, and observation....
WM
>
> Linda
>
>
Iarnrod
> "Iarnrod" wrote:
> > The irony here of course is that the skepticism you extend to an
> > intruder doing something out of the pattern also applies to the
> > parents, but you've glossed over that.
>
> I don't see how he's glossed over it. There's no case that's exactly
> identical to the JonBenet Ramsey murder, from any perspective.
Reread it then. He glossed over the broad outline of the case against
the parents (sliding right over the many holes in that case) while
subjecting the specific details of the intruder theory to more intense
skepticism. My point was that if you put the shoe on the other foot -
using his same argument structure - the same case could be made to
build skepticism about the parents-did-it theory, given the wholly
unprecedented nature of it, while pointing out that people have broken
into homes and kidnapped and molested children and even killed them -
mimicking the more cursory type of treatment he gave to the many holes
that surround the parent theory - would support the intruder theory.
You've got to use the same standards to evaluate all the evidence,
and not just test the one you want to eliminate.
> Bo's point, as I took it, is that there are crimes on the book of parents
> staging a crime scene to cover up a death resulting from an act of violence
> gone over the top, although nothing on the scale of what JonBenet's parents
> would've had to do in the most bizarre and unique instance.
And that is where it fell down.
> By contrast,
> there is no example in the history of documented crime of a person breaking
> into a home, or getting in somehow surreptitiously for the purpose of
> committing a crime and then doing all the things that were done in this
> particular murder....writing a ransom note on the scene, demanding a ransom
> sum of such an odd-ass, lowball amount, leaving the ransom note behind,
> molesting the child w/ an object, murdering the child w/ both a blow to the
> head and designing the intricate garrote (w/ implements found in the home)
> to further strangle the victim AND leaving the body behind.
You just proved my point by doing again what Bo did. Thank you. By
raising all these specific elements of an unprecedented crime if done
by an intruder, you demonstrated how you and Bo failed to do that when
examining the parent theory. List all of the things that the parents
would have had to have done and realize how implausible and
preposterous THAT would be as well - even more so, I'd say - then
you would have a fair comparison.
Fact is, there's nothing implausible for an intruder to have done to
commit this crime, none at all. Just because no intruder has ever
before done exactly all the same things? Well, hey, neither has a
parent - particularly the cruel and gruesome garroting of a live
child and sexual penetration. But that doesn't seem to throw you off
the parent theory while you use the very same process to rule out an
intruder. That's inconsistent.
> And it's not
> just a matter of there's no crime in which all those specific things
> happened in a single murder before committed by either a pedophile, a
> kidnap-for-ransom perpetrator or a revenge seeker, but that there's no crime
> of any those types in which any combination of those things occurred.
Cite? "Any" combination of these things? Unlikely given how many
there are.
Are you saying no one has ever broken into a house and kidnapped a
child and then killed it? There's a combination. I discuss one such
precedent below.
Are you saying no perp has ever left a ransom note written on paper
from the crime scene?
> In either case, it's an extremely bizarre and unique murder.
True.
> However,
> leaving aside the long list of specific peculiarities of the crime, it's
> much closer to a cover up by family members for an accidental/child abuse
> murder than to any crime committed by a non-family-member, either as a child
> molestation, a kidnap for ransom or a crime of revenge.
Hardly. And you CAN'T leave "aside" the long list of peculairites
that make up the crime. There's no basis to say the facts fit parents
better than intruder. If it's completely unprecedented for parents to
have done a crime with these circumstances, how can it be ANY closer to
that an intruder theory? They'd both be equally far-fetched, at best.
> > If crimes follow patterns, then show me another crime when parents
> > accidentally harm their child, decide to finish her off rather than
> > seek help <snip>
>
> There have been cases of cover up of child abuse deaths in which the parent
> or parents have not sought medical help to try to save the child, and some
> in which more was done to a child near death to finish the child off.
When? Can you cite any? This is a serious request BTW, not a throwaway
line. I'd be interested to read of such a case. But of course, what I
wrote next limits it even further - the extremely cruel and
unprecedented nature of the killing makes it less likely a parent did
it.
By the same token, I would say there have been cases of murder of
children by molesters in which they try to get away with it by throwing
off false clues or covering up their involvement... and that's MUCH
more often than parents doing it, by miles.
> > by cruelly garroting her with an intricate noose-like device
> > hastily constructed,
>
> The hastily constructed business is not material. In any cover up crime, the
> cover-up events are "hastily enacted" by their very nature.
That's exactly my point... the garrote is a complicated piece of
construction. It is extremely unlikely that it was put together hastily
by parents who just injured their child and decide to finish her off
rather than call an ambulance. They were hastily putting together a
plan they had no conception of ever having to do in their lives but now
in a matter of hours - plus calling police in before 6 a.m.
A molester or pedo, OTOH, probably has made MANY of them in his sick
career. He COULD hastily construct it - even bring the cord with him,
since as we know the cord could not be sourced to the house or family,
another big hole in the PDI theory.
> I have read of
> child abuse death cover ups where a strangulation was simulated on top of
> another fatal or severely brtual injury, most likely to give the appearance
> of psycho child killer at work, and possibly to detract from the true source
> of the fatality.
Cite? Again, not to be argumentative in the least; I really would like
to read it.
> I've never heard of a garroting in a death of that kind,
> but that's an example where there's a specific detail unique to this
> particular murder.
And that makes it implausible and unprecedented for the parents to have
done it, given the very same standards you and Bo were applying to say
it's implausible that an intruder would have done it.
>And the garroting would not have been as cruel as one
> would imagine it to be if the victim was deeply unconscious and totally
> non-responsive at the time it occurred. That could've been the case if the
> gorroting and other brutalities were a cover-up to the fatal head injury.
The evidence that JonBenet was alive and fighting the strangulation -
the marks on her neck and the material under her fingernails -
indicates she was quite conscious.
> > then wrote a bizarre ransom note, stacked a
> > suitcase near a basement window after first trying to put her body into
> > it,
>
> The suitcase by the window detail is not material.
Everything is material. The suitcase, according to the family, was not
kept there, nor were the things found IN the suitcase ever stored in
it. How on earth can you declare this immaterial? It is very likely the
perp put it there - you do know that fibers from the sham and blanket
in the suitcase were found on JonBenet, according to the state crime
lab? (FBI disagreed, saying the fibers on JonBenet came from unknown
sources not linked to anything in the home - both circumstances argue
for an intruder, the FBI interpretation more heavily so).
> If you want to theorize
> there's evidence someone attempted to put the child's body into the
> suitcase, then scratched the plan, that could be said in either case.
> There's nothing especially noteworthy or unique w/ the suitcase that either
> implicates or exonerates a parent in such an instance, or points more
> forecfully to an intruder.
Of course it points more heavily to an intruder. A parent cover-up in
which they were calling police in shortly argues against ever putting
her into the suitcase in the first place. Let alone putting the Dr.
Seuss book and John Andrew's bedding into it. C'mon, that's
w-a-a-a-a-y beyond implausible for a parent cover up theory. But an
intruder often takes "souvenirs" of the crime.
> The suitcase has no relevance to the discussion.
Only because it argues against your premature elimination of the
intruder. It has a LOT of relevance, as I've just shown. In fact it
has relevance to BOTH theories.
> >go out and find duct tape they don't have,
>
> What evidence do you have that a parent would have to run out for duct tape
> in the middle of the night, or that the Ramseys didn't own a roll of duct
> tape? There's no evidence they didn't have duct tape in the home.
Of course there is. We've been over it. To imagine the duct tape came
from the Ramseys requires postulating theories based on no known facts,
and that's weak. Intruder explains it quite handily. The tape came
from a piece of a continuing roll - it was torn on both ends.
> There is
> some evidence OTOH that one of them might have bought duct tape not long
> before the murder.
No there isn't.
> Granted it's not *proof* there was duct tape in the home
> at the time of the murder. But there's certainly no proof that there
> *wasn't* any duct tape either.
There is evidence that there was not.
> So the duct tape part of it has no relevancy to the discussion either.
Nonsense. This declaration carries no weight of evidence. The fact that
duct tape was across her mouth and that it cannot be sourced to the
family is highly relevant and there's no basis to say it's not.
> > and then instead of
> > just laying low and trying to evade detection, they immediately call
> > police in,
>
> Lay low? Evade detection? To what end?
To get away with murder, obviously, which you and some others think is
what they wanted.
> How long could they go before they
> would be forced to go public w/ the fact that their daughter was no where to
> be found?
Longer than 5:52 a.m.
> They were due in Michigan to reunite w/ other family members
> within hours of daybreak. They couldn't very well show up in Michigan and
> pull a "Home Alone" moment, claiming their daughter's absence had escaped
> their notice. If they cancelled the trip on some pretense that would have to
> be invented just to buy some time, how far would that get them?
At such a time, if the parents did it, it is plausible they could delay
the departure in order to come up with something better than a
ridiculous three-page ransom note on a pad they then hand over to
detectives.
> At some
> point, sooner rather than later, they would have to tell someone their child
> was missing.
Later is better than 5:52, from a plausibility standpoint.
> If they "lay low" at home a few days, attempting to "evade
> detection", reporting the child missing after hastily cancelling the trip to
> Charlevoix, that would bring that much more suspicion on themselves than
> reporting the disappearance right off the bat.
Sure, but given the choices, it could have helped construct a much
better cover-up than one in which Linda Arndt immediately thinks
she's solved the crime when John carried the body up from the
basement.
> If the crime was a cover up for an accidental or child abuse death, they
> really would've had no choice but to alert LE immediately that the child was
> missing.
Not really. From that standpoint, 6:52 could have worked as well.
> > hand them the pad on which the note was written to compare
> > their handwriting to the note,
>
> Oversight?
Implausible ;-)
They supposedly had just written the note on it. They should have
thrown it out with the duct tape!
If you are willing to gloss over inconsistencies in the parent theory
with a hand-waving "oversight," you should also extend this to
bridge whatever gaps you might still see in the intruder theory.
> > OTOH, I can show you cases in which a molester tried to kidnap a
> > victim, molested her/him in the process and ended up killing the
> > victim, then tried to cover his tracks.
>
> But no case like that in which a ransom note was left.
No case in which a parent killed their child and left a ransom note
either. Cuts both ways.
> Or in which a
> kidnap-for-ransom plan spontaneously morphed into a murder and sexual
> molestation by object situation.
This is too easy ... and no other case in which a mom
"accidentally" slams her beloved daughter into a tub or toilet and
spontaneously morphs this into a sexual strangulation to finish her off
with a bizarrely constructed scheme with so much evidence in order to
try to cover up an accidental fall in the home.
Too complicated. I mean, what role in this "cover-up" did the
parents imagine for the coil of rope and paper bag up in the guest
bedroom would play? Did they plant some stranger's baseball bat
outside on the north side of the house too, after putting fibers on it
from inside the house?
> Or in which a ransom note was left w/ the
> body of the intended victim found in the home.
Ever hear of the Lindbergh baby kidnapping? A note was found in the
baby's room, on the windowsill. Yet the baby appeared to have been
killed during the escape from the house that night, as the body was
found near the estate buried in a shallow grave two and a half months
later, badly decomposed. The skull had been fractured, probably during
the very commission of the crime.
So here we have a kidnapping that may have morphed into a murder
(there's disagreement on whether the baby was dropped down the
ladder, or whether the skull was bashed in the bed at the start of the
crime).
There were something like a total of 12 ransom notes in that case. Talk
about unprecedented!
So here we have a most famous kidnapping case in which the victim was
killed in the commission of it, although not discovered for more than
two months. The body wasn't left in the house but was very close by
in a grave off the roadside, indicating the Eaglet was killed almost
immediately but still the note was left, and in fact 11 more ransom
notes were delivered even after the perps knew the baby was dead.
You wouldn't suggest the colonel and his wife did it as an elaborate
cover-up, I trust. The only difference with the JonBenet case was the
perp killed the child in the basement and escaped from there, leaving
the note behind because it was upstairs already. In the Lindbergh case,
the note was on the sill and the boy was killed almost immediately
afterward and buried four miles away from the house.
> Or in which a ransom note was written in the victim's home.
I'd have to ask for your source on THAT one. You have a source that
says no ransom note has ever been written from materials in the
victim's home?
Or in which an abductor-child molester-killer
> tried to cover his tracks by leaving a ransom note.
>
> > If you want to be THAT general
> > about describing the parent theory above, I can make the intruder
> > theory just as reasonable by being as general too.
>
> You can't make the intruder theory "reasonable" by any adjustment of detail.
> The best you've been able to come up w/ as far as the ransom note being
> written in the home as an established precedent was mention of bank robbers
> who have written robbery demands on a bank deposit slip in the bank when
> they went in to rob the place. That's an example of how far a theorist must
> work and stretch to make an intruder a possible suspect in the Ramsey murder
> w/ a precedent to a crime "like it".
And that isn't far at all. Your saying that it is a stretch doesn't
make it that; you've got to show how it is that you find it
implausible that someone with three-four hours on his hands fantasizing
about molesting a little girl later might write that note. There's no
way it's implausible. ISTM you're saying so only because you reject
the intruder theory, so you must of course find it implausible he would
write the note. It is far more implausible that the parents wrote it,
given its bizarre and immature structure, length, etc.
> > Skepticism works both ways, but it has to work a lot of overtime to
> > believe the parents did it versus an intruder already predisposed to
> > bizarre and sick behavior.
>
> In your opinion maybe. But there are a lot of people who find it takes a lot
> more work, a lot more stretching the imagination and a lot more allowance
> for multiple coincidences and odd-ass explanations to make any intruder
> theory work.
I haven't been shown one instance of stretching yet, except by the
PDI folks.
The intruder theory requires no "coincidences" or odd-ass
explanations. It is in constructing made-up scenarios to explain the
multiple holes in the parent theory that the Spandex suits are needed.
waltbrad
Cliff and Linda Griffith wrote:
Well, when you describe him as a sick fantasizing molester, yes that
would be strange. But when you think of him as calculating and cruel it
isn't strange at all.
If you simply theorizing that there was no intruder, (and I'm not
saying you are), then you might hypothesize that the note would be
different.
But if you are theorizing that there was an intruder then you will try
to discern his character from the note, rather than try to determine
what he should have written.
All in all, I think the note was an attempt to mislead. Someone
mentioned the similarity with the Leopold and Loeb note. I do see some
similarity but there are plenty of differences to:
Iarnrod
> "Iarnrod" wrote:
> > EnEss wrote:
> >> "Iarnrod" wrote:
> >> > Are you saying it is unprecedented that someone has left a note at the
> >> > scene of a crime that was written by the perp from materials at the
> >> > scene? I don't believe that.
>
> >> Well, you'd be wrong then.
>
> > No, I wouldn't. You didn't get the context that led to my
> > statement. It was to disagree with your more general pronouncement that
> > it made no sense to you that someone would write a note at the crime
> > scene with material (pad and pen) found at the scene, as opposed to
> > bringing a pre-written note with them on their own paper.
>
> I got what you were saying. Why do you say I "didn't get the context"?
Because you apparently didn't get it. I'll try again. The context
for my "I don't believe that" statement that you said was wrong
was your earlier contention that it made "little sense" that a perp
would use his substantial amount of time alone in that house to write
out his ransom note on a pad found in the house - as opposed to
bringing a pre-written note along with him. I am, frankly, astounded as
to why you continue to consider it unthinkable that this very simple
thing could happen. To me it's the MOST reasonable conclusion. Why
would the perp write it at home and bring it along? It's a bizarre
and immature note to begin with. There's almost nothing true in it;
it reflects a game-playing fantasy of sickness. I see it as an impulse
note written precisely because the perp was in the house with so much
time on his hands.
> Because I don't buy it, doesn't mean I didn't get it.
Maybe now? You still don't need to buy it, obviously, but I hope you
see that there's no case established that it's impossible or
unthinkable that the perp would write the note in the house.
> >I explained
> > this is not unprecedented at all; in fact I often hear of bank
> > robberies, as I wrote up the thread, in which the perp writes out the
> > demand note on a deposit slip at the bank. We've all heard of this.
>
> I did see that comment of yours. It's a wonder to me you'd repeat it. How
> can you promote a comparison of that nature w/o thorough embarassment?
Personal insult noted.
The fact that you could read embarrassment into my completely logical
and consistent and reasonable scenario says more about you than me; you
appear locked into denying the intruder at any cost and it's led you
to have to belittle or hand-wave off evidence of it without any solid
foundation for doing so. Me embarrassed? You've got to be kidding.
You're the one stuck with explaining the completely unprecedented
nature of this case with parents as suspects.
> It's so absurd, it's almost as though you're parodying yourself.
You might first want to explain why you think it's so absurd that a
perp with four hours of time alone in his victim's house couldn't
possibly have enough time or sicko motivation to write the note. Yeesh.
> There's no comparison ...
Yes, there is. The note.
> ...between a bank robber going into a bank, writing out a
> robbery demand on a bank slip w/ a pen at the counter, then presenting the
> note to a teller, pointing a gun or indicating an explosive device,
> whatever, taking the money and running out of the bank to flee the law to a
> child being found dead in a home following a brutal murder that included a
> forceful blow to the head and a bizarre, ritualistic garroting
> strangulation, and evidence of a molestation by object w/ a ransom note
> found on the scene and traced to being written in the home at the time of
> the crime, on materials found in the home. It's light years father apart
> than comparing apples to oranges. It's more like comparing elephants to
> caterpillars by saying they're both animals.
Wrong. I am comparing individual elements to show how wrong you were
that no perp would ever construct a note at the crime scene. I have
shown this to be wrong.
> Now if you could show me a bank robbery in which the bank manager opens up
> the bank in the morning to find a note left in some corner of the bank
> demanding $118,000 which happens to be the amount of the bank CEOs bonus the
> year before and then a few hours later, the vault is opened and all the
> money is found inside along w/ the body of a teller who has been bludgeoned,
> strangled w/ a garrote, sexually molested by an object and loosely bound w/
> rope and her mouth covered w/ a strip of duct tape, then I would say you
> have a scenario that's somewhat more analogous.
Are you purposely being this obtuse solely to be argumentative?
We are looking at elements of crimes; we are not required to find
complete matches for ALL elements in order to show commonality of any
particular ones.
> Btw, have you ever heard of a "bank robbery" fitting that description?
> Please do share if you have--it would be a most interesting one for
> disucssion.
"How can you promote a comparison of that nature w/o thorough
embarassment [sic]? It's so absurd, it's almost as though you're
parodying yourself."
> > So the notion of preparing a note at the scene with material found at
> > the scene is in fact a common enough thing not to be unthinkable in
> > this context simply because it's an abduction/molesting gone bad as
> > opposed to a bank robbery.
>
> "Simply because"?? Where does the "simple" part come into it? Show me the
> logical comparison to the 2 crimes please.
Uh, the use of a note is a common element between the two. Both
constructed at the scene. See? Simple. We do not need to match ALL
elements of the crimes to note the fact that sometimes, for whatever
reasons, perps will make the note at the scene.
(remaining nonsensical ramblings snipped for brevity)
> It's amazing to me that you would offer this as a comparison. The 2
> scenarios side by side could not be more different and IMO serve only to
> underscore how utterly unthinkable it is for any criminal entering a home to
> carry out an abduction for ransom to abandon that plan/object in favor of a
> sexual molestation and murder, or for any criminal entering a home to molest
> or murder a child to opt to write a ransom note while waiting to carry out
> the crime, either on a whim or for any other imaginable reason.
It would be interesting to see you actually expound on this notion and
watch you get caught up in your inability to prove this assertion of
yours. How does the fact that the commonality of use of scene-written
notes in a bank robbery or a fake kidnap/molesting lead anyone to the
conclusion that it's "unthinkable" that the one perp would do it
but the other wouldn't? This should be fun.
> The fact that there are no abductions for ransom or sex crimes/murders
> anywhere on the books at all in which the specifics to the JonBenet Ramsey
> murder are duplicated speaks for itself.
Equally, as we talked about before, the fact that there is no crime on
the books in which parents have killed their child in such
circumstances also speaks for itself.
Cuts. Both. Ways.
> There's an enormous database of
> such crimes--both of kidnap-for-ransom crimes and of child sex murders. What
> you're looking for as an investigator is even a single case in either
> scenario (kidnap-for-ransom or child sex murder) where the particulars to
> JonBenet Ramsey's murder is replicated--even remotely. The fact that the
> crime records could not produce even 1 where there was anything even
> remotely similar tells you exactly what you were looking to find out. It
> tells you that this is not the way a crime for either reason--a
> kidnap-for-ransom or a child sex crime "would go down", as you say.
Ah, guilt by statistics again.
Let me play the game paraphrasing your own words:
"There's an enormous database of such crimes-- both of parental child
abuse and parental covering up for killing their child. What you're
looking for as an investigator is even a single case in either scenario
(parental child abuse or parental cover-up) where the particulars to
JonBenet Ramsey's murder is replicated--even remotely. The fact that
the crime records could not produce even 1 where there was anything
even remotely similar tells you exactly what you were looking to find
out. It tells you that this is not the way a crime for either
reason-child abuse or murder cover-up "would go down", as you say."
See? Cuts both ways.
I'm waiting for a cite to your assertion that it's a "fact"
that the JonBenet case has absolutely no common elements to any other
child murder/abduction/molestation. I find that preposterous.
> But if the details of the crime match up more consistently w/ the history of
> crimes staged to perpetrate a cover-up for an accidental death, it's only
> natural that the investigator will be led in that direction.
The details don't match up more consistently with that theory,
however. They match up more with intruder, IMO. There are too many
foreign pieces of evidence to simply wave away with "Oh, John
must've snuck off and disposed of the practice pages, duct tape,
remaining cord, etc, in a neighbor's trash can and it was never
found. Yeah, that's the ticket."
> The specific
> details of a crime don't have to match up in every single aspect to tell you
> you're looking at the same kind of crime. You just have to look at which
> type of crime it shares the most in common w/.
That would be intruder. Rope in the bedroom. No match for duct tape. No
match for garrote cord. Foreign fibers on the body. Unclaimed baseball
bat in the yard with fibers form inside the house on it. The missing
third piece of the broken paintbrush. Even the MANNER of the crime
argues against staging... way too many details: Parents deicdeing to
build a garrote, puncture her hymen while they're also choking the
bath out of their little girl, all because she hit her head on the
bathtub and they need to cover it up.
> I doubt many people would look askance at the Ramseys if it was determined
> the ransom note was written in the home and the child was not found in the
> home AND had any attempt been made to collect the ransom.
Uh, you're asking the impossible of an intruder. He's left the body
in the house, for crying out loud. He KNOWS he can't go back to the
well and pretend he still has the child for ransom. Holy cow, think it
through. Now you're blaming the parents because the perp never called
back? He knew that he couldn't by this point. Game over.
> Whether the child
> was recovered alive or not, or whether a body was recovered or not, not
> nearly as many people would suspect the Ramseys, even if it was proved the
> note was written in the home. If the note was shorter and to the point,
> demanding a large, even sum of money w/ few specifics given, I'm pretty sure
> a lot more people would find it more believable that a kidnapper did enter
> the home, even if the note was written on the spot.
How does this make it any more reasonable or plausible that the parents
would have made a three page note as opposed to a simple "We have
your kid, listen for the phone if you want to see here again?" Jeez,
everything you say makes it implausible for an intruder to have done
the note ALSO makes it implausible for the parents to do it.
It was NOT a real ransom note. That's the key here. It was a sick
fantasy.
> I think everyone would
> find this particular detail bizarre and shocking and would wonder why in the
> world an abductor would do such a weird thing. But I doubt they would find
> it impossible to believe, as long as the other facts of the case matched at
> all consistently w/ an abduction for ransom.
But if the perp had already killed the child, tried stuffing her in a
suitcase to get her out but couldn't and fled, all that is
meaningless at this point. You're talking public relations now. The
perp is gone for good and the parents are stuck with your demands that
they somehow explain something that they can't possibly know, that
they explain what was in the mind of the actual killer in order for the
parents to look sufficiently innocent for you. That's what is
unreasonable. Only the perp knows the answers.
> The problem comes in w/ the combination of details that are completely at
> odds w/ each other and cry out as contradictory.
This applies to the suspicion against the parents as well.
> > Yes they are, in the larger context. The larger context of your
> > original remark was why the perp wouldn't bring his own
> > already-written note rather than use material at the scene - or even
> > sillier, steal it earlier and return it at the time of the crime, which
> > I agree is nonsense.
>
> In the context of a bank robbery, there's no advantage to the robber to use
> the materials at the bank. The robber knows he must make direct contact w/
> at least one person in the bank. So using the paper in the bank will not
> provide the robber w/ any significant buffer to avoid being identified over
> writing out the note in advance on his own paper.
You haven't been following. Use of paper at the scene eliminates the
potential for identifying the source of the note paper with the perp
himself... such as a pad at his own house, similar to what happened to
the Ramseys when the perp used the paper there.
> If you have to go in and
> face someone directly to demand money, it hardly makes any difference what
> paper you use.
Egad. I've explained this several times already days ago. It makes an
ENORMOUS difference. Look how CBI was able to confirm the source of the
ransom note paper. Of course it makes a huge difference. Using a bank
deposit slip for your holdup note means there's NO WAY you can be
caught later in possession of the pad from which the holdup note came.
I'd say that's huge.
> The hard part will be getting out of the bank w/o being
> stopped (or killed), or just avoiding arrest after escaping the bank.
The fact that there are other more difficult aspects of the crime
hardly speaks to the advantage or lack of same in not bringing a note
written on your own high school composition book to be found later.
> It
> hardly matters what paper you use--unless you use a paper w/ your name and
> address on it.
The Ramsey note didn't have name and address on it either but it was
conclusively tied to the pad in their house. Checkmate on this point,
En.
> > First, it is completely logical for a perp NOT to want to use his own
> > pad of paper. Just as CBI was able to determine the ransom note came
> > from the Ramsey's pad by comparing the tear patterns of each sheet
> > with what remained in the pad, the perp would be leaving a singular
> > clue by importing yet another foreign piece of evidence to the scene.
>
> There must be billions of plain notepads in the world. Among them, there
> must be millions that are identical and the paper has no distinguishing
> feature that would lead a forensic scientist to a means of tracing the
> originator of the notepad.
Hmmmm. Then you haven't heard the news that CBI did prove the Ramsey
note came from the pad in the house? There were significant
distinguishing features - the unique tear patterns.
> I would think anyone so concerned w/ being traced
> back by leaving a note he or she wrote it in advance on paper he/she
> purchased somewhere before coming to the home would be way, way more
> paranoid and anxious about sitting around in the house, taking all that time
> to write out that fairly lengthy message when the occupants of the home
> might return at any moment, or get up and go into some other part of the
> house where the intruder would be discovered, or alternatively, evidence of
> his presence or his crime would be discovered.
This makes no logical sense. He's careful in both respects. There's
no contradiction here. Besides, if the note was a false one anyway
written on impulse while waiting to commit the real crime, thee might
have been no actual thinking beforehand of ANY ransom note in the first
place.
> Why is the intruder of your imagination so utterly consumed w/ concern in
> being traced by use of paper he or she purchased or found elsewhere while
> being so totally blasé to the possibility of discovery while in the house
> for what had to be an hour or more at least to write the ransom note and
> carry out all aspects of the crime? Aren't the 2 facts a total dichotomy?
Hardly. How could you see a problem there? How would he be discovered
in an empty house! That's' the MOST secure position for an
intruder. Also, your premise that he's consumed with concern is
false. Being careful isn't the same as being obsessed. And as I said,
if the note was an impulse, then there WAS no thinking beforehand about
bringing a note along.
> And for that matter, if the abductor is so concerned w/ using paper that
> can't be traced back to him/her, why leave a ransom note at all? Why not
> leave the house with the child and follow up w/ a phone call to the parents
> soon after to make the ransom demand? That's how the great majority of
> abduction-for-ransom schemes operate.
Uh, clearly this was not a kidnap for ransom crime.
> And if you argue there was never any thought or serious thought given to
> collecting a ransom, why write the note at all?
Fantasy game playing. Taunting. Excitement. It's all pretty sick.
> If the killer was so
> concerned about leaving evidence that could be traced back to him that he
> wouldn't want to use his own paper, why would he write out a ransom note
> that provides a hand-writing sample and that also involves touching more
> objects in the house that could collect forensic evidence from the cirminal,
> like fingerprints or hairs or clothing fibers?
Ever hear of gloves?
> > It's bad enough he left behind all other sorts of foreign forensic
> > clues that didn't come from the house. Those he might not have
> > anticipated or left behind in a rush - the coil of rope and bag he
> > forgot to retrieve in the guest bedroom, the unsourced baseball bat on
> > the ground outside the butler door that had fibers from inside the
> > house on it, the mix of fibers on JonBenet that couldn't be sourced
> > to the house, etc. Those could be inadvertent or left in a panic (bat
> > and rope). But to actually bring in something of your own that you
> > INTEND to leave behind is nuts.
>
> But you contend that the intruder in your theory DID bring in some of his
> own materials which were left behind--you allude to them in your paragraph
> here. So what's the difference? And why would that be any more "nuts" than
> taking all that time writing out a ransom note in the house when the
> occurpants of the home might discover him at any time? Or writing the ransom
> note at all, which you suggest might've been some sort of fantasy role play?
> If he's "nuts" enough to do any of that, how much more "nuts" would he be to
> write a ransom note on a few sheets of generic writing paper that is
> identical to millions of other sheets just like it all over the world?
You just proved my point. He's nuts.
> > Secondly, the fact that perps in other types of crimes will construct
> > and have constructed notes with materials at the crime scenes does mean
> > that it is not unthinkable in this case, even if it might be
> > unprecedented in such the highly unusual and extremely rare
> > circumstances of the Ramsey case.
>
> And I have just explained several times in addition to other people here
> that what you're talking about has NOT been done in other crimes. There is
> absolutely ZERO precedent for an abductor to write a ransom note in a
> victim's home, using paper and writing implements found on the scene. And
> there is NO precedent of a pedophile-sex molester-killer going into a house
> to abduct a child or molest him or her on the premises or even taking the
> child from the home AND LEAVING A RANSOM NOTE OF ANY KIND--WRITTEN ON THE
> SCENE OR BEFORHAND.
I am waiting for your cite.
Besides, remember? Cuts both ways. Here:
"I have just explained several times in addition to other people here
that what you're talking about has NOT been done in other crimes. There
is absolutely ZERO precedent for a parent-child-killer to strangle
their still-living child with an intricate sexual torture device, stick
a paintbrush in her vagina for good measure while she's dying, then
write a ransom note, throw a Dr Seuss book and blanket into a suitcase
and try to stuff the body into it, then give up, then call in police at
5:52 in the morning to investigate it all. And there is NO precedent of
a parent child-killer doing all this and then LEAVING A RANSOM NOTE OF
ANY KIND--WRITTEN ON THE SCENE OR BEFORHAND."
> Yet here you now refer to this happening previously as though there was even
> one precedent of it. All you've been able to cite are attempted bank
> robbers, probably on crack and probably getting arrested before the leave
> the bank, writing their robbery demand on a bank slip and offer this up as
> if it was in any way comparable to the subject of this discussion.
It is completely comparable and refutes the basic contention that
criminals wouldn't use materials at the scene to write a crime note.
That was the only point. Your claim that I need to find an IDENTICAL
case to JonBenet in order to demonstrate this general principle is
utter nonsense.
> >In fact, the extreme rarity of cases
> > with these circumstances makes it not unusual at all that ANYTHING
> > about it would be unprecedented. There's simply not enough of these
> > cases of abduction/molestation/murder/leaving the body and a note to
> > make ANY valid conclusions about how it ought to normally be done.
>
> Not only is there "not enough of these cases" (though one might argue one is
> enough!), there is NOT ONE OTHER SUCH CASE IN THE HISTORY OF CRIME.
What, you mean parents slaughtering their child in a sex-assault and
slow strangulation staged in order to cover up a bathroom accident? I
agree with that.
> That is
> the whole point. The combination of factors in this particular murder do not
> fit even in a very general way to any crime in history where a child was
> abudcted for ransom, or molested and murdered, or killed for revenge against
> someone in the family.
...waiting for the cites.
> The fact that the crime in question doesn't fit any pattern of crime
> specific to any of the above motives, yet many components of it fit the
> pattern of staging as a cover-up in a domestic violence death tells the
> objective observer a great deal.
Let's go find an objective observer then. One who wouldn't play the
"guilt by statistical probability game" and overlook or shove aside
the very strong evidence of an intruder.
Lou Smit, who investigated numerous homicides in his career, entered
the case thinking it was that simple too, but he became convinced
through the evidence that it was an intruder.
> >> I've explained in at least 2 other posts why I find this
> >> preposterous--and
> >> not only why I do, but why professionals in different branches of LE do
> >> as
> >> well. I know you've seen what I've written because you've replied to
> >> every
> >> one of my posts--and to every post in every Ramsey thread as far as I can
> >> tell. If you reject this explanation, that's your choice. But it's
> >> pointless
> >> to go over and over such things.
>
> > Cite then.
>
> Cite what? The posts in which I've explained why this is preposterous?
No. Your posts only make the claim that it is a known fact that no
other cases have ANY commonalities to JonBenet's murder. I find that
preposterous, but was hoping you had some sort of actual BASIS for
saying that other than that you can't come up with one.
That cite.
> Why on earth should I? If you don't recall any of it--oh that's right, you
> have Alzheimer's, right?--then how will repeating any of it one more time
> make any difference? I certainly have no desire to invest the wasted energy
> and time into that effort.
Personal insult aside, NS (if those ARE your real initials!!) the fact
is you haven't spent a single second providing a cite. Repetition
isn't citation. I was thinking that you might have some source that
has concluded this. I certainly don't take your word for it that
there is no crime in the annals of crimedom that shares commonalities
here. You made the statement and all I asked was for you to back it up.
It's not my "Alzheimer's" issue here, it's your continued
blustering over being asked to support what you say.
> > Molesters are sick fantasizers; I hope we can agree on that.
> > With three to four hours in the house, free to roam and examine things,
> > it's hardly preposterous to imagine him writing that awful, stupid
> > and immature note.
>
> Fine. You've made your position known many times over. Why do you find it
> necessary to restate the same opinions over and over?
Because you seem to miss the significance of it. I outline a completely
normal and reasonable scenario and you explode into fits of reply
condemning it as "unthinkable" that a guy with four hours alone in
the house could possibly spend some of it writing that note. But you
never come up with any explanation for how that's an impossible thing
to imagine.
> You don't add anything
> new to the discussion--you just restate again and again that you don't find
> it perposterous that someone would enter a house illegally and take hours to
> sit around and write a long ransom note. Exhaustive restatement does not
> strengthen an argument.
Wow. You know, I was just about to say the same thing for your
extremely long posts.
Iarnrod
> "Iarnrod" wrote:
> > The irony here of course is that the skepticism you extend to an
> > intruder doing something out of the pattern also applies to the
> > parents, but you've glossed over that.
>
> I don't see how he's glossed over it. There's no case that's exactly
> identical to the JonBenet Ramsey murder, from any perspective.
Reread it then. He glossed over the broad outline of the case against
the parents (sliding right over the many holes in that case) while
subjecting the specific details of the intruder theory to more intense
skepticism. My point was that if you put the shoe on the other foot -
using his same argument structure - the same case could be made to
build skepticism about the parents-did-it theory, given the wholly
unprecedented nature of it, while pointing out that people have broken
into homes and kidnapped and molested children and even killed them -
mimicking the more cursory type of treatment he gave to the many holes
that surround the parent theory - would support the intruder theory.
You've got to use the same standards to evaluate all the evidence,
and not just test the one you want to eliminate.
> Bo's point, as I took it, is that there are crimes on the book of parents
> staging a crime scene to cover up a death resulting from an act of violence
> gone over the top, although nothing on the scale of what JonBenet's parents
> would've had to do in the most bizarre and unique instance.
And that is where it fell down.
> By contrast,
> there is no example in the history of documented crime of a person breaking
> into a home, or getting in somehow surreptitiously for the purpose of
> committing a crime and then doing all the things that were done in this
> particular murder....writing a ransom note on the scene, demanding a ransom
> sum of such an odd-ass, lowball amount, leaving the ransom note behind,
> molesting the child w/ an object, murdering the child w/ both a blow to the
> head and designing the intricate garrote (w/ implements found in the home)
> to further strangle the victim AND leaving the body behind.
You just proved my point by doing again what Bo did. Thank you. By
raising all these specific elements of an unprecedented crime if done
by an intruder, you demonstrated how you and Bo failed to do that when
examining the parent theory. List all of the things that the parents
would have had to have done and realize how implausible and
preposterous THAT would be as well - even more so, I'd say - then
you would have a fair comparison.
Fact is, there's nothing implausible for an intruder to have done to
commit this crime, none at all. Just because no intruder has ever
before done exactly all the same things? Well, hey, neither has a
parent - particularly the cruel and gruesome garroting of a live
child and sexual penetration. But that doesn't seem to throw you off
the parent theory while you use the very same process to rule out an
intruder. That's inconsistent.
> And it's not
> just a matter of there's no crime in which all those specific things
> happened in a single murder before committed by either a pedophile, a
> kidnap-for-ransom perpetrator or a revenge seeker, but that there's no crime
> of any those types in which any combination of those things occurred.
Cite? "Any" combination of these things? Unlikely given how many
there are.
Are you saying no one has ever broken into a house and kidnapped a
child and then killed it? There's a combination. I discuss one such
precedent below.
Are you saying no perp has ever left a ransom note written on paper
from the crime scene?
> In either case, it's an extremely bizarre and unique murder.
True.
> However,
> leaving aside the long list of specific peculiarities of the crime, it's
> much closer to a cover up by family members for an accidental/child abuse
> murder than to any crime committed by a non-family-member, either as a child
> molestation, a kidnap for ransom or a crime of revenge.
Hardly. And you CAN'T leave "aside" the long list of
peculiarities that make up the crime. There's no basis to say the
facts fit parents better than intruder. If it's completely
unprecedented for parents to have done a crime with these
circumstances, how can it be ANY closer to that an intruder theory?
They'd both be equally far-fetched, at best.
> > If crimes follow patterns, then show me another crime when parents
> > accidentally harm their child, decide to finish her off rather than
> > seek help <snip>
>
> There have been cases of cover up of child abuse deaths in which the parent
> or parents have not sought medical help to try to save the child, and some
> in which more was done to a child near death to finish the child off.
When? Can you cite any? This is a serious request BTW, not a throwaway
line. I'd be interested to read of such a case. But of course, what I
wrote next limits it even further - the extremely cruel and
unprecedented nature of the killing makes it less likely a parent did
it.
By the same token, I would say there have been cases of murder of
children by molesters in which they try to get away with it by throwing
off false clues or covering up their involvement... and that's MUCH
more often than parents doing it, by miles.
> > by cruelly garroting her with an intricate noose-like device
> > hastily constructed,
>
> The hastily constructed business is not material. In any cover up crime, the
> cover-up events are "hastily enacted" by their very nature.
That's exactly my point... the garrote is a complicated piece of
construction. It is extremely unlikely that it was put together hastily
by parents who just injured their child and decide to finish her off
rather than call an ambulance. They were hastily putting together a
plan they had no conception of ever having to do in their lives but now
in a matter of hours - plus calling police in before 6 a.m.
A molester or pedo, OTOH, probably has made MANY of them in his sick
career. He COULD hastily construct it - even bring the cord with him,
since as we know the cord could not be sourced to the house or family,
another big hole in the PDI theory.
> I have read of
> child abuse death cover ups where a strangulation was simulated on top of
> another fatal or severely brtual injury, most likely to give the appearance
> of psycho child killer at work, and possibly to detract from the true source
> of the fatality.
Cite? Again, not to be argumentative in the least; I really would like
to read it.
> I've never heard of a garroting in a death of that kind,
> but that's an example where there's a specific detail unique to this
> particular murder.
And that makes it implausible and unprecedented for the parents to have
done it, given the very same standards you and Bo were applying to say
it's implausible that an intruder would have done it.
>And the garroting would not have been as cruel as one
> would imagine it to be if the victim was deeply unconscious and totally
> non-responsive at the time it occurred. That could've been the case if the
> gorroting and other brutalities were a cover-up to the fatal head injury.
The evidence that JonBenet was alive and fighting the strangulation -
the marks on her neck and the material under her fingernails -
indicates she was quite conscious.
> > then wrote a bizarre ransom note, stacked a
> > suitcase near a basement window after first trying to put her body into
> > it,
>
> The suitcase by the window detail is not material.
Everything is material. The suitcase, according to the family, was not
kept there, nor were the things found IN the suitcase ever stored in
it. How on earth can you declare this immaterial? It is very likely the
perp put it there - you do know that fibers from the sham and blanket
in the suitcase were found on JonBenet, according to the state crime
lab? (FBI disagreed, saying the fibers on JonBenet came from unknown
sources not linked to anything in the home - both circumstances argue
for an intruder, the FBI interpretation more heavily so).
> If you want to theorize
> there's evidence someone attempted to put the child's body into the
> suitcase, then scratched the plan, that could be said in either case.
> There's nothing especially noteworthy or unique w/ the suitcase that either
> implicates or exonerates a parent in such an instance, or points more
> forecfully to an intruder.
Of course it points more heavily to an intruder. A parent cover-up in
which they were calling police in shortly argues against ever putting
her into the suitcase in the first place. Let alone putting the Dr.
Seuss book and John Andrew's bedding into it. C'mon, that's
w-a-a-a-a-y beyond implausible for a parent cover up theory. But an
intruder often takes "souvenirs" of the crime.
> The suitcase has no relevance to the discussion.
Only because it argues against your premature elimination of the
intruder. It has a LOT of relevance, as I've just shown. In fact it
has relevance to BOTH theories.
> >go out and find duct tape they don't have,
>
> What evidence do you have that a parent would have to run out for duct tape
> in the middle of the night, or that the Ramseys didn't own a roll of duct
> tape? There's no evidence they didn't have duct tape in the home.
Of course there is. We've been over it. To imagine the duct tape came
from the Ramseys requires postulating theories based on no known facts,
and that's weak. Intruder explains it quite handily. The tape came
from a piece of a continuing roll - it was torn on both ends.
> There is
> some evidence OTOH that one of them might have bought duct tape not long
> before the murder.
No there isn't.
> Granted it's not *proof* there was duct tape in the home
> at the time of the murder. But there's certainly no proof that there
> *wasn't* any duct tape either.
There is evidence that there was not.
> So the duct tape part of it has no relevancy to the discussion either.
Nonsense. This declaration carries no weight of evidence. The fact that
duct tape was across her mouth and that it cannot be sourced to the
family is highly relevant and there's no basis to say it's not.
> > and then instead of
> > just laying low and trying to evade detection, they immediately call
> > police in,
>
> Lay low? Evade detection? To what end?
To get away with murder, obviously, which you and some others think is
what they wanted.
> How long could they go before they
> would be forced to go public w/ the fact that their daughter was no where to
> be found?
Longer than 5:52 a.m.
> They were due in Michigan to reunite w/ other family members
> within hours of daybreak. They couldn't very well show up in Michigan and
> pull a "Home Alone" moment, claiming their daughter's absence had escaped
> their notice. If they cancelled the trip on some pretense that would have to
> be invented just to buy some time, how far would that get them?
At such a time, if the parents did it, it is plausible they could delay
the departure in order to come up with something better than a
ridiculous three-page ransom note on a pad they then hand over to
detectives.
> At some
> point, sooner rather than later, they would have to tell someone their child
> was missing.
Later is better than 5:52, from a plausibility standpoint.
> If they "lay low" at home a few days, attempting to "evade
> detection", reporting the child missing after hastily cancelling the trip to
> Charlevoix, that would bring that much more suspicion on themselves than
> reporting the disappearance right off the bat.
Sure, but given the choices, it could have helped construct a much
better cover-up than one in which Linda Arndt immediately thinks
she's solved the crime when John carried the body up from the
basement.
> If the crime was a cover up for an accidental or child abuse death, they
> really would've had no choice but to alert LE immediately that the child was
> missing.
Not really. From that standpoint, 6:52 could have worked as well.
> > hand them the pad on which the note was written to compare
> > their handwriting to the note,
>
> Oversight?
Implausible ;-)
They supposedly had just written the note on it. They should have
thrown it out with the duct tape!
If you are willing to gloss over inconsistencies in the parent theory
with a hand-waving "oversight," you should also extend this to
bridge whatever gaps you might still see in the intruder theory.
> > OTOH, I can show you cases in which a molester tried to kidnap a
> > victim, molested her/him in the process and ended up killing the
> > victim, then tried to cover his tracks.
>
> But no case like that in which a ransom note was left.
No case in which a parent killed their child and left a ransom note
either. Cuts both ways.
> Or in which a
> kidnap-for-ransom plan spontaneously morphed into a murder and sexual
> molestation by object situation.
This is too easy ... and no other case in which a mom
"accidentally" slams her beloved daughter into a tub or toilet and
spontaneously morphs this into a sexual strangulation to finish her off
with a bizarrely constructed scheme with so much evidence in order to
try to cover up an accidental fall in the home.
Too complicated. I mean, what role in this "cover-up" did the
parents imagine for the coil of rope and paper bag up in the guest
bedroom would play? Did they plant some stranger's baseball bat
outside on the north side of the house too, after putting fibers on it
from inside the house?
> Or in which a ransom note was left w/ the
> body of the intended victim found in the home.
Ever hear of the Lindbergh baby kidnapping? A note was found in the
baby's room, on the windowsill. Yet the baby appeared to have been
killed during the escape from the house that night, as the body was
found near the estate buried in a shallow grave two and a half months
later, badly decomposed. The skull had been fractured, probably during
the very commission of the crime.
So here we have a kidnapping that may have morphed into a murder
(there's disagreement on whether the baby was dropped down the
ladder, or whether the skull was bashed in the bed at the start of the
crime).
There were something like a total of 12 ransom notes in that case. Talk
about unprecedented!
So here we have a most famous kidnapping case in which the victim was
killed in the commission of it, although not discovered for more than
two months. The body wasn't left in the house but was very close by
in a grave off the roadside, indicating the Eaglet was killed almost
immediately but still the note was left, and in fact 11 more ransom
notes were delivered even after the perps knew the baby was dead.
You wouldn't suggest the colonel and his wife did it as an elaborate
cover-up, I trust. The only difference with the JonBenet case was the
perp killed the child in the basement and escaped from there, leaving
the note behind because it was upstairs already. In the Lindbergh case,
the note was on the sill and the boy was killed almost immediately
afterward and buried four miles away from the house.
> Or in which a ransom note was written in the victim's home.
I'd have to ask for your source on THAT one. You have a source that
says no ransom note has ever been written from materials in the
victim's home?
Or in which an abductor-child molester-killer
> tried to cover his tracks by leaving a ransom note.
>
> > If you want to be THAT general
> > about describing the parent theory above, I can make the intruder
> > theory just as reasonable by being as general too.
>
> You can't make the intruder theory "reasonable" by any adjustment of detail.
> The best you've been able to come up w/ as far as the ransom note being
> written in the home as an established precedent was mention of bank robbers
> who have written robbery demands on a bank deposit slip in the bank when
> they went in to rob the place. That's an example of how far a theorist must
> work and stretch to make an intruder a possible suspect in the Ramsey murder
> w/ a precedent to a crime "like it".
And that isn't far at all. Your saying that it is a stretch doesn't
make it that; you've got to show how it is that you find it
implausible that someone with three-four hours on his hands fantasizing
about molesting a little girl later might write that note. There's no
way it's implausible. ISTM you're saying so only because you reject
the intruder theory, so you must of course find it implausible he would
write the note. It is far more implausible that the parents wrote it,
given its bizarre and immature structure, length, etc.
> > Skepticism works both ways, but it has to work a lot of overtime to
> > believe the parents did it versus an intruder already predisposed to
> > bizarre and sick behavior.
>
> In your opinion maybe. But there are a lot of people who find it takes a lot
> more work, a lot more stretching the imagination and a lot more allowance
> for multiple coincidences and odd-ass explanations to make any intruder
> theory work.
I haven't been shown one instance of stretching yet, except by the
Bo Raxo
Iarnrod wrote:
> Are you saying no perp has ever left a ransom note written on paper
> from the crime scene?
I can't find a single case where that happened, no.
> >
> > There have been cases of cover up of child abuse deaths in which the parent
> > or parents have not sought medical help to try to save the child, and some
> > in which more was done to a child near death to finish the child off.
>
> When? Can you cite any? This is a serious request BTW, not a throwaway
> line. I'd be interested to read of such a case. But of course, what I
> wrote next limits it even further - the extremely cruel and
> unprecedented nature of the killing makes it less likely a parent did
> it.
>
> By the same token, I would say there have been cases of murder of
> children by molesters in which they try to get away with it by throwing
> off false clues or covering up their involvement... and that's MUCH
> more often than parents doing it, by miles.
Fact: For child murder victims, the offender is far more likely to be
a parent than a stranger. For example, see
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/children.htm
For children under 5, 61% were killed by a parent. 3% were killed by
strangers
Fact: Parents who murder their children frequently do torture the
child first. More parents abuse their children than do strangers.
Fact: More parents sexually molest children than strangers.
Fact: The most common method of child murder is strangulation or
physical punishment, performed by the mother. Cite:
http://www.infanticide.org/history.htm
This does not make an intruder theory impossible, but it does make it
more likely that a parent committed the crime than a stranger, or even
an acquaintance.
>
> The intruder theory requires no "coincidences" or odd-ass
> explanations.
Except for that ransom note: that's one odd-ass piece of evidence.
Bo Raxo
Kris Baker
"Bo Raxo" <Cheneys...@deathsdoor.com> wrote in message
news:1158797497.1...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Except? The intruder theory requires nothing *but* twisting coincidences
and lengthy explanations.
The fact that it took almost *ten years* for Lou Smit, Michael Tracey and
Mary Lacy to come up with their best possible suspect in John Mark Karr,
speaks more for their side of the case than anything else ever will.
It's like when Mark Hofmann sold all his forgeries to the Mormon Church; to
buy into those, you had to toss out Joseph Smith's revelation about his
discovery of the Book of Mormon. Compare that to the known evidence in
this case, and you've got a couple of revelations that didn't work out.
Kris
Iarnrod
> Iarnrod wrote:
>
> > Are you saying no perp has ever left a ransom note written on paper
> > from the crime scene?
>
> I can't find a single case where that happened, no.
That's a different answer than the question asked. Where did you look?
Is there a web site or other source of statistics that would address
the question? This is a serious question, not a sarcastic reply :-)
because I truly want to find a data source. In the Ramsey case, it just
is so blatantly obvious that the perp would have had time to write War
& Peace, let alone a three-page ransom note. I'm sure he didn't stop
and consider that no child molester/kidnapper/pedo before him had ever
done that so maybe he shouldn't either. So given that ease of
opportunity, it just makes sense to conclude an intruder did it since
it's such a bizarre prop for a parental cover-up. I say that because
neither has anyone come up with a case of parental child murder in
which such strange decoy device has been used.
> > > There have been cases of cover up of child abuse deaths in which the parent
> > > or parents have not sought medical help to try to save the child, and some
> > > in which more was done to a child near death to finish the child off.
> >
> > When? Can you cite any? This is a serious request BTW, not a throwaway
> > line. I'd be interested to read of such a case. But of course, what I
> > wrote next limits it even further - the extremely cruel and
> > unprecedented nature of the killing makes it less likely a parent did
> > it.
> >
> > By the same token, I would say there have been cases of murder of
> > children by molesters in which they try to get away with it by throwing
> > off false clues or covering up their involvement... and that's MUCH
> > more often than parents doing it, by miles.
>
> Fact: For child murder victims, the offender is far more likely to be
> a parent than a stranger. For example, see
> http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/children.htm
>
> For children under 5, 61% were killed by a parent. 3% were killed by
> strangers
>
> Fact: Parents who murder their children frequently do torture the
> child first. More parents abuse their children than do strangers.
>
> Fact: More parents sexually molest children than strangers.
>
> Fact: The most common method of child murder is strangulation or
> physical punishment, performed by the mother. Cite:
> http://www.infanticide.org/history.htm
Thanks for the cites. I have never disputed that most child murders are
done by parents. That doesn't add one iota of evidence to the Ramsey
case though. Those other cases are solved by pretty clear and
convincing evidence, including some sort of history of priors. But we
can't declare the Ramseys guilty by statistical weight of other cases.
Well, let me change that to say we "shouldn't!"
> This does not make an intruder theory impossible, but it does make it
> more likely that a parent committed the crime than a stranger, or even
> an acquaintance.
No, it actually makes I more likely that out of all child murders, more
of them were done by parents than by strangers. It tells us nothing in
the Ramsey case except the parents should be included as suspects,
which they were, properly so.
> > The intruder theory requires no "coincidences" or odd-ass
> > explanations.
>
> Except for that ransom note: that's one odd-ass piece of evidence.
And, I would suggest, more strongly implicates a psycho intruder than a
set of typical loving parents who had never even seen the movies from
which many of the Hollywood lines in the ransom note were taken.
Obviously, it was written. So we're stuck with that. We just have to
ask what is more reasonable to explain it.
Thank you for the decent reply!
Poe
The ransom note is one fucked up piece of evidence, and hence, makes a
case for an insider. For one thing, it goes on and on and on and on.
WAYYY too many words. Then, there is the fact that the last page, IMO,
looks like a woman's writing - as if the writer got lazy in their
attempt to conceal their penmanship, and hence, gave a clue to their
gender. And the "southern charm" comment about John. And "attache" with
the thingy over the "e" - most people skip that, even if they know it
should be there. And the obvious misspellings seemed forced. And the
"she's dead, she's dead" comments over and over (you call the police,
she's dead, etc,). It is far too rambling.
I have trouble getting past the ransom note.
I also have trouble getting thru my thick skull a mum doing what was
done to that little girl's corpse. But I can never get over the ransom
note either. I had high hopes at first that JMK really did it, so I
could get all my questions answered, and confirm in my head Patsy didn't
abuse her baby's body that way, but that's not to be (sigh).
Iarnrod
> The ransom note is one fucked up piece of evidence, and hence, makes a
> case for an insider. For one thing, it goes on and on and on and on.
> WAYYY too many words.
How in the world does that indicate an insider wrote it more so than an
intruder who had up to four hours alone in the house? I don't follow
your reasoning. To me, the fact that it ranbles on in bizarre fashion
points to an intruder with deep emotional problems.
> Then, there is the fact that the last page, IMO,
> looks like a woman's writing - as if the writer got lazy in their
> attempt to conceal their penmanship, and hence, gave a clue to their
> gender. And the "southern charm" comment about John.
But John was not a southerner.
He was born in Iowa, raised in Michigan, went to Michigan State. He
lived a few years in Atlanta where he had gone for work before coming
to Boulder in 1991.
The "southern charm" mention, therefore, says to me this waas NOT
someone who knew the family very well. Maybe the intruder saw something
in the house indicating the family had lived in Atlanta and therefore
the perp incorrectly assumed John was a southernor.
But certainly, Patsy knew John was from Michigan. That's precidsly
why it makes no sense that SHE would write "use that good ol'
southern charm" in reference to him during the supposedly panicked
ocmpiosition of the note on her part. Why would that false information
even occur to her to write.
> And "attache" with
> the thingy over the "e" - most people skip that, even if they know it
> should be there.
You really lost me there. How does "attaché" with the accent mark
indicate more likely the parents or an insider versus a fantasizing
intruder who watches too many reruns of Mel Gibson in Ransom - a
movie the Ramseys never saw?
> And the obvious misspellings seemed forced.
Explain that one. I've seen misspellings in this NG. How do I know
they are "forced?" That's pure idle speculation promoted by the
conclusion that it was an insider trying to make it look like an
outsider, but with no basis for that. It's backward reasoning, from
the conclusion to the imagined evidence.
> And the
> "she's dead, she's dead" comments over and over (you call the police,
> she's dead, etc,). It is far too rambling.
Again, what about that says it's an insider or parent any more than
that it's a sicko intruder with four hours alone in the house?
> I have trouble getting past the ransom note.
I know. It can't be gotten past. It has to be dealt with. All I am
saying is that the oddities that seem to some to argue against an
intruder are equally oddities that would argue against the parents as
well.
> I also have trouble getting thru my thick skull a mum doing what was
> done to that little girl's corpse. But I can never get over the ransom
> note either. I had high hopes at first that JMK really did it, so I
> could get all my questions answered, and confirm in my head Patsy didn't
> abuse her baby's body that way, but that's not to be (sigh).
I think the chances that Patsy did this to her daughter are
non-existent, after one looks at the totality, the magnitude, the
horror of what was done - all stemming from her wetting the bed? I
don't think so.
Take a look at the autopsy photo showing the depth to which that
garrote cord sunk into her neck. And realize THAT'S what killed her,
not the blow to the head. Patsy would be the last person on earth to do
that to her child.
Parent child-killers have never ever done a murder in this way. They
strangled with their hands in anger, as Bo's cite pointed out. They
have not taken time out, which would dissipate the rage, to build an
intricately corded garrote and then systematically squeeze the living
breath out of their injured child, enough to make the blood vessels
burst in the child's eyes.
If it weren't for all this, I'd be suspecting the parents too. But
it's way too much for staging.
Poe
> Poe wrote:
>
>>The ransom note is one fucked up piece of evidence, and hence, makes a
>>case for an insider. For one thing, it goes on and on and on and on.
>>WAYYY too many words.
>
>
> How in the world does that indicate an insider wrote it more so than an
> intruder who had up to four hours alone in the house? I don't follow
> your reasoning. To me, the fact that it ranbles on in bizarre fashion
> points to an intruder with deep emotional problems.
>
Because it does not get to the point. An intruder would make it to the
point. No reason to go on and on and on and on like that.
>
>>Then, there is the fact that the last page, IMO,
>>looks like a woman's writing - as if the writer got lazy in their
>>attempt to conceal their penmanship, and hence, gave a clue to their
>>gender. And the "southern charm" comment about John.
>
>
> But John was not a southerner.
But it was a term she reportedly used with him.
>
> He was born in Iowa, raised in Michigan, went to Michigan State. He
> lived a few years in Atlanta where he had gone for work before coming
> to Boulder in 1991.
>
> The "southern charm" mention, therefore, says to me this waas NOT
> someone who knew the family very well. Maybe the intruder saw something
> in the house indicating the family had lived in Atlanta and therefore
> the perp incorrectly assumed John was a southernor.
>
> But certainly, Patsy knew John was from Michigan. That's precidsly
> why it makes no sense that SHE would write "use that good ol'
> southern charm" in reference to him during the supposedly panicked
> ocmpiosition of the note on her part. Why would that false information
> even occur to her to write.
>
>
>>And "attache" with
>>the thingy over the "e" - most people skip that, even if they know it
>>should be there.
>
>
> You really lost me there. How does "attaché" with the accent mark
> indicate more likely the parents or an insider versus a fantasizing
> intruder who watches too many reruns of Mel Gibson in Ransom - a
> movie the Ramseys never saw?
Because it is a more formal way of writing the word, something someone
more "upper crust" would do, particularly one who has been around
business folks. She seems to fit that better than some weirdo intruder
guy hiding under a bed and all that.
>
>>And the obvious misspellings seemed forced.
>
>
> Explain that one. I've seen misspellings in this NG. How do I know
> they are "forced?" That's pure idle speculation promoted by the
> conclusion that it was an insider trying to make it look like an
> outsider, but with no basis for that. It's backward reasoning, from
> the conclusion to the imagined evidence.
Because the words seemed like words I would select to pretend to
misspell. I forget them without calling up the note, but there were a
few - like bussiness instead of business, and posssion. If I were going
to pretend to not know how to spell words, that is were I would do it -
with those double 'ss' and such. Because to me, that is where an idiot
would misspell something. But if I were such an idiot, why would I know
where to put the thingy over the 'e' in attache?
>>And the
>>"she's dead, she's dead" comments over and over (you call the police,
>>she's dead, etc,). It is far too rambling.
>
>
> Again, what about that says it's an insider or parent any more than
> that it's a sicko intruder with four hours alone in the house?
>
Because why bother writing a big long note if she is already dead and
you are an intruder? Make it short and sweet. Then getthefukkouttathere.
But if you are really connected, you may over think it and write this
rambling note.
And don't forget, "and hence". Who write that term? I agree that maybe a
redneck trying to sound smart my say that, but the same redneck would
not know the word attache. It doesn't add up.
>>I have trouble getting past the ransom note.
>
>
> I know. It can't be gotten past. It has to be dealt with. All I am
> saying is that the oddities that seem to some to argue against an
> intruder are equally oddities that would argue against the parents as
> well.
>
>
>>I also have trouble getting thru my thick skull a mum doing what was
>>done to that little girl's corpse. But I can never get over the ransom
>>note either. I had high hopes at first that JMK really did it, so I
>>could get all my questions answered, and confirm in my head Patsy didn't
>>abuse her baby's body that way, but that's not to be (sigh).
>
>
> I think the chances that Patsy did this to her daughter are
> non-existent, after one looks at the totality, the magnitude, the
> horror of what was done - all stemming from her wetting the bed? I
> don't think so.
>
Don't forget, parent do horrific things to their kids all the time.
> Take a look at the autopsy photo showing the depth to which that
> garrote cord sunk into her neck. And realize THAT'S what killed her,
> not the blow to the head. Patsy would be the last person on earth to do
> that to her child.
I did look at it. It troubles me.
>
> Parent child-killers have never ever done a murder in this way. They
> strangled with their hands in anger, as Bo's cite pointed out. They
> have not taken time out, which would dissipate the rage, to build an
> intricately corded garrote and then systematically squeeze the living
> breath out of their injured child, enough to make the blood vessels
> burst in the child's eyes.
>
> If it weren't for all this, I'd be suspecting the parents too. But
> it's way too much for staging.
>
This is definitely less than clear cut. I wish I never got sucked into
it now, because I didn't back in the day, and looking at it now I can
see why there are to very strong camps on both sides of the issue.
Kris Baker
"Poe" <hau...@terrible-thought.com> wrote in message
news:4ne7isF...@individual.net...
>
> This is definitely less than clear cut. I wish I never got sucked into it
> now, because I didn't back in the day, and looking at it now I can see why
> there are to very strong camps on both sides of the issue.
Think anger, total loss of control. The kind of anger that overwhelms
you. Who's going to have the kind of anger that causes both a
massive blow to the head and strangulation? A stranger with
pedophilic tendencies, yet really does nothing to the child that
would leave DNA? Or the closest person in the world to you,
who controls every segment of your life to perfection?
Kris
waltbrad
Poe wrote:
>
> The ransom note is one fucked up piece of evidence, and hence, makes a
> case for an insider. For one thing, it goes on and on and on and on.
> WAYYY too many words. Then, there is the fact that the last page, IMO,
> looks like a woman's writing - as if the writer got lazy in their
> attempt to conceal their penmanship, and hence, gave a clue to their
> gender. And the "southern charm" comment about John. And "attache" with
> the thingy over the "e" - most people skip that, even if they know it
> should be there. And the obvious misspellings seemed forced. And the
> "she's dead, she's dead" comments over and over (you call the police,
> she's dead, etc,). It is far too rambling.
>
> I have trouble getting past the ransom note.
>
> I also have trouble getting thru my thick skull a mum doing what was
> done to that little girl's corpse. But I can never get over the ransom
> note either. I had high hopes at first that JMK really did it, so I
> could get all my questions answered, and confirm in my head Patsy didn't
> abuse her baby's body that way, but that's not to be (sigh).
The fact that the ransom note is one "fupoe", is a good reason to
ignore it. You can't reasonably make head nor tail of it until you
have a viable suspect. Many people have speculated that Patsey Ramsey
wrote it, and they always point to their opinion of the handwriting.
But look at the post I have near the end of the thread where I post a
link to ransom note comparisons. The person on that website
hypothesizes that it was an adolescent that wrote the note. Where i
don't subscribe to that, I think they are being just as reasonable as
anyone else who has commented on this note. And it is kind of
unimaginable to me that Patsey Ramsey would be using so many lines from
movies. It DOES seem like the work of an adolescent mind.
Elsewhere it has been speculated that John Ramsey committed this crime
and HE wrote the note. Where I think John Ramsey brings on more
suspicions to himself than does Patsey, I still cannot see him writing
that note.
I just don't believe anyone can find much of anything by analyzing that
note.
veryrich
Also, when people say that the staging was too elaborate for the parent
to have done it, ask yourself which suspect has (or had) a reputation
for heavy-handed excess. There was nothing subtle about Patsy.
veryrich
Kris Baker
"veryrich" <vvvr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1158806944.6...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Really. That ransom note always looked like it should have had
gilt lace tatted all around it.......or at least pinking shears used to
give it a festive tinge.
Kris
EnEss
Poe wrote:
> The ransom note is one fucked up piece of evidence, and hence, makes a
> case for an insider. For one thing, it goes on and on and on and on.
> WAYYY too many words.
How in the world does that indicate an insider wrote it more so than an
intruder who had up to four hours alone in the house?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Why do you keep restating "an intruder who had four hours alone in the
house"? I suspect you think if you restate this enough times it will begin
to set in the minds of people reading that it's a known fact an intruder
spent four hours alone in the house, when in fact, it's not known at all how
long the person would've been there--if indeed there was someone there
Yes, the family was out that evening and, conceivably, someone could've
entered the home while they were out and done all sorts of things alone in
the house (although this is obviously limited too or there would be evidence
of more done than the crime itself). It's also possible that a person
breaking into the house after everyone went to bed could've had all night to
lurk within the house, writing ransom notes and practice sheets and
collecting materials for his various planned projects. Hardly the most
likely or common thing in a home invasion crime, but the time was there, no
debate. However, the same could be said of any family member, namely either
parent or both. No one saw them after they dropped off the gift basket at
the friend's house and went home until the first police officer responded to
the scene in the early morning hours.
Which means it could be said quite accurately that any of them in the house
that night had all those hours between the time they arrived home from the
Whites' party and when the first officer arrived on the scene around 6 am.
I think you keep talking about how an intruder would've had 4 hours alone in
the house (actually, all night in the house while its occupatns slept) to
reinforce the idea that an intruder would've had the opportunity to write
the ransom note. But anyone living in the house would've had the same
opportunity, so that doesn't really prove anything about an intruder.
Additionally, someone living in the house would not only have all the
overnight hours to complete a crime staging, including the composition of
the practice notes and the actual note, but could also proceed w/o fear of
discovery, knowing very well no one would be coming into the house.
An intruder would have no such knowledge. If he worked on the note while the
family was out, he really would have no idea when they would return, and
would have to realize they might walk in at any time. And if he broke into
the house after everyone went to bed and began working on the note, he
certainly could not be sure no one living in the home might not awaken and
get up and move around the house. Even if he didn't think it likely, what's
to say one of the parents wouldn't have gone down to the kitchen, waking up
hungry or thirsty and in search of a snack or drink?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I don't follow
your reasoning. To me, the fact that it ranbles on in bizarre fashion
points to an intruder with deep emotional problems.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No argument there! Whoever wrote that note had deep emotional problems.
That's hardly a controversial fact. I don't find it at all unreasonable,
however, to suggest that a parent who has just accidentally killed his or
her own child and has decided to embark on an elaborate, bizarre and
thoroughly gruesome crime staging as a cover-up instead of call for help for
the child to see if she could be saved would be a parent with deep emotional
problems at that particular time. There is such a thing as temporary
insanity. There's also such a thing as people w/ fairly serious emotional
problems able to hide the condition to most of the outside world in a way
that makes it appear they are functioning relatively normally in a very
superficial way.
> Then, there is the fact that the last page, IMO,
> looks like a woman's writing - as if the writer got lazy in their
> attempt to conceal their penmanship, and hence, gave a clue to their
> gender. And the "southern charm" comment about John.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
But John was not a southerner.
<snip>
But certainly, Patsy knew John was from Michigan. That's precidsly
why it makes no sense that SHE would write "use that good ol'
southern charm" in reference to him during the supposedly panicked
ocmpiosition of the note on her part. Why would that false information
even occur to her to write.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Except that one could make the argument that the "southern common sense"
remark was inserted in the note intentionally to point away from anyone in
the family for the very reasons you say. Throw in what looks like a mistake
or a mistaken assumption by the author and LE will say "This couldn't have
been written by either parent because obviously they know Ramsey isn't from
the south."
There's no proof that's why it was done, of course. But the idea of a
deliberate divisonary tactic of placing false information, easily disproved,
can't be dismissed.
> And "attache" with
> the thingy over the "e" - most people skip that, even if they know it
> should be there.
You really lost me there. How does "attaché" with the accent mark
indicate more likely the parents or an insider versus a fantasizing
intruder who watches too many reruns of Mel Gibson in Ransom - a
movie the Ramseys never saw?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I agree about the "attaché" word and the other comments about misspellings
that follow (which I'm snipping). I don't find any of that a convincing
argument either way. Anyone who can write a ransom note that's reasonably
literate could use any word and could remember to put the é at the end. And
anyone could misspell a word. It's impossible to say a misspelling is
deliberate or not.
But I'd like you to cite any source that documents that the Ramseys never
saw the movie "Ransom" or the other movies you claim they didn't see, like
"Speed" that has that "grow a brain" line in it. What credible source do you
have that demonstrates neither of the Ramseys saw any of these movies
mentioned? How would you know what movies the Ramseys had or had not seen?
This would seem to me a particularly intimate thing to know about someone.
<snip>
> I have trouble getting past the ransom note.
I know. It can't be gotten past. It has to be dealt with. All I am
saying is that the oddities that seem to some to argue against an
intruder are equally oddities that would argue against the parents as
well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So you say once again. But saying that 100x, or 1,000x or even a million x,
doesn't make it more true.
It's a matter of opinion, and you are entitled to yours, most certainly. But
opnion, no matter how many times stated, is not fact.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Parent child-killers have never ever done a murder in this way.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That doesn't help your argument though because no intruder has ever done in
a murder in this way. So that's a moot argument. The two negatives in both
the parent and intruder column come out to a wash.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If it weren't for all this, I'd be suspecting the parents too. But
it's way too much for staging.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The very same thing could be said of an intruder crime though. It's way too
much for any motive for a real crime. Way too much for a kidnap-for-ransom
schemer. Way too much for a pedophile-molester-killer. Way too much for a
revenge-seeking killer.
If you want to go by the "way too much": factor for elimination, again, it's
a wash.
EnEss
"Iarnrod" wrote:
> Bo Raxo wrote:
>> Iarnrod wrote:
>> > Are you saying no perp has ever left a ransom note written on paper
>> > from the crime scene?
>> I can't find a single case where that happened, no.
> That's a different answer than the question asked. Where did you look?
> Is there a web site or other source of statistics that would address
> the question? This is a serious question, not a sarcastic reply :-)
> because I truly want to find a data source.
That citing thing goes both ways. I challenge you to produce a cite for an
example of even one kidnapping (regardless of the outcome) in which it was
determined a ransom note left behind was written in the victim's home, w/
writing materials found in the victim's home at the time of the crime.
I would bet you just about any amount of money, payable by paypal, you are
unable to produce one example, other than the Ramsey case.
> And, I would suggest, more strongly implicates a psycho intruder than a
> set of typical loving parents who had never even seen the movies from
> which many of the Hollywood lines in the ransom note were taken.
Cite please. Provide a credible source that documents the Ramseys never saw
any of the movies to which you refer. I wager you can't do it. How would you
know what movies people who are total strangers--according to you--have or
haven't seen? That presumes a high degree of intimate knowledge of someone,
IMO.
Bo Raxo
EnEss wrote:
> "Iarnrod" wrote:
>
> Poe wrote:
> > The ransom note is one fucked up piece of evidence, and hence, makes a
> > case for an insider. For one thing, it goes on and on and on and on.
> > WAYYY too many words.
>
> How in the world does that indicate an insider wrote it more so than an
> intruder who had up to four hours alone in the house?
Because ransom notes are short and to the point. Find me any ransom
note that goes longer than one page, in any case, anywhere. For a
typical example of a ransom note, see the Lindbergh kidnapping.
That note was obviously written by someone with a poor education; this
note, with an accent over the last letter in "adequate size attache",
phrases like "immediate execution", beheaded, "law enforcement
countermeasures and tactics", suggests someone educated. Which makes
the mispellings more evidence of intentional misleading by the writer.
Then there are the signs of respect and concern for John: Saying that
the money delivery will be "exhausting", "advise you to be rested",
saying that the "group of individuals" "respect your business". They
even offer a convienent early service: "If we monitor you getting the
money early, we might call you early to arrange an earlier delivery of
the money and hence a earlier (crossed out:delivery) pickup of your
daughter."
Ransom notes are about a threat to the victim and an amount of money,
and that's it - "we have ____, pay [some nice round number], or your
loved one dies."
They don't tell you to take an attache case to the bank, then move the
money to a paper bag. They don't tell you to get the money out of your
bank account, the kidnapper doesn't care where you get the money from.
In fact, the note writer doesn't merely tell John to get the money
from "the bank", but to get it from "your account" - you know, the way
a wife might refer to "your account" versus "my account".
Then there is the reference to the "two gentlemen watching over your
daughter". First, it's remarkably un-aggressive. Second, they aren't
merely "watching" the child, they are "Watching over" her - sounds
rather like someone protective, doesn't it?
Finally, there is the tense of the repeated "she dies". If this was a
kidnapper making a threat, it would be in the future tense, especially
when we see how obvious it is the writer is quite handy with the
English language. It would say "She will die". Saying "She dies", is
the present tense, suggesting that when the note was written the author
already knew the child was dead.
Note: Much of my discussion here is drawn from
http://www.statementanalysis.com/ramseynote/
Bo Raxo
Iarnrod
> Iarnrod wrote:
> > Poe wrote:
> >
> >>The ransom note is one fucked up piece of evidence, and hence, makes a
> >>case for an insider. For one thing, it goes on and on and on and on.
> >>WAYYY too many words.
> >
> >
> > How in the world does that indicate an insider wrote it more so than an
> > intruder who had up to four hours alone in the house? I don't follow
> > your reasoning. To me, the fact that it ranbles on in bizarre fashion
> > points to an intruder with deep emotional problems.
> >
>
> Because it does not get to the point. An intruder would make it to the
> point. No reason to go on and on and on and on like that.
You're assuming to much. First, you're assuming it was really a
ransom note. Seen for what it really could be, a scripted fantasy by a
sick pedo acting out his warped vision of taking this little girl, it
puts it in an entirely different context.
Since that's what the crime appears to have been, given the result,
examining the note in that light tells us something consistent, not
inconsistent.
As Walt said earlier, we deduce the character of the writer from what
he left us, rather than deciding what he should have said instead. His
point was to taunt. He likely had no intention of ransoming the child.
>From that perspective the note is apropos.
> >>Then, there is the fact that the last page, IMO,
> >>looks like a woman's writing - as if the writer got lazy in their
> >>attempt to conceal their penmanship, and hence, gave a clue to their
> >>gender. And the "southern charm" comment about John.
> >
> >
> > But John was not a southerner.
>
> But it was a term she reportedly used with him.
Do you have a cite for that? I've not heard that. Actually I picked
up the other poster's error. I think the note said "southern common
sense" rather than "southern charm." But from where to you get
the information that Patsy casually used the term "use your good
southern common sense" with her husband? I've only ever seen
references to it by posters on websleuths and what-not, treating it as
an already-known fact, but I've never seen any actual corroboration.
Some of these same posters were also saying SBTC stood for Subic Bay
Training Center - a name we know never even existed.
> > He was born in Iowa, raised in Michigan, went to Michigan State. He
> > lived a few years in Atlanta where he had gone for work before coming
> > to Boulder in 1991.
> >
> > The "southern charm" mention, therefore, says to me this was NOT
> > someone who knew the family very well. Maybe the intruder saw something
> > in the house indicating the family had lived in Atlanta and therefore
> > the perp incorrectly assumed John was a southerner.
> >
> > But certainly, Patsy knew John was from Michigan. That's precisely
> > why it makes no sense that SHE would write "use that good ol'
> > southern charm" in reference to him during the supposedly panicked
> > composition of the note on her part. Why would that false information
> > even occur to her to write.
> >
> >
> >>And "attache" with
> >>the thingy over the "e" - most people skip that, even if they know it
> >>should be there.
> >
> >
> > You really lost me there. How does "attaché" with the accent mark
> > indicate more likely the parents or an insider versus a fantasizing
> > intruder who watches too many reruns of Mel Gibson in Ransom - a
> > movie the Ramseys never saw?
>
> Because it is a more formal way of writing the word, something someone
> more "upper crust" would do, particularly one who has been around
> business folks. She seems to fit that better than some weirdo intruder
> guy hiding under a bed and all that.
But how can you say that when you don't know who the intruder is? How
is being a weirdo incompatible with being educated? Ever hang around a
university campus? ;-() The intruder could very well be a highly
educated person with upper crust all over him. Someone else brought up
Leopold and Loeb earlier... look at those two guys, very educated but
very horrible. They sure would have know to use the accent with the
word.
So my point is, without knowing to whom you're comparing Patsy, how
can you say "attaché" indicates an insider rather than an
intruder? If the fantasizer had seen all these movies and used those
lines - unlike the parents - he would know the word. It's not all
that unusual anyway. I think to much has been made of the attaché
versus briefcase distinction.
> >>And the obvious misspellings seemed forced.
> >
> >
> > Explain that one. I've seen misspellings in this NG. How do I know
> > they are "forced?" That's pure idle speculation promoted by the
> > conclusion that it was an insider trying to make it look like an
> > outsider, but with no basis for that. It's backward reasoning, from
> > the conclusion to the imagined evidence.
>
>
> Because the words seemed like words I would select to pretend to
> misspell. I forget them without calling up the note, but there were a
> few - like bussiness instead of business, and posssion. If I were going
> to pretend to not know how to spell words, that is were I would do it -
> with those double 'ss' and such. Because to me, that is where an idiot
> would misspell something. But if I were such an idiot, why would I know
> where to put the thingy over the 'e' in attache?
He also corrected a misspelling later - "denied" had been started
as "dinied." I don't see any conclusory basis to say because he
was confused over the double-s and single-s words that were misspelled,
that it was deliberate because he also spelled more unusual words
correctly.
Also, in looking at the copy of the note on Smoking Gun, I don't see
the accent over the "e" in attaché. I'm not saying it isn't
there, but it actually looks like a little hook on the "y" in the
word above it, a characteristic I also see in other letter "y"s in
the note. There's no separate pen strike showing an accent.
Is there a clearer copy on line to verify this?
> >>And the
> >>"she's dead, she's dead" comments over and over (you call the police,
> >>she's dead, etc,). It is far too rambling.
> >
> >
> > Again, what about that says it's an insider or parent any more than
> > that it's a sicko intruder with four hours alone in the house?
> >
>
> Because why bother writing a big long note if she is already dead and
> you are an intruder?
That's easy. She was not already dead when it was written... she was
with her family at the White's Christmas party. The four hours alone
was the intruder in the house prior to the family's return. Why do
you assume it was written AFTER the killing? Hauptman (or, for others,
whoever killed Lindbergh Jr) wrote the note soon before the child was
killed too.
> Make it short and sweet. Then getthefukkouttathere.
> But if you are really connected, you may over think it and write this
> rambling note.
That's hardly any more reasonable than to think an intruder alone for
four hours would write it. Remember, it's not really a ransom note
anyway.
And why would Patsy or John include details that would point to them,
let alone not just write a simple two-sentence note to present to
police? Makes no sense for them to do so. They're in a hurry, in the
first place, setting up all the other staging. Why point purposely to
someone in their own inner circle? That's absurd. They would be
purposely limiting the field to EXCLUDE an intruder and the world of
all suspects. That's nuts.
I don't see that as a reasonable assumption. If the parents staged
it, then I think it would be more likely to be a short to-the-point
note. Why would the parents construct a three-page, immature,
misleading and completely nutso note, when "We have your daughter,
don't call police, wait for our call" will do for them?
> And don't forget, "and hence". Who write that term? I agree that maybe a
> redneck trying to sound smart my say that, but the same redneck would
> not know the word attache. It doesn't add up.
It wasn't a redneck. It was a pedo. "Hence" is used quite often;
in fact, some people in this Ramsey discussion for the last month have
used it inadvertently in their posts, I've noted.
> >>I have trouble getting past the ransom note.
> >
> >
> > I know. It can't be gotten past. It has to be dealt with. All I am
> > saying is that the oddities that seem to some to argue against an
> > intruder are equally oddities that would argue against the parents as
> > well.
> >
> >
> >>I also have trouble getting thru my thick skull a mum doing what was
> >>done to that little girl's corpse. But I can never get over the ransom
> >>note either. I had high hopes at first that JMK really did it, so I
> >>could get all my questions answered, and confirm in my head Patsy didn't
> >>abuse her baby's body that way, but that's not to be (sigh).
> >
> >
> > I think the chances that Patsy did this to her daughter are
> > non-existent, after one looks at the totality, the magnitude, the
> > horror of what was done - all stemming from her wetting the bed? I
> > don't think so.
> >
>
> Don't forget, parent do horrific things to their kids all the time.
Not like this, they don't. It's unprecedented in the annals of
child-killing parents.
> > Take a look at the autopsy photo showing the depth to which that
> > garrote cord sunk into her neck. And realize THAT'S what killed her,
> > not the blow to the head. Patsy would be the last person on earth to do
> > that to her child.
>
>
> I did look at it. It troubles me.
>
> >
> > Parent child-killers have never ever done a murder in this way. They
> > strangled with their hands in anger, as Bo's cite pointed out. They
> > have not taken time out, which would dissipate the rage, to build an
> > intricately corded garrote and then systematically squeeze the living
> > breath out of their injured child, enough to make the blood vessels
> > burst in the child's eyes.
> >
> > If it weren't for all this, I'd be suspecting the parents too. But
> > it's way too much for staging.
> >
>
> This is definitely less than clear cut. I wish I never got sucked into
> it now, because I didn't back in the day, and looking at it now I can
> see why there are to very strong camps on both sides of the issue.
Certainly.
Iarnrod
The problem with your premises is that anger and total loss of control
is inconsistent with how she was actually killed, with an intricate
garrote that took time and deliberation.
Parental child-killing by strangulation, which is among the most common
causes as someone else cited, is done in a rage with the hands. Never
ever has it been done this way - and that was the cause of death -
and the use of the garrote argues completely AGAINST spontaneous
no-deliberation strangulation by a parent. You don't spontaneously
fly into a rage and make a garrote to choke your child in the basement.
Iarnrod
Which suspect? Which suspect? Holy cow, now you're eliminating people
whose identity and character traits you don't even yet know -- an
intruder -- by saying they aren't perfectionists. It's not necessarily
true that because the only person you happen to know as a suspect has a
certain trait (at least the way you see it), that no other suspect
could as well.
Iarnrod
> "Iarnrod" wrote:
>
> Poe wrote:
> > The ransom note is one fucked up piece of evidence, and hence, makes a
> > case for an insider. For one thing, it goes on and on and on and on.
> > WAYYY too many words.
>
> How in the world does that indicate an insider wrote it more so than an
> intruder who had up to four hours alone in the house?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> Why do you keep restating "an intruder who had four hours alone in the
> house"?
As I said before, "up to" four hours. That's the time frame in
which the family was gone. A neighbor saw a young male approach the
Ramsey house shortly after the family left; he assumed it was John
Andrew arriving from Atlanta, which of course he learned later it could
not have been.
> Yes, the family was out that evening and, conceivably, someone could've
> entered the home while they were out and done all sorts of things alone in
> the house (although this is obviously limited too or there would be evidence
> of more done than the crime itself).
There is such evidence. The unknown baseball bat, the foreign fibers,
the suitcase placement and contents, and moreover, the rope and bag
left in the guest bedroom.
> It's also possible that a person
> breaking into the house after everyone went to bed could've had all night to
> lurk within the house, writing ransom notes and practice sheets and
> collecting materials for his various planned projects.
Unlikely IMO. The partially digested food in JonBenet's small
intestine and the rigor mortis suggest a time of death well before
dawn. Also, the ransom note says the perp will call "tomorrow,"
most reasonably suggesting the morning of the 26th and suggesting it
was written prior to midnight, from a state-of-mind of the author
standpoint.
> I think you keep talking about how an intruder would've had 4 hours alone in
> the house (actually, all night in the house while its occupatns slept) to
> reinforce the idea that an intruder would've had the opportunity to write
> the ransom note.
Also, because it would be true as well that IF there was an intruder,
he would have had up to four hours alone in the house since that's
when the family was gone. That's just a fact. I kept bringing it up
because you and a few skeptics continually were expressing disbelief
that an intruder could have enough time to write a thre page note. He
cleasrly could have, easily.
> But anyone living in the house would've had the same
> opportunity, so that doesn't really prove anything about an intruder.
You keep missing the point of all this.
You have explained some of these things with the theory that a parent
could have done it. However, I am demonstrating that you have failed to
exclude the intruder, who also easily could have done it.
> Additionally, someone living in the house would not only have all the
> overnight hours to complete a crime staging, including the composition of
> the practice notes and the actual note, but could also proceed w/o fear of
> discovery, knowing very well no one would be coming into the house.
>
> An intruder would have no such knowledge.
He doesn't need it.
What does he care when the family comes home. He'd have plenty of
notice with the attached garage door going up. Even so. He's a perp
and a criminal. He's there precisely to commit a crime. What does he
care when the family comes home? He WANTS them to come home.
> If he worked on the note while the
> family was out, he really would have no idea when they would return, and
> would have to realize they might walk in at any time.
So what? He doesn't care when, only THAT they return. He WANTS to be
there when they get home, that his whole point of this!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> I don't follow
> your reasoning. To me, the fact that it rambles on in bizarre fashion
> points to an intruder with deep emotional problems.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> No argument there! Whoever wrote that note had deep emotional problems.
> That's hardly a controversial fact. I don't find it at all unreasonable,
> however, to suggest that a parent who has just accidentally killed his or
> her own child and has decided to embark on an elaborate, bizarre and
> thoroughly gruesome crime staging as a cover-up instead of call for help for
> the child to see if she could be saved would be a parent with deep emotional
> problems at that particular time. There is such a thing as temporary
> insanity. There's also such a thing as people w/ fairly serious emotional
> problems able to hide the condition to most of the outside world in a way
> that makes it appear they are functioning relatively normally in a very
> superficial way.
None of that excludes the intruder theory.
> > Then, there is the fact that the last page, IMO,
> > looks like a woman's writing - as if the writer got lazy in their
> > attempt to conceal their penmanship, and hence, gave a clue to their
> > gender. And the "southern charm" comment about John.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> But John was not a southerner.
> <snip>
> But certainly, Patsy knew John was from Michigan. That's precisely
> why it makes no sense that SHE would write "use that good ol'
> southern charm" in reference to him during the supposedly panicked
> composition of the note on her part. Why would that false information
> even occur to her to write.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> Except that one could make the argument that the "southern common sense"
> remark was inserted in the note intentionally to point away from anyone in
> the family for the very reasons you say.
Yikes! A tad too much for me to swallow!
> Throw in what looks like a mistake
> or a mistaken assumption by the author and LE will say "This couldn't have
> been written by either parent because obviously they know Ramsey isn't from
> the south."
But then why all the other stuff that points TO the family? You can't
have it both ways.
> There's no proof that's why it was done, of course. But the idea of a
> deliberate divisonary tactic of placing false information, easily disproved,
> can't be dismissed.
In this case it is too far-fetched. A riddle within a riddle in a
three-page note written by panicked parents who'd just wrung the last
living breath out of their injured daughter's neck? Uh-uh. "Let's
throw in a "southern common sense" line so it'll initially seem
to point to us but then we can say well, you're not from the south so
it'll then point away!!" That is way beyond conceivability.
> > And "attache" with
> > the thingy over the "e" - most people skip that, even if they know it
> > should be there.
As I said in an earlier post, look at the ransom note:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/ransom1.html
I do not see an accent over the "e." I see a bit of a hook on the
bottom of the "y" above it, which appears to be a possible
characteristic of the writer when looking at other "y"s in the note
that also have that little reverse hook. Most "y"s have the hook.
Look at the last one in the word "Victory!"
I don't' believe there is actually an accent over the "e"?
> But I'd like you to cite any source that documents that the Ramseys never
> saw the movie "Ransom" or the other movies you claim they didn't see, like
> "Speed" that has that "grow a brain" line in it. What credible source do you
> have that demonstrates neither of the Ramseys saw any of these movies
> mentioned? How would you know what movies the Ramseys had or had not seen?
> This would seem to me a particularly intimate thing to know about someone.
> <snip>
As I recall, the Ramseys themselves, corroborated by friends in police
interviews, attested that they do not attend or view those types of
movies. I find that completely believable. Neither I nor anyone in my
family ever watches that genre either. It's easy to never see a Mel
Gibson or Schwarzenegger flick.
> > I have trouble getting past the ransom note.
>
> I know. It can't be gotten past. It has to be dealt with. All I am
> saying is that the oddities that seem to some to argue against an
> intruder are equally oddities that would argue against the parents as
> well.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> So you say once again. But saying that 100x, or 1,000x or even a million x,
> doesn't make it more true.
The fact that it IS true makes it true. Most of the same oddities that
you say work against the intruder theory ALSO work against the parents
theory, I argue even more so. What I am countering is your and other
folks' contention that because you can reasonably (in your
estimations) conclude that Patsy did it with the evidence at hand, you
can therefore exclude the unknown intruder. But you first have to show
how you can exclude the intruder as well. Both remain on the table up
until then.
Saying 100x or 1,000x or even a millionx that Patsy did it doesn't
provide you a basis for excluding the intruder.
> It's a matter of opinion, and you are entitled to yours, most certainly. But
> opnion, no matter how many times stated, is not fact.
Indeed!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> Parent child-killers have never ever done a murder in this way.
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> That doesn't help your argument though because no intruder has ever done in
> a murder in this way. So that's a moot argument. The two negatives in both
> the parent and intruder column come out to a wash.
So why do you not treat it as a wash?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> If it weren't for all this, I'd be suspecting the parents too. But
> it's way too much for staging.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> The very same thing could be said of an intruder crime though. It's way too
> much for any motive for a real crime.
Hardly. You've said earlier tat there was minimal evidence of an
intruder, now you're saying it's way too much.
> If you want to go by the "way too much": factor for elimination, again, it's
> a wash.
You've not shown that; in fact, in earlier discussions you've
disagreed with what you now are saying.
Iarnrod
> "Iarnrod" wrote:
>
> > Bo Raxo wrote:
>
> >> Iarnrod wrote:
> >> > Are you saying no perp has ever left a ransom note written on paper
> >> > from the crime scene?
>
> >> I can't find a single case where that happened, no.
>
> > That's a different answer than the question asked. Where did you look?
> > Is there a web site or other source of statistics that would address
> > the question? This is a serious question, not a sarcastic reply :-)
> > because I truly want to find a data source.
>
> That citing thing goes both ways. I challenge you to produce a cite for an
> example of even one kidnapping (regardless of the outcome) in which it was
> determined a ransom note left behind was written in the victim's home, w/
> writing materials found in the victim's home at the time of the crime.
>
> I would bet you just about any amount of money, payable by paypal, you are
> unable to produce one example, other than the Ramsey case.
But it was you that made the assertion. I take it you made it then
without any actual knowledge? You said a scan of well-kept databases on
crimes shows nothing like this has ever happened, ever. So I presume
you've seen that somewhere. I am not implying that you yourself have to
have researched all the cases. But can you point to your competent
authority for this claim? I'd like to see it.
>
> > And, I would suggest, more strongly implicates a psycho intruder than a
> > set of typical loving parents who had never even seen the movies from
> > which many of the Hollywood lines in the ransom note were taken.
>
> Cite please. Provide a credible source that documents the Ramseys never saw
> any of the movies to which you refer. I wager you can't do it. How would you
> know what movies people who are total strangers--according to you--have or
> haven't seen? That presumes a high degree of intimate knowledge of someone,
> IMO.
The interviews with the Ramseys. Police checked them out. Friends
vouched for it.
Iarnrod
> EnEss wrote:
> > "Iarnrod" wrote:
> >
> > Poe wrote:
> > > The ransom note is one fucked up piece of evidence, and hence, makes a
> > > case for an insider. For one thing, it goes on and on and on and on.
> > > WAYYY too many words.
> >
> > How in the world does that indicate an insider wrote it more so than an
> > intruder who had up to four hours alone in the house?
>
>
> Because ransom notes are short and to the point.
This was not a ransom note. Itr was an acting-out fantasy note.
> That note was obviously written by someone with a poor education; this
> note, with an accent over the last letter in "adequate size attache",
> phrases like "immediate execution", beheaded, "law enforcement
> countermeasures and tactics", suggests someone educated. Which makes
> the mispellings more evidence of intentional misleading by the writer.
There doesn't appear to be an accent over the "e" in attaché.
> Finally, there is the tense of the repeated "she dies". If this was a
> kidnapper making a threat, it would be in the future tense, especially
> when we see how obvious it is the writer is quite handy with the
> English language. It would say "She will die". Saying "She dies", is
> the present tense, suggesting that when the note was written the author
> already knew the child was dead.
Bo, you inadvertently contradicted your own argument here.
Above, in what you suggest should have been a true ransom note, short
and to the point, you yourself suggested the present tense:
> Ransom notes are about a threat to the victim and an amount of money,
> and that's it - "we have ____, pay [some nice round number], or your
> loved one dies."
You instinctively reverted to the present tense: "loved one dies."
But now you're arguing a true ransom note should say "your loved
one will die." Which is it?
Above all, my point is this was not a true ransom note so rules about
what it should have said go out the window.
EnEss
> veryrich wrote:
>> Also, when people say that the staging was too elaborate for the parent
>> to have done it, ask yourself which suspect has (or had) a reputation
>> for heavy-handed excess. There was nothing subtle about Patsy.
> Which suspect? Which suspect? Holy cow, now you're eliminating people
> whose identity and character traits you don't even yet know -- an
> intruder -- by saying they aren't perfectionists. It's not necessarily
> true that because the only person you happen to know as a suspect has a
> certain trait (at least the way you see it), that no other suspect
> could as well.
That's certainly true, but I didn't see "very rich" say that.
It's part of process of elimination---how you eliminate a potential suspect.
We all agree that, starting out, in any murder in a family home, all family
members are potential suspects that have to be ruled out. We agree, yes? In
the death of a child, the parents must be eliminated as suspects. There are
many ways to do this--a solid alibi, a reliable witness to the crime, or an
abduction if there was one, a lack of means or opportunity, forensic
evidence that points solidly away from the parents and to someone else. Many
things, yes?
In the case of a child murder w/ a ransom note left behind--and especially
in a case where the note is traced to a notepad in the house belonging to
one of the parents--the note itself is an important piece of evidence. Are
we still on the same page here? So naturally the parents must be ruled out
as authors of the note. One way would be handwriting. That's not a perfect
means for pinning or eliminating a suspect because it's far from a perfect
science, and people can disguise handwriting as well as imitate someone
else's handwriting (i.e., forgery). But it's a step in the process. Another
step would be language and style. Another one would be hidden clues
contained within the text of the note that might hint at the psychology of
the person writing, or to state of mind. All of these elements must be
figured into the equation.
If any of the elements "match up" or could be attributed reliably to a
suspect (and a parent is still a suspect at this point, as we are still in
the process of eliminating them for the purpose of this hypothetical
exercise), then that person remains in the list of potential suspects until
something else happens to remove him or her from the list. The something
else could be someone coming along who makes a much more likely suspect, or
who confesses and the confession checks out, or is caught w/ a crucial piece
of evidence linking him or her to the crime, or something that works to
elminate the other person in some very conclusive way.
What I got from what "very rich" said is that the style of the ransom note
fits certain key elements of Patsy Ramsey's personality, based on what's
known about her publicly via the investigation. The excessveness of it, the
heavy-handedness of it, the melodrama of it---very rich sees it as fitting
certain known aspects of Mrs. Ramsey's personality and personal style and
approach to other things in her life. Of course that finding is subject to
interpretation, but it is one that many other people have commented on as
well, including investigators.
That is not to say, of course, that someone else (possibly someone yet
unknown to the list of suspects) couldn't have those same personality traits
and psychology. It doesn't *prove* there is no one else out in the world
capable of writing the very same kind of note.
It's just one of many aspects to be examined and considered.
EnEss
"Iarnrod" wrote:
Poe wrote:
> Because why bother writing a big long note if she is already dead and
> you are an intruder?
That's easy. She was not already dead when it was written... she was
with her family at the White's Christmas party. The four hours alone
was the intruder in the house prior to the family's return. Why do
you assume it was written AFTER the killing? Hauptman (or, for others,
whoever killed Lindbergh Jr) wrote the note soon before the child was
killed too.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If you believe the child died in the abduction, as many investigators
suspect or conclude, that's technically true. It's not clear however that
the baby's abductor intended to kill the child, but to really hold him for
ransom. Many investigators theorize Hauptman (or whoever it was) dropped the
baby while scaling down the ladder and that's how the child died. The
abductor, having gotten that far, was not about to abandon his plan to
collect the ransom, and left the scene w/ the child's body, eventually
burying it somewhere and still tried to collect the ransom.
Since we're on the subject of the Lindbergh kidnapping, please note that
there is no indication anywhere that the note was written in the Lindbergh
home, or that paper or pen from the home was used to write the ransom note.
From all the evidence, it appears the note was composed before Hauptman (or
whoever) entered the home to carry out the abduction.
I only point this out because I see you posing to introduce the idea that
the Lindbergh abduction was very similar to the JonBenet Ramsey murder, when
in truth the 2 are about as dissimilar as could be. About the only
commonality between them is that a ransom note was found in both cases.
> Make it short and sweet. Then getthefukkouttathere.
> But if you are really connected, you may over think it and write this
> rambling note.
That's hardly any more reasonable than to think an intruder alone for
four hours would write it. Remember, it's not really a ransom note
anyway.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I agree w/ you that it's not a "real" ransom note, and never was. It seems
quite obvious this crime never involved a serious abduction-for-ransom plan.
If it had been, the ransom note would've been prepared outside the home, or
there would've been no note at all, but only a phone call after the child
and her abductor were far from the house. Also, the child's body would not
have been found in the home. The child might've been found dead sometime
later--but in any serious abduction-for-ransom plot, the abductor will do
everything possible to collect the ransom. The only way to do that, for
starters, is getting the child out of the home and to a location where the
child is not easily found. It's also highly unlikely there would've been a
molestation and the garroting. A pedophile who abducts a child does it for
sexual gratification and would never put any time, thought, or energy into
writing a ransom note. A criminal who abducts for the purpose of collecting
money is unlikely to be ALSO a pedophile. He or she would have no interest
in the child sexually---just in collecting as much money as possible and
getting away w/ it.
And of course in a serious abduction-for-ransom where the child of a man
known to be a multi-millionaire, a large and even sum of money would be
demanded--like a half million, or a million. And of course there would be a
follow-up---the abductor would be in contact again to give instructions for
the delivery of the ransom, even if the child was dead at that point.
So you and I are in agreement here: the author of the note never had any
intention of collecting a ransom and that was never the intent of the crime.
Our only point of disagreement is who the author was and what the real
intent of the note was.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And why would Patsy or John include details that would point to them,
let alone not just write a simple two-sentence note to present to
police? Makes no sense for them to do so. They're in a hurry, in the
first place, setting up all the other staging. Why point purposely to
someone in their own inner circle? That's absurd. They would be
purposely limiting the field to EXCLUDE an intruder and the world of
all suspects. That's nuts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Agreed. It *is* nuts. Totally nuts, and makes no sense and is completely
absurd. It would be an incredibly stupid thing to do, whoever wrote the
note. It makes no sense whoever wrote it. If one of the parents wrote the
note, it represents a colossal mistake and blunder of judgment. A real
miscalculation of how it would look.
Can you say w/ certainty that a parent who has just accidentally killed his
or her own little daughter and is in a state of intense anguish and grief
and who has decided to embark on the extremely unwise course of action to
cover up the accident w/ a staged crime scene, combination abduction for
ransom-sexual molestation murder, and who is no doubt nearly out of his or
her mind w/ panic and fear would be incapable of making a colossal mistake?
Would be incapable of committing grievious errors in judgment and
miscalculations of how the situation will look and how the note and all
other evidence uncovered would look?
If you can convince me decisively that such a thing would be completely
impossible, I will completely agree w/ you: no way could either parent in
this case be behind the crime itself (or any portion of it). But you won't
be able to convince me of that because any of us are capable of making
mistakes--even really, really big ones. And who is more likely to make big
mistakes? A cold-blooded and seasoned criminal who plans and plots his crime
well in advance and has everything set up before he strikes? Or a person who
is nearly out of his or her mind in a state of panic and grief over a
terrible and tragic accident that never should've happened and one that led
to the worst consequences possible?
Where would you put your money on an answer to that question?
> And don't forget, "and hence". Who write that term? I agree that maybe a
> redneck trying to sound smart my say that, but the same redneck would
> not know the word attache. It doesn't add up.
It wasn't a redneck. It was a pedo. "Hence" is used quite often;
in fact, some people in this Ramsey discussion for the last month have
used it inadvertently in their posts, I've noted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
<chuckle> I'm laughing a little because no one is using "and hence"
unintentionally. It started as a joke and several people are using it now.
It's an inside joke to any of the JBR murder threads. You been had.
Nothing else. Those were my only comments re this reply.
EnEss
"Iarnrod" wrote:
> Kris Baker wrote:
>> Think anger, total loss of control. The kind of anger that overwhelms
>> you. Who's going to have the kind of anger that causes both a
>> massive blow to the head and strangulation? A stranger with
>> pedophilic tendencies, yet really does nothing to the child that
>> would leave DNA? Or the closest person in the world to you,
>> who controls every segment of your life to perfection?
> The problem with your premises is that anger and total loss of control
> is inconsistent with how she was actually killed, with an intricate
> garrote that took time and deliberation.
>
> Parental child-killing by strangulation, which is among the most common
> causes as someone else cited, is done in a rage with the hands. Never
> ever has it been done this way - and that was the cause of death -
> and the use of the garrote argues completely AGAINST spontaneous
> no-deliberation strangulation by a parent. You don't spontaneously
> fly into a rage and make a garrote to choke your child in the basement.
I agree w/ you 100% there. The garroting was extremely deliberate--nothing
spontaneous about it. Not the kind of act of violence a parent--or
anyone--commits as an act of impulse and rage. There is incredible anger
contained in the act itself, just in the brutality and cold-bloodedness of
it. But not an anger that comes from an impulsive rage. The blow to the head
fits much more w/ that description--the result of an impulsive act stemming
from an overwhelming rage--or an accident caused by a violent, sudden
movement. But not the garroting. That was thought out and very
deliberate--terrifyingly and shockingly so. The person committing it may
have been enraged--but it was a cold and tightly-controlled rage at that
juncture.
I've read in a couple of places recently that some forensic investigators
looking at the device commented that it's designed so that the tightening of
the rope could be done from behind the victim--allowing the person doing it
to commit the strangulation w/o having to look into the victim's face. Of
course in the Schiller book, an FBI expert he consulted said just the
opposite--that the construction necessitates the strangulation could only be
done facing the victim, so that too is subject to intrepretation. But the
prevailing opinion I've seen has been the first--that it could be done from
behind. I don't see someone who was intent on killing JonBenet for pleasure
as caring about not having to look in her face while strangling her--in
fact, I could see where that would be an added turn-on to a sicko like that.
But to a parent carrying it out as a cover-up....I can see a distinct
advantage to a construction that would allow the person to perform the
gruesome task w/o having to look at the child while doing it.
Not proof, of course. Just another piece of the puzzle.
Poe
If you mean my posting with several uses of the phrase "and hence", I
did it on purpose to be funny, because we were discussing the ridiculous
"ransom" note. It was just a joke - who'd of thunk someone would think
anyone discussing the ransom note would not realize they were doing that?!
EnEss
"Iarnrod" wrote:
> EnEss wrote:
>> Why do you keep restating "an intruder who had four hours alone in the
>> house"?
> As I said before, "up to" four hours. That's the time frame in
> which the family was gone. A neighbor saw a young male approach the
> Ramsey house shortly after the family left; he assumed it was John
> Andrew arriving from Atlanta, which of course he learned later it could
> not have been.
A neighbor said that, I've also heard, but that doesn't *prove* it happened.
Likewise, the neighbor who reported hearing a child's scream in the middle
of the night has since recanted her claim. People always report things
they've seen or think they've seen in a criminal investigation--let's not
forget the Mr. Pride who recently said he was absolutely sure he'd seen John
Mark Karr in the Boulder Greyhound station the morning of 12-26-96. He
probably saw someone, but it's quite unlikely it was John Karr--as sure as
Mr. Pride thinks he is that it was.
There are Elvis sightings all the time. People swear they've seen him. NG
members, help me out here: how many Chandra Levy and Elizabeth Smart
sightings were there before Levy's body was found, and before Elizabeth
turned up?
>> Yes, the family was out that evening and, conceivably, someone could've
>> entered the home while they were out and done all sorts of things alone
>> in
>> the house (although this is obviously limited too or there would be
>> evidence
>> of more done than the crime itself).
> There is such evidence. The unknown baseball bat, the foreign fibers,
> the suitcase placement and contents, and moreover, the rope and bag
> left in the guest bedroom.
You missed my point entirely. That's not what I was talking about.
Btw....since you brought it up....how does the placement of the suitcase
tell us anything about an intruder? People have all sorts of stuff in their
basement. Why is it so hard to imagine the suitcase would've been set
against the wall there, under the window by anyone in the home, just as a
place to put it? Have you heard anything about some fragments of glass being
found on the part of the suitcase facing up? I have. This would suggest to
me the suitcase was there when the window above it was broken--something
John Ramsey told police he'd done a few months earlier when he found himself
locked out of the house. This means the suitcase was NOT placed near the
window by the hypothetical intruder. It means it was already there when the
the hypothetical intruder entered the home.
In any case, that's not what I was talking about. I was referring
specifically to the time someone in the house would have to do all the
things that were done, not about what evidence there is that anyone was in
the house. Can we stick to one topic at a time please?
>> It's also possible that a person
>> breaking into the house after everyone went to bed could've had all night
>> to
>> lurk within the house, writing ransom notes and practice sheets and
>> collecting materials for his various planned projects.
> Unlikely IMO.
Not really. The Ramseys said everyone was in bed by 10 pm. If the
hypothetical intruder of your arguments entered the home shortly after that
time, there would be enough time between then and when Mrs. Ramsey said she
woke up and went downstairs for all the unspeakable and bizarre acts of the
entire crime to be carried out.
Possibly there was someone there before the Ramseys returned home from the
party. But there didn't have to be. Someone in the house between approx.
10pm and 5am would've had sufficient time to do everything. It would be a
busy night, no argument. But it's within the realm of possibility, and
easily so.
> The partially digested food in JonBenet's small
> intestine and the rigor mortis suggest a time of death well before
> dawn.
Funny you should bring up these 2 things. The partially digested pineapple
in the girl's stomach is a major piece of evidence that calls the intruder
theory into serious question. The parents say the child was placed in bed
asleep around 9:30 pm and that was the last they saw of her. There was no
pineapple served at the party earlier that evening. The pineapple in the
stomach appeared to have been digested for about 2 hrs, give or take. If the
child really was placed in bed asleep and not up again before her parents
went to bed, as the Ramseys claimed, when did she eat the pineapple?
Did she get up and eat pineapple herself? If the hypothetical intruder was
already in the house, as you suggest, having entered the home hours earlier,
taking his time to write the ransom note, what did he do while JonBenet was
eating the pineapple? Why did he wait an hour or 2 before making his move?
Did he remain in hiding for a couple of hours after she ate the pineapple?
Did he feed her the pineapple himself and then play w/ her in the basement
for a couple of hours before suddenly deciding he was ready to brutally
molest and murder her?
Or did he break in sometime AFTER she got up on her own and snacked on the
pineapple, maybe going back to bed after that. Maybe he worked on the ransom
note while she munched on the pineapple. Maybe she told him about the
$118,000 and that's where he came up w/ that amount. Maybe he asked her how
to spell posession and that's why it's misspelled. Six-year-olds are not
known for their flawless spelling, not usually.
Do you not like any of my suggestions? I don't either. Do they seem rather
implausible? They do to me too.
And as you point out, rigor mortis was well set in when the body was found,
around 1pm, if memory serves me. So that sets a time limit on how late the
death could've occurred. That pineapple business is *really* difficult to
work around.
> Also, the ransom note says the perp will call "tomorrow,"
> most reasonably suggesting the morning of the 26th and suggesting it
> was written prior to midnight, from a state-of-mind of the author
> standpoint.
It suggests someone up at night who hasn't been to bed yet. When I've been
up late at night, I don't automatically switch over to calling the morning
"tomorrow" at the stroke of midnight. I continue to think of "the morning"
as "tomorrow" even if it's 2 am, or anytime before light. Even though any
time after midnight (and before noon the next day) is technically morning,
not tomorrow. But I still think of daylight as "tomorrow" if I haven't been
to bed yet. I would bet it's the same w/ most people.
>> I think you keep talking about how an intruder would've had 4 hours alone
>> in
>> the house (actually, all night in the house while its occupatns slept) to
>> reinforce the idea that an intruder would've had the opportunity to write
>> the ransom note.
> Also, because it would be true as well that IF there was an intruder,
> he would have had up to four hours alone in the house since that's
> when the family was gone. That's just a fact.
It's true. This hypothetical intruder of yours *could have* entered the
house any time after the Ramseys left, and it's true that could've allowed
up to 4 hours before the family returned home, during which time, he
would've had the run of the place. But of course no one knows this for
certain. No one knows when this hypothetical intruder entered the home. It's
just as possible he (or she, I suppose) entered the house after everyone was
in bed, and sleeping soundly enough that nothing was heard.
> I kept bringing it up
> because you and a few skeptics continually were expressing disbelief
> that an intruder could have enough time to write a three-page note. He
> clearly could have, easily.
No, I didn't, and neither did anyone else. The ransom note wouldn't take
hours to write. Maybe an hour all things together, including practice
sheets. Maybe less. I don't think anyone's skepticism stems from disbelief
that the overnight hours would not have provided sufficient time to produce
the note and perform all the various horrors done, including compunctious
clean up.
The skepticism I've seen relates to the likelihood of someone entering a
home illegally w/ the intent to commit some kind of crime, be it
kidnap-for-ransom, sexual molestation or murder, or whatever nefarious
purpose struck his fancy when he got there, and deciding to write a ransom
note in the house. It seems far more logical and expected that a criminal
entering a home for any purpose would want to be in and out of the house as
fast as possible. It's not unprecedented for a criminal to enter a home
while people are inside, asleep, and linger, poking around and doing any
sort of odd thing. But it's extremely high risk, so it's far less common.
The longer the criminal is in the home, even if while people are asleep, the
odds for discovery increase.
So while not impossible and w/o precedent, it's the first in an ongoing
chain of oddities and implausibilities and inconsistencies w/ the
hypothetical intruder that feeds skepticism. I think anyone is willing to
accept a few inconsistence and weird or unlikely or unocmmon occurrences in
a given crime. It's when you end up w/ a big, tall pile of such things that
one is forced to look up at the pile, scratch one's head and say, "Something
isn't right w/ this picture. What is it?" Then you start looking at other
explanations
>> But anyone living in the house would've had the same
>> opportunity, so that doesn't really prove anything about an intruder.
>
> You keep missing the point of all this.
>
> You have explained some of these things with the theory that a parent
> could have done it. However, I am demonstrating that you have failed to
> exclude the intruder, who also easily could have done it.
I haven't missed a thing. You're the one that keeps missing the
point--deliberately, I suspect.
Four hours alone in the house would be ample time for the hypothetical
intruder to write the ransom note. So would the hours between the family
going to bed and waking up in the morning. But that fact does nothing to
exclude the parents either.
Whoever was in that house all night had enough time to do everything that
was done. The unknown piece here, in this particular debate, is who that
person was. My original point was that you keep referring to this "4 hours
alone in the house" the hypothetical intruder would've had--if it was known
this person entered the home soon after the Ramseys left for the
Whites--because I think you think your theory works better that way. It
works better in terms of the hypothetical intruder using that time to write
the ransom note. If we assume the hypothetical intruder didn't enter the
house until after everyone was asleep. it's much harder to explain why he
would write a ransom note at that point. Why not simply get right to it and
get on w/ his crime? But if he did that, it seems even more absurd that he
would've stuck around the house after the child was murdered to write a
ransom note that would take close to an hour or so to write, knowing all
along he'd never be able to collect a dime. It stands to reason, too, that
after committing such a violent crime, no one is going to want to hang
around on the scene, writing out a long, complex letter. The normal instinct
for anyone--especially a criminal--would be to make a hasty escape.
But if he was in the home well before the family returned, he would've had a
chunk of time on his hands and would be looking for something to do to fill
that time. He could look around a while, snoop, look for something valuable
to steal, etc. But before too long, he'd be getting antsy. Sitting down to
write out a lengthy ransom note w/ all sorts of personal, complicated
details would be a nice project, a nice diversion while he waits for the
family to return. So I can see why that theory would be a lot more appealing
to anyone trying to make an intruder theory work.
>> Additionally, someone living in the house would not only have all the
>> overnight hours to complete a crime staging, including the composition of
>> the practice notes and the actual note, but could also proceed w/o fear
>> of
>> discovery, knowing very well no one would be coming into the house.
>>
>> An intruder would have no such knowledge.
> He doesn't need it.
>
> What does he care when the family comes home. He'd have plenty of
> notice with the attached garage door going up. Even so. He's a perp
> and a criminal. He's there precisely to commit a crime. What does he
> care when the family comes home? He WANTS them to come home.
But does he want them to come in while he's in the midst of writing a
lengthy ransom note? Maybe notice the notepad missing? Wouldn't he prefer to
be waiting where he can hide as quietly as possible, in the dark, where he'd
be least likely to be detected? But how can he write a ransom note while
hiding noiselessly in the dark? But then why start writing a ransom note w/
the family out of the house, knowing they might return at any moment? How
would he know they wouldn't return at any moment, or that some other family
member might not come in? It's one thing to wait in quiet, dark hiding for
hours, dull as that would be. It's quite another thing to take time to write
out a lengthy note which requires a light on and a place to write. Maybe you
can hide under a bed or in a closet if you have to, but you can't write out
a long letter in such a place.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> I don't follow
>> your reasoning. To me, the fact that it rambles on in bizarre fashion
>> points to an intruder with deep emotional problems.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> No argument there! Whoever wrote that note had deep emotional problems.
>> That's hardly a controversial fact. I don't find it at all unreasonable,
>> however, to suggest that a parent who has just accidentally killed his or
>> her own child and has decided to embark on an elaborate, bizarre and
>> thoroughly gruesome crime staging as a cover-up instead of call for help
>> for
>> the child to see if she could be saved would be a parent with deep
>> emotional
>> problems at that particular time. There is such a thing as temporary
>> insanity. There's also such a thing as people w/ fairly serious emotional
>> problems able to hide the condition to most of the outside world in a way
>> that makes it appear they are functioning relatively normally in a very
>> superficial way.
> None of that excludes the intruder theory.
And none of that excludes either parent.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> But John was not a southerner.
>> <snip>
>> But certainly, Patsy knew John was from Michigan. That's precisely
>> why it makes no sense that SHE would write "use that good ol'
>> southern charm" in reference to him during the supposedly panicked
>> composition of the note on her part. Why would that false information
>> even occur to her to write.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> Except that one could make the argument that the "southern common sense"
>> remark was inserted in the note intentionally to point away from anyone
>> in
>> the family for the very reasons you say.
> Yikes! A tad too much for me to swallow!
LOL! Interesting to see where and when it's convenient for you to find
something beyond the pale of credibility and plausibility. You seem quite
able to swallow a whole lot that many people find way too big to chew, yet
suddenly and strangely reach your limit when an explanation that doesn't fit
w/ your theory is offered. If the ransom note was in fact part of a
cover-up, it stands to reason that the author would construct into it
certain language, information and details designed to deflect suspicion away
from the true culprit and onto some unknown, hypothetical criminal.
>> Throw in what looks like a mistake
>> or a mistaken assumption by the author and LE will say "This couldn't
>> have
>> been written by either parent because obviously they know Ramsey isn't
>> from
>> the south."
> But then why all the other stuff that points TO the family?
A person writing a ransom note as a diversion or cover-up under such extreme
duress would be prone to making mistakes. These are not conditions ideal for
constructing "the perfect crime".
>You can't have it both ways.
Neither can you. Something you seem to forget conveniently when it's you
talking.
>> There's no proof that's why it was done, of course. But the idea of a
>> deliberate divisonary tactic of placing false information, easily
>> disproved,
>> can't be dismissed.
> In this case it is too far-fetched.
Refer to my earlier observation about what and when you find something "too
far-fetched" to consider.
>A riddle within a riddle in a
> three-page note written by panicked parents who'd just wrung the last
> living breath out of their injured daughter's neck? Uh-uh. "Let's
> throw in a "southern common sense" line so it'll initially seem
> to point to us but then we can say well, you're not from the south so
> it'll then point away!!" That is way beyond conceivability.
Much less so, I think, than half the things you have your hypothetical
intruder doing.
>> > And "attache" with
>> > the thingy over the "e" - most people skip that, even if they know it
>> > should be there.
>
> As I said in an earlier post, look at the ransom note:
>
> http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/ransom1.html
<snip>
LOL! "In an earlier post"?? The comment above IS the one from that earlier
post!
I didn't make the comment about the accent mark over the e in attache. Poe
did. I was the one who said I think the attache thing means nothing. Anyone
might use that word, and put the accent mark over the e.
It would be helpful if, for the sake of discussion, you could keep who said
what straight. But then I know w/ Alzheimer's that's difficult.
> I don't' believe there is actually an accent over the "e"?
I don't know. It's been ages since I've seen a photo of the actual ransom
note, so I don't remember if the e had the accent over it or not. Either
way, I don't see this as a stumbling block to the intruder theory. To my
mind, it doesn't prove or disprove anything.
>> But I'd like you to cite any source that documents that the Ramseys never
>> saw the movie "Ransom" or the other movies you claim they didn't see,
>> like
>> "Speed" that has that "grow a brain" line in it. What credible source do
>> you
>> have that demonstrates neither of the Ramseys saw any of these movies
>> mentioned? How would you know what movies the Ramseys had or had not
>> seen?
>> This would seem to me a particularly intimate thing to know about
>> someone.
>> <snip>
> As I recall, the Ramseys themselves, corroborated by friends in police
> interviews, attested that they do not attend or view those types of
> movies.
Oh did they? And if they were trying to maintain a cover story for their own
guilt, is it possible they might lie about seeing movies like this? Or does
that seem "too far-fetched" and "too hard to swallow" that people might lie
under such circumstances? And do their friends know everything about them?
Do your friends know every movie you've seen or haven't seen?
> I find that completely believable. Neither I nor anyone in my
> family ever watches that genre either. It's easy to never see a Mel
> Gibson or Schwarzenegger flick.
Certainly it's easy. Typically I don't watch such films. That doesn't mean
someone you and I don't know never watches such films, even if they claim
they don't.
>> > I have trouble getting past the ransom note.
>>
>> I know. It can't be gotten past. It has to be dealt with. All I am
>> saying is that the oddities that seem to some to argue against an
>> intruder are equally oddities that would argue against the parents as
>> well.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>> So you say once again. But saying that 100x, or 1,000x or even a million
>> x,
>> doesn't make it more true.
> The fact that it IS true makes it true.
There's logic for you!
> Most of the same oddities that
> you say work against the intruder theory ALSO work against the parents
> theory, I argue even more so.
That's *your* contention. It's not a provable thesis.
>What I am countering is your and other
> folks' contention that because you can reasonably (in your
> estimations) conclude that Patsy did it with the evidence at hand,
Huh?? Who said that? I never said I've concluded Patsy Ramsey was behind
this crime. Some people have said that, but many people offer a variety
theories, even those rejecting the intruder theory.
This is an important example IMO of how you very easily make mistaken
assumptions. This is a disadvantage when attempting to solve the puzzle of a
crime.
> you can therefore exclude the unknown intruder.
No, you've got it backwards. I haven't yet concluded who committed this
crime, only that I can't logically accept the intruder theory any longer
because it simply does not hold up to logical analysis and scrutiny IMO. I
did NOT come to that conclusion, as you suggest, on the basis of pinning it
on someone in the family. You make it sound like I'm so firmly wed to a
theory that Mrs. Ramsey or someone in the family has to be guilty that I
refuse to consider seriously the intruder theory and simply refuse to
acknowledges "its many merits" (according to you).
The truth is, I held on firmly to the intruder theory for a very long time,
trying to argue for it and answer the various points against it in
discussions here. There are many who have taken part in these discussions
who can attest to that. I abandoned the intruder theory only when it
shredded so badly in my hands, I couldn't hang on to it anymore.
I'd like very much to believe that anyone other than any of the Ramseys
committed these unspeakable crimes. But, regrettably, as there are only 2
possibilities logistically--either someone living in that house w/ that
child, or someone outside the home entering it illicitly--I'm stuck
unpleasantly with the clunkiest conclusion of all, given that I simply can
no longer accept the outsider coming in theory.
If there's anyone here refusing on principle of being immovably wed to one
theory to consider the other, it's you. I would suggest it's you who are so
firmly attached and personally invested in believing and promoting the
intruder theory, you will never under any circumstances or conditions, no
matter what's presented to you suggesting differently, give up on that
theory. It's you who believes you can comfortably exclude any/all of the
Ramseys because you have concluded incontravertibly that no one but an
intruder could've committed this crime.
> But you first have to show
> how you can exclude the intruder as well. Both remain on the table up
> until then.
This exclusion thing you talk about *has* been shown here in dozens of ways.
It's you who refuses to see it. The intruder theory stays on the metaphoric
table to which you refer because you keep it there w/ a vengeance. Like
Charleton Heston and his gun (a fellow Alzheimer's sufferer of yours), the
intruder theory would have to be pried out of your cold, dead hand before it
could ever be taken off the table of your mind.
Why is this? Why are you so personally invested in promoting the intruder
theory in this forum? I haven't figured out your motive yet. Perhaps you're
a troll, just beating the dead horse of controversy for your own personal
amusement, having too much time on your hands and nothing better to do w/
it. Or possibly you're some agent of the Ramseys, or one of Lin Wood's
minions. You've already betrayed your duplicious nature w/ that husband-wife
silliness. I'm not sure what your game is, but you're much too locked into
this one idea, too determined and intent to promote it, to be a
straight-forward, objective participant in an internet forum. You have some
other agenda, I know that.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> That doesn't help your argument though because no intruder has ever done
>> in
>> a murder in this way. So that's a moot argument. The two negatives in
>> both
>> the parent and intruder column come out to a wash.
> So why do you not treat it as a wash?
Why don't you? That's the more interesting question.
>> If it weren't for all this, I'd be suspecting the parents too. But
>> it's way too much for staging.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>> The very same thing could be said of an intruder crime though. It's way
>> too
>> much for any motive for a real crime.
> Hardly. You've said earlier tat there was minimal evidence of an
> intruder, now you're saying it's way too much.
Typically, you are once again twisting what I've said and misrepresenting my
past statements when it's so obvious you know better.
>> If you want to go by the "way too much": factor for elimination, again,
>> it's
>> a wash.
> You've not shown that; in fact, in earlier discussions you've
> disagreed with what you now are saying.
No, I haven't. It's you who are constantly contradicting yourself. You latch
on to whatever argument you think works best for you at the moment, then
repeat it 30 or 40 times, hoping it will cement w/ people. Then, when
suddenly you find your argument is working against you in some particular
facet of the discussion, you completely switch gears and go w/ an opposite
tack, even if it contradicts what you've said before. Or you will offer
absurd comparisons to bolster your point, like the outrageous bank
robbery-bank slip thing, or the Lindbergh kidnapping thing. Then you accuse
anyone w/ an opposing argument of contradicting themselves, pretending that
you don't understand what they've said, or raising some other point that has
nothing to do w/ the issue at hand. And you have no shame about it either.
You are some piece of work, no question about it. What kind of "work" though
is yet to be determined.
EnEss
> EnEss wrote:
>> Cite please. Provide a credible source that documents the Ramseys never
>> saw
>> any of the movies to which you refer. I wager you can't do it. How would
>> you
>> know what movies people who are total strangers--according to you--have
>> or
>> haven't seen? That presumes a high degree of intimate knowledge of
>> someone,
>> IMO.
> The interviews with the Ramseys. Police checked them out. Friends
> vouched for it.
Ah well. If their "friends" vouch for them, that's proof positive, isn't it?
A "friend" would certainly know every movie his or her friend had seen or
hadn't seen, or what movies they would never see, wouldn't they? No friend
could ever be wrong about such a thing, correct? And if the friend "vouched"
for it, what more proof does one need?
And afterall they said it themselves, didn't they? Nobody would ever lie to
the police, would they?
EnEss
Bo Raxo wrote:
> Finally, there is the tense of the repeated "she dies". If this was a
> kidnapper making a threat, it would be in the future tense, especially
> when we see how obvious it is the writer is quite handy with the
> English language. It would say "She will die". Saying "She dies", is
> the present tense, suggesting that when the note was written the author
> already knew the child was dead.
Bo, you inadvertently contradicted your own argument here.
Above, in what you suggest should have been a true ransom note, short
and to the point, you yourself suggested the present tense:
> Ransom notes are about a threat to the victim and an amount of money,
> and that's it - "we have ____, pay [some nice round number], or your
> loved one dies."
You instinctively reverted to the present tense: "loved one dies."
But now you're arguing a true ransom note should say "your loved
one will die." Which is it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I think Bo is confused on this one point. The thing w/ tense used in regard
to a parent's guilt is when a child is missing or reported abducted and the
parent, who supposedly has no idea where the child is, unconsciously refers
to the child in the past tense. That's what Susan Smith did when she told
police she was carjacked w/ the kids inside. She kept referring to them in
the past tense and the police knew then that her story was bogus and that
she was behind the kids' demise.
There's nothing in using the present tense to refer to what will happen if
instructions aren't followed that implicate the parents or indicate the
writer knows the child is already dead.
It's pretty much all the rest of it that falls apart.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Above all, my point is this was not a true ransom note so rules about
what it should have said go out the window.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You're right about one thing: it sure is no "true" ransom note. As for the
rest of it, you wish.
Cliff and Linda Griffith
news:1158724334.6...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> A molester or pedo, OTOH, probably has made MANY of them in his sick
> career. He COULD hastily construct it - even bring the cord with him,
> since as we know the cord could not be sourced to the house or family,
> another big hole in the PDI theory.
<snip>
> Too complicated. I mean, what role in this "cover-up" did the
> parents imagine for the coil of rope and paper bag up in the guest
> bedroom would play?
What do you mean by "the cord could not be sourced to the house or family"?
It was *in* the house, so that's pretty well "sourced". Or do you mean that
the Ramseys denied ever having a cord or rope like what was found. (I'm
assuming you're referring to the items found under a bed.)
Why do you deny what has been proved and cited? There is proof that Patsy
Ramsey bought something at the hardware store that cost the same as a roll
of duct tape like that found on JonBenét. That doesn't prove that she
actually bought duct tape, or that the parents killed JBR; but you refuse to
even acknowledge facts that are open to interpretation, if they indicate any
possibility of parental involvement. (I've copy/pasted the quotes from your
conversation with En Ess...farther below.)
And why do you consistently ask for cites from others, but you rarely if
ever provide your own when requested?
Linda
[copy/paste] > What evidence do you have that a parent would have to run out
for duct tape
> in the middle of the night, or that the Ramseys didn't own a roll of duct
> tape? There's no evidence they didn't have duct tape in the home.
Of course there is. We've been over it. To imagine the duct tape came
from the Ramseys requires postulating theories based on no known facts,
and that's weak. Intruder explains it quite handily. The tape came
from a piece of a continuing roll - it was torn on both ends.
> There is
> some evidence OTOH that one of them might have bought duct tape not long
> before the murder.
No there isn't. [end copy/paste]
Cliff and Linda Griffith
Poe wrote:
> And "attache" with
> the thingy over the "e" - most people skip that, even if they know it
> should be there.
You really lost me there. How does "attaché" with the accent mark
indicate more likely the parents or an insider versus a fantasizing
intruder who watches too many reruns of Mel Gibson in Ransom - a
movie the Ramseys never saw?
..................................................................
Patsy was a Francophile, so she would know about the é in attaché...even if
she *didn't* learn it in Journalism class. She gave her daughter's name the
French pronunciation of "Jean" (John), spelling it "Jon", and she added an
accent aigü over Benet to Frenchify it. For a cite, Google "Patsy Ramsey +
Francophile".
How do you know that the Ramseys never saw "Ransom", "Speed", or any other
movies semi-quoted in the ransom note?
Linda
Cliff and Linda Griffith
> The problem with your premises is that anger and total loss of control
> is inconsistent with how she was actually killed, with an intricate
> garrote that took time and deliberation.
>
> Parental child-killing by strangulation, which is among the most common
> causes as someone else cited, is done in a rage with the hands. Never
> ever has it been done this way - and that was the cause of death
Never, ever? Cite?
http://www.amjforensicmedicine.com/pt/re/ajfmp/abstract.00000433-200512000-00005.htm;jsessionid=FTSCcWJGWWllyhPG2QG0NYnhLvq4ftnLwT2tzsgypVpWyjmvQpTY!1671728877!-949856145!8091!-1
The other group of filicide mothers is different. They are generally older,
married, and employed. The crime is usually premeditated, committed with the
direct use of hands and sometimes very violent.
"*Usually* with direct use of hands" doesn't mean "always".
Linda
Cliff and Linda Griffith
This was not a ransom note. Itr was an acting-out fantasy note.
So, if this "intruder" was a pedophile fantasizing about what he would
do/had done to JBR, why didn't any of those fantasies seep into the ransom
note? Or are you saying he fantasized that he was a small foreign faction?
Linda
Cliff and Linda Griffith
We are looking at elements of crimes; we are not required to find
complete matches for ALL elements in order to show commonality of any
particular ones.
........................................
Yet you require that ALL elements in this murder match some other filicide
to show that a parent *could* have killed JonBenét.
Linda
Equally, as we talked about before, the fact that there is no crime on
the books in which parents have killed their child in such
circumstances also speaks for itself.
"I have just explained several times in addition to other people here
that what you're talking about has NOT been done in other crimes. There
is absolutely ZERO precedent for a parent-child-killer to strangle
their still-living child with an intricate sexual torture device, stick
a paintbrush in her vagina for good measure while she's dying, then
write a ransom note, throw a Dr Seuss book and blanket into a suitcase
and try to stuff the body into it, then give up, then call in police at
5:52 in the morning to investigate it all. And there is NO precedent of
a parent child-killer doing all this and then LEAVING A RANSOM NOTE OF
ANY KIND--WRITTEN ON THE SCENE OR BEFORHAND."
Iarnrod
replying.
Cliff and Linda Griffith wrote:
> "Iarnrod" <iar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1158724334.6...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > A molester or pedo, OTOH, probably has made MANY of them in his sick
> > career. He COULD hastily construct it - even bring the cord with him,
> > since as we know the cord could not be sourced to the house or family,
> > another big hole in the PDI theory.
> <snip>
> > Too complicated. I mean, what role in this "cover-up" did the
> > parents imagine for the coil of rope and paper bag up in the guest
> > bedroom would play?
>
> What do you mean by "the cord could not be sourced to the house or family"?
I mean exactly what it says, and what BPD admits... Police
investigation was not able to dereive any evidence that the cord (the
one used in the garrote) came from within the house, leaving open a
distinct probability that there was an intruder who brought it in with
him.
> It was *in* the house, so that's pretty well "sourced".
You apparently don't understanf common police terminology.
"Couldn't be sourced to the house" means the item used in the
crime itself - the cord, for instance - was not able to be shown to
have come from what already existed in the house at the time of the
crime. Like the duct tape as well. The piece over JonBenet's nmouth
was torn at both ends, which means it came from a continuing roll; that
means there very likely would be an unfinished roll of duct tape in the
house. But there was not. Yeah yeah yeah, we can posit that John Ramsey
snuck out and dumped them , or they tore everything else up and flushed
it, or they cooked it and ate it. But that's pure speculation based
not one whit on any evidence... just on the fertile imaginations of
Steve Thomas and others trying to pin the crime on parents instead of
trying to actually solve it.
> Or do you mean that
> the Ramseys denied ever having a cord or rope like what was found. (I'm
> assuming you're referring to the items found under a bed.)
No, I was actually referring to the garrote cord in the post above, but
yeah it could also apply to the rope in the guest bedroom. The problem
is, yeah, you can just wave it all off and say the parents are lying
and they just hid the rest of the cord, or that was the only piecve of
that cord they ever had anyway, and they ate the duct tape roll. But at
some point you do have to realize that, if they ARE innocent, then
they're not lying and you have to deal with that. You're working
backwards and saying since they are guilty, they must be lying, and
that satisfies you. What about a truly innocent party? They would say
the same things, no? You are constructing a Catch 22 for them, which is
not only unfair but illogical.
> Why do you deny what has been proved and cited?
I have never done that.
> There is proof that Patsy
> Ramsey bought something at the hardware store that cost the same as a roll
> of duct tape like that found on JonBenét.
That is not proof that she bought duct tape. No one at the store
(McGuckins) has said she bought duct tape. No duct tape was found in
the house, used or on the roll unused. If she had recently bought duct
tape, it would have been for a household purpose, correct? What was
nothing in the house ever found to have been treated with duct tape
except that one wall hanging, which had on the back of it a piece of
duct tape that was NOT a match to the one on JonBenet?
So you're falsely complaining that I have denied something that's
been proved or cited, but as I just showed you, there was NOTHING
proved that I've denied regarding your example of the duct tape. It
is you who has taken too far the notion that because she bought
something recently that had the same price as duct tape she was never
found top have possessed, then she must be lying. That is, plainly,
just crazy and will lead biased investigators far far down the wrong
path.
> That doesn't prove that she
> actually bought duct tape, or that the parents killed JBR; but you refuse to
> even acknowledge facts that are open to interpretation, if they indicate any
> possibility of parental involvement.
Absolutely wrong. My vcery purpose since showeing up here has been to
attempt to open the closed minds I see here to ALL that the evidence
has to say. It is you and some other PDIs who "refuse to even
acknowledge facts that are open to intrerpretation." Not only have
you "interpreted" them only in one direction, you've done so at
the exclusion of other reasonable and logical interpretations of the
evidence that very clearly implicate the possibility of an ointruder
doing this crime.
(I've copy/pasted the quotes from your
> conversation with En Ess...farther below.)
>
> And why do you consistently ask for cites from others, but you rarely if
> ever provide your own when requested?
Cite for that please?
> [copy/paste] > What evidence do you have that a parent would have to run out
> for duct tape
> > in the middle of the night, or that the Ramseys didn't own a roll of duct
> > tape? There's no evidence they didn't have duct tape in the home.
>
> Of course there is. We've been over it. To imagine the duct tape came
> from the Ramseys requires postulating theories based on no known facts,
> and that's weak. Intruder explains it quite handily. The tape came
> from a piece of a continuing roll - it was torn on both ends.
And??? You see something wrong with that rock-solid statement? There
are NO known facts that indicate the Ramseys had any duct tape in that
house matching that used on their daughter. That's just a fact. All
your suppositions are just that... baseless postulations to bridge the
gaps in your theory.
> > There is
> > some evidence OTOH that one of them might have bought duct tape not long
> > before the murder.
>
> No there isn't. [end copy/paste]
I was setting her straight on her erroneous statement.
Cliff and Linda Griffith wrote:
> "Iarnrod" <iar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1158800197....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Poe wrote:
>
> > And "attache" with
> > the thingy over the "e" - most people skip that, even if they know it
> > should be there.
>
> You really lost me there. How does "attaché" with the accent mark
> indicate more likely the parents or an insider versus a fantasizing
> intruder who watches too many reruns of Mel Gibson in Ransom - a
> movie the Ramseys never saw?
> ..................................................................
>
> Patsy was a Francophile, so she would know about the é in attaché...even if
> she *didn't* learn it in Journalism class.
This is moot... see below.
> She gave her daughter's name the
> French pronunciation of "Jean" (John), spelling it "Jon", and she added an
> accent aigü over Benet to Frenchify it. For a cite, Google "Patsy Ramsey +
> Francophile".
Look at the ransom note agai.
As I've been posting several times in other replies, I do not see any
accent over the "e" in "attaché" in that note. It seems to be
a reverse hook on the "y" in the word in the line above
"attaché." Check it out and compare it with other "y"s in the
note... particularly the last letter in the word "Victory" at the
end, and see what I mean. There's no separate pen stroke over the
"e" in "attache," just a reverse flourish on the "y."
>
> How do you know that the Ramseys never saw "Ransom", "Speed", or any other
> movies semi-quoted in the ransom note?
Their statements, their video library as catalogued by investigators,
corroboration by acquaintances that the couple did not attend or view
that genre of movies. Again, your denial rests only on the assumption
they're guilty without first doing the legwork of ruling out an
intruder who DID watch all those movies. That's lazy police work.
"Well, they're just lying; they have to be because they're guilty
and they used those movie lines in the note." That will get thrown
out of any court in the land, justly so.
Cliff and Linda Griffith wrote:
> "Iarnrod" <iar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1158851245.7...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > The problem with your premises is that anger and total loss of control
> > is inconsistent with how she was actually killed, with an intricate
> > garrote that took time and deliberation.
> >
> > Parental child-killing by strangulation, which is among the most common
> > causes as someone else cited, is done in a rage with the hands. Never
> > ever has it been done this way - and that was the cause of death
>
> Never, ever? Cite?
Hahahahaaa! I am relying on the assertions of PDI people, including
Eness, who have stated many times that there is no known case ever of a
parent killing a child in this fashion. Now you doubt your OWN
information? OK. Go dig up a previous case in which a parent has done
this.
> http://www.amjforensicmedicine.com/pt/re/ajfmp/abstract.00000433-200512000-00005.htm;jsessionid=FTSCcWJGWWllyhPG2QG0NYnhLvq4ftnLwT2tzsgypVpWyjmvQpTY!1671728877!-949856145!8091!-1
> The other group of filicide mothers is different. They are generally older,
> married, and employed. The crime is usually premeditated, committed with the
> direct use of hands and sometimes very violent.
>
> "*Usually* with direct use of hands" doesn't mean "always".
So find one where a parent slowly garroted the child to death.
> > and the use of the garrote argues completely AGAINST spontaneous
> > no-deliberation strangulation by a parent. You don't spontaneously
> > fly into a rage and make a garrote to choke your child in the basement.
> >
Cliff and Linda Griffith wrote:
> "Iarnrod" <iar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1158853995.9...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> This was not a ransom note. Itr was an acting-out fantasy note.
>
> So, if this "intruder" was a pedophile fantasizing about what he would
> do/had done to JBR, why didn't any of those fantasies seep into the ransom
> note? Or are you saying he fantasized that he was a small foreign faction?
That's easy. The purpose of the note was not to communicate to the
parents the perp's sexual fantasies with their child. That would be
counter to his role-playing in the crime. The note was to taunt the
parents and pretend this was some big kidnapping case.
Cliff and Linda Griffith wrote:
> "Iarnrod" <iar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1158763726.3...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> We are looking at elements of crimes; we are not required to find
> complete matches for ALL elements in order to show commonality of any
> particular ones.
> ........................................
>
> Yet you require that ALL elements in this murder match some other filicide
> to show that a parent *could* have killed JonBenét.
Cite where I have ever required anything of the sort. I haven't. I am
tryig to open some closed minds.
> Equally, as we talked about before, the fact that there is no crime on
> the books in which parents have killed their child in such
> circumstances also speaks for itself.
>
> "I have just explained several times in addition to other people here
> that what you're talking about has NOT been done in other crimes. There
> is absolutely ZERO precedent for a parent-child-killer to strangle
> their still-living child with an intricate sexual torture device, stick
> a paintbrush in her vagina for good measure while she's dying, then
> write a ransom note, throw a Dr Seuss book and blanket into a suitcase
> and try to stuff the body into it, then give up, then call in police at
> 5:52 in the morning to investigate it all. And there is NO precedent of
> a parent child-killer doing all this and then LEAVING A RANSOM NOTE OF
> ANY KIND--WRITTEN ON THE SCENE OR BEFOREHAND."
You apparently didn't realize that I was mimicking the other
person's very words in using the very same argument you now criticize
from me to argue AGAINST the intruder.
Congratulations. You've just looked in the mirror and seen your own
error.
Cliff and Linda Griffith
news:1158763726.3...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> We are looking at elements of crimes; we are not required to find
> complete matches for ALL elements in order to show commonality of any
> particular ones.
> ........................................
>
> Yet you require that ALL elements in this murder match some other filicide
> to show that a parent *could* have killed JonBenét.
Cite where I have ever required anything of the sort. I haven't. I am
tryig to open some closed minds.
........................
My cite for that was in the post to which you are replying above. I've left
it in [below] so you can see it.
Linda
P.S.: IIRC, the investigators and handwriting analysts all saw the accent
mark over the "e" in "attaché". Several of them commented on it in their
analyses. The fact that you don't see it doesn't mean it's not there.
EnEss
> "I have just explained several times in addition to other people here
> that what you're talking about has NOT been done in other crimes. There
> is absolutely ZERO precedent for a parent-child-killer to
>You apparently didn't realize that I was mimicking the other
>person's very words in using the very same argument you now criticize
>from me to argue AGAINST the intruder.
Linda did no such thing. Show me where she did that. Cite.
In case my subtlety is over your head, *I'm mimicking you*.
You are so wound up in all your arguments and your obsession w/ your
theories, you can't even keep track of who's saying what or sort out what
anyone is saying or what they mean. You've completely lost it.
>Congratulations. You've just looked in the mirror and seen your own
>error.
Congratulations to you. You've just outed yourself as a troll, which is what
I suspected. It's clear you're here only to fight and argue, which is what a
troll is. I'm working on tracing you and finding out who you are and where
you are. When I do, I think I'll forward the information to someone in LE
and suggest you be investigated for some connection to the crime. You're
just too obsessed w/ this murder for it to be an nnocent reason.
Andrys Basten
EnEss <star...@global.net> wrote:
>"Iarnrod" wrote:
>> And, I would suggest, more strongly implicates a psycho intruder than a
>> set of typical loving parents who had never even seen the movies from
>> which many of the Hollywood lines in the ransom note were taken.
>
>Cite please. Provide a credible source that documents the Ramseys never saw
>any of the movies to which you refer. I wager you can't do it. How would you
>know what movies people who are total strangers--according to you--have or
>haven't seen? That presumes a high degree of intimate knowledge of someone,
>IMO.
Also, I did read and posted at the time that a report
mentioned that the "...grow a brain" line was in a film
they currently had under rental.
I didn't keep the article but certainly it made an
impression when I was reading.
Anyway, nothing shows the parents are sure to have been involved,
only that it's somewhat more likely, in historic terms, than
an intruder, with the pile of oddities that exist in this case,
and disquieting autopsy analyses discussed w/o end, one of the
experts being Wecht (most recently doing the 2nd autopsy
on the Smith boy) who did not mince words nor did several
other experts cited in newsgroup posts already. Google this if
group if wanting them again
Andrys Basten
Iarnrod <iar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>The interviews with the Ramseys. Police checked them out. Friends
>vouched for it.
So you accept at face value the responses of parent suspects
who'd avoided serious questioning for 4 months?
NO friend of mine, no matter HOW close, could EVER vouch
for me that I had not seen a particular friend. Now you
are just reallly reaching, Iarnrod. It's almost like
a religion. Or, like a defense team doing expected
focused work.
- A
--
http://www.andrys.com
Andrys Basten
to replace 'friend'...
And this is also a reiteration that anyone who
*believed* any friends could 'vouch' for such a thing
is incredibly eager to believe.
- A
In article <ef02rd$5gn$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
Andrys Basten <and...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <1158853685.5...@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
>Iarnrod <iar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>The interviews with the Ramseys. Police checked them out. Friends
>>vouched for it.
>
>So you accept at face value the responses of parent suspects
>who'd avoided serious questioning for 4 months?
>
> NO friend of mine, no matter HOW close, could EVER vouch
>for me that I had not seen a particular FILM. Now you
>are just reallly reaching, Iarnrod. It's almost like
>a religion. Or, like a defense team doing expected
>focused work.
>
>
> - A
>--
>http://www.andrys.com
>
>
>
Andrys Basten
Iarnrod <iar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > But John was not a southerner.
>>
>> But it was a term she reportedly used with him.
>
>Do you have a cite for that? I've not heard that. Actually I picked
>up the other poster's error. I think the note said "southern common
>sense" rather than "southern charm." But from where to you get
>the information that Patsy casually used the term "use your good
>southern common sense" with her husband? I've only ever seen
>references to it by posters on websleuths and what-not, treating it as
>an already-known fact, but I've never seen any actual corroboration.
Two housekeepers became rather hostile to the Ramseys, and their
interviews are so full of vitriol (what caused that?) that I've
not bothered to post them but they're easily found via Google
for those who like to look up things. But Pony has seen at
least one of them. She seems to keep up with a lot of detail.
One of the housekeepers, in an interview, said that this
was a kind of joke by Patsy with her husband and that she
did use the term with him.
Doesn't mean it's true. Just another possible indicator.
Andrys Basten
LOL!
It's so funny to think of someone referring to themselves
as 'foreign' but doubly so as 'small' (not to mention 'faction' ! )
-L.
EnEss wrote:
> Congratulations to you. You've just outed yourself as a troll, which is what
> I suspected. It's clear you're here only to fight and argue, which is what a
> troll is. I'm working on tracing you and finding out who you are and where
> you are. When I do, I think I'll forward the information to someone in LE
> and suggest you be investigated for some connection to the crime. You're
> just too obsessed w/ this murder for it to be an nnocent reason.
Oh, please - look in the mirror! Karr has been ruled out for a few
weeks yet you *all* are still arguing the same stupid points you argued
10 years ago.
Obsessed doesn't begin to describe it.
-L.
Poe
Done with style... nice posting to wake up to on this wonderful morning :-)
Poe
> In article <pJKQg.2642$TV3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
> "EnEss" <star...@global.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>Congratulations. You've just looked in the mirror and seen your own
>>>error.
>>
>>Congratulations to you. You've just outed yourself as a troll, which is what
>>I suspected. It's clear you're here only to fight and argue, which is what a
>>troll is. I'm working on tracing you and finding out who you are and where
>>you are. When I do, I think I'll forward the information to someone in LE
>>and suggest you be investigated for some connection to the crime. You're
>>just too obsessed w/ this murder for it to be an nnocent reason.
>>
>
>
> opinion on an usenet group isn't the way to go. Whether she is a troll
> or not, she has hardly done anything wrong by staying on topic.
>
> I think you need to step back if you are serious about trying to
> netkop her, and it a little bit of the pot calling the kettle black for
> saying she is obsess with this subject.
>
> An easier and fair solution is to killfile a troll if you disagree
> with someone and their tactics. Threatening to netkop them and send the
> information to LE, is stupid, and hopefully you will be laugh at, and
> given the time of day by LE, if actually you would do that.
>
> -c
I am sure EnEss will speak for his/herself, but I thought it was kindof
a joke....
Iarnrod
> news:1158900955.1...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> news:1158763726.3...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> > We are looking at elements of crimes; we are not required to find
> > complete matches for ALL elements in order to show commonality of any
> > particular ones.
> > ........................................
> >
> > Yet you require that ALL elements in this murder match some other filicide
> > to show that a parent *could* have killed JonBenét.
>
> Cite where I have ever required anything of the sort. I haven't. I am
> ........................
> My cite for that was in the post to which you are replying above. I've left
> it in [below] so you can see it.
And, again, I was mimicking Eness's very argument by paraphrasing it
and substituting "parents" for "intruder" to show how the very same
reasoning she used could also e turned against her conclusion and come
out with the opposite finding. I wasn't requiring that all elements
fit other parent child-killings to show Patsy or John could have done
this; I was pointing out the self-contradiction of some folks ruling
out the intruder by requiring the reverse of me - to show that all
elements of the crime fit other patterns of intruder
kidnap/molestings/killings. In both cases, I say some elements fit both
theories and some don't fit.
My point was, she and others who argue for the parents doing it have
failed to show how the evidence doesn't also to the same, if not
greater, degree implicate the intruder.
> P.S.: IIRC, the investigators and handwriting analysts all saw the accent
> mark over the "e" in "attaché". Several of them commented on it in their
> analyses. The fact that you don't see it doesn't mean it's not there.
Instead of disputing all this with me, have you yet gone to the link I
provided that actually shows the note?
Again:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/ransom1.html
Tell me where the accent is. Then look at the reverse hooks on the legs
of the letter "y" that the writer uses and tell me if that isn't
actually the mark that some people might have mistaken for an accent
over the "e" below it
Incidentally, thank you for being polite and civil. When I first came
in here, Eness seemed like a thoughtful poster while I didn't have
that impression of you. That impression has completely reversed since
she went utterly ballistic.
Iarnrod
> "Iarnrod" wrote:
> > "I have just explained several times in addition to other people here
> > that what you're talking about has NOT been done in other crimes. There
> > is absolutely ZERO precedent for a parent-child-killer to
> <crazy rant snipped>
Holy cow!! You called my faithful paraphrasing of YOUR argument a
"crazy rant!" I do hope you see the ultimate irony there, En.
So do tell us, what makes it a crazy rant when I use the same argument
in the same sentences that you did, but to "prove" the opposite
theory? I think you just called your own prior argument a "crazy
rant." This oughta be good...
> >You apparently didn't realize that I was mimicking the other
> >person's very words in using the very same argument you now criticize
> >from me to argue AGAINST the intruder.
>
> Linda did no such thing. Show me where she did that. Cite.
>
> In case my subtlety is over your head, *I'm mimicking you*.
Uh, go back and re-read, En. It will become clear to you. Linda, in the
very previous post to my reply, did do such a thing; that was WHY I
replied. The question I have is, why are you wasting everyone's time
here with your transparent personal attacks and not just discussing the
issues? I had used YOUR very argument, substituting parents for
intruder, to show how you and other PDIs use that argument to
accomplish what you now say is illegitimate for me to assert. Double
standard.
> You are so wound up in all your arguments and your obsession w/ your
> theories, you can't even keep track of who's saying what or sort out what
> anyone is saying or what they mean. You've completely lost it.
If anyone tracks back in this thread they will see that it is you who
is lost. Not to mention obsessed. I mean, good God, you're going to
track me down now? Get a grip please.
> >Congratulations. You've just looked in the mirror and seen your own
> >error.
>
> Congratulations to you. You've just outed yourself as a troll, which is what
> I suspected. It's clear you're here only to fight and argue, which is what a
> troll is.
By that definition, you are a troll.
I have been here to discuss and when people have insulted me I have
responded in kind. When they discuss politely I have as well. I don't
have to take your belittling crap, you know. Your insulting comments
about Alzheimer's, your demands to know why I'd choose a screen
name based on an ancestor's occupation rather than his home town,
Your personal attacks when I point out the faults in your arguments and
try to push the discussion forward...
Who's the troll? Sounds like you.
Now, I know that's silly and I said it only to make a point, because
you are a longtime poster here and all that. I am trying to point out
how baseless and silly it is for you to say that about me. I have
presented rock-solid arguments and all you do is hand wave them off.
You rant and rave and blow a gasket and fail to take on my arguments,
then accuse ME of doing that. That's fine, if you want to play that
game.
But it does not make me a troll. It makes me someone to whom you
can't make a coherent and civil response.
> I'm working on tracing you and finding out who you are and where
> you are. When I do, I think I'll forward the information to someone in LE
> and suggest you be investigated for some connection to the crime. You're
> just too obsessed w/ this murder for it to be an nnocent reason.
Now you REALLY have to be off the deep end!! This is a usenet group,
open to free discussion about this crime, among many other things. If
you can't respond to the points at hand, don't hide behind THIS
ridiculous cover story.
> NS
> (add sbc before global to email)
At least you've clear up the mystery of YOUR screen name. NS stands
for "No Sanity."
Iarnrod
> unintentionally. It started as a joke and several people are using it now.
> It's an inside joke to any of the JBR murder threads. You been had.
No. You've tricked yourself. DO you think because you and a few
others sometimes "joke" and use "hence" as an insider chuckle,
that you own the franchise? Or that any one else who's used it must
also have been part of your "inside joke?" That's a tad arrogant.
Google it. My observation was accurate. Not only that, but in other
non-Ramsey discussions the word has been used with some frequency.
My point was that to think only a redneck trying to sound smart would
use the word "hence" is not a good box to put oneself in.
And now <chuckle> I am laughing at you.
Iarnrod
> In article <pJKQg.2642$TV3....@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>,
> "EnEss" <star...@global.net> wrote:
>
> > >error.
> >
> > Congratulations to you. You've just outed yourself as a troll, which is what
> > I suspected. It's clear you're here only to fight and argue, which is what a
> > troll is. I'm working on tracing you and finding out who you are and where
> > you are. When I do, I think I'll forward the information to someone in LE
> > and suggest you be investigated for some connection to the crime. You're
> > just too obsessed w/ this murder for it to be an nnocent reason.
> >
>
> opinion on an usenet group isn't the way to go. Whether she is a troll
> or not, she has hardly done anything wrong by staying on topic.
>
> I think you need to step back if you are serious about trying to
> netkop her, and it a little bit of the pot calling the kettle black for
> saying she is obsess with this subject.
Thank you. I do plenty of other things with my day. I visit here a few
times because I have long had an interest in this local crime. I am
hardly obsessed with it; I have tried to point out instances when
people are not seeing the whole picture. I am fairly persuaded that an
intruder did this crime, after first thinking the parents did it for
the same reason most here jumped to that conclusion - it turns out
that way most of the time. But that's not evidence.
I always post on topic and, if I dare say, my points are cogent,
thoughtful, analytical and provocative. If some can't handle it, not
my problem.
Cliff and Linda Griffith
Again:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/ransom1.html
Tell me where the accent is. Then look at the reverse hooks on the legs
of the letter "y" that the writer uses and tell me if that isn't
actually the mark that some people might have mistaken for an accent
over the "e" below it
I did look at the site (and "attaché") last night when you provided the
link. I must admit that the accent mark isn't as clear as I had remembered
it, but I hope there's a clearer copy of it somewhere. That there was an
obvious accent mark over the e "was in all the papers". (That's just a
phrase I use in RL when someone hasn't heard of something that has received
widespread media coverage.) It looks to me as if the "crook" of the "y"s in
most other instances curls to the left, not to the right...or the crook of
the "tail" in a few cases is more like a dot, not curving either way.
There's a copy of the ransom note at
http://www.acandyrose.com/12251996ransompage1.gif, but I can't say it's
much, if any, clearer. (Click on the page to enlarge it.)
>Incidentally, thank you for being polite and civil.
Thinks seem to go more smoothly that way.
Linda
Iarnrod
Does the fact that she's completely off-base and off the deep end
contribute or detract from that style?
Really.
EnEss
"Andrys Basten" wrote:
>I made a correction with the word "FILM" below
> to replace 'friend'...
>
> And this is also a reiteration that anyone who
> *believed* any friends could 'vouch' for such a thing
> is incredibly eager to believe.
I agree. Talk about naive, or an eagerness to "gloss over" some aspect of a
discussion--something Iarnrod accused others here of doing.
While Iarnrod has been quick to demand cites from others to substantiate
various talking points, note how he never furnishes any himself. When I
pressed him on this question about what movies the Ramseys hadn't seen, the
best he could do to support his claim that the Ramseys had not seen certain
movies is to say they themselves denied it in police interviews and this was
corroborated by "friends" who "vouched" for them.
Unless I watched a movie w/ a friend myself, or we discussed a film in
enough detail that I was convinced he or she had seen the film, there's no
way I'd be able to "vouch" for that person to police about what movies he or
she has or hasn't seen.
EnEss
> EnEss wrote:
>>"Iarnrod" wrote:
>>> And, I would suggest, more strongly implicates a psycho intruder than a
>>> set of typical loving parents who had never even seen the movies from
>>> which many of the Hollywood lines in the ransom note were taken.
>>Cite please. Provide a credible source that documents the Ramseys never
>>saw
>>any of the movies to which you refer. I wager you can't do it. How would
>>you
>>know what movies people who are total strangers--according to you--have or
>>haven't seen? That presumes a high degree of intimate knowledge of
>>someone,
>>IMO.
> Also, I did read and posted at the time that a report
> mentioned that the "...grow a brain" line was in a film
> they currently had under rental.
>
> I didn't keep the article but certainly it made an
> impression when I was reading.
I remember seeing this in a few sources too. There was something about how
they denied they had seen the film "Speed" which contains the "grow a brain"
line and then it was discovered that they had rented it in the months before
the murder. I also read that the film "Ransom" had aired on cable TV several
times and it was aired on a network the Ramseys received in their cable
package. It doesn't prove they saw it, of course--and it's something they
denied I believe---but the word of someone in a murder investigation is not
enough to go on.
Iarnrod
> news:1158937539.5...@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> Again:
> http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/ransom1.html
>
> Tell me where the accent is. Then look at the reverse hooks on the legs
> of the letter "y" that the writer uses and tell me if that isn't
> actually the mark that some people might have mistaken for an accent
> over the "e" below it
>
> I did look at the site (and "attaché") last night when you provided the
> link. I must admit that the accent mark isn't as clear as I had remembered
> it, but I hope there's a clearer copy of it somewhere. That there was an
> obvious accent mark over the e "was in all the papers". (That's just a
> phrase I use in RL when someone hasn't heard of something that has received
> widespread media coverage.) It looks to me as if the "crook" of the "y"s in
> most other instances curls to the left, not to the right...or the crook of
> the "tail" in a few cases is more like a dot, not curving either way.
True. I counted up about 20 or so letter "y" usages on the first
page and they're about split half and half - one half having that
little hook to the right that might have been confused with an accept
over the "e" below it, and the other half consisting of legs that
just go straight downward and a few that clearly hook to the left as
many people print their "y"s.
But on page I, look at the word "you," the third word in the forth
line from the bottom in "I advise you..." The rightward hook of the
"y" there is essentially identical to the one in the "y" in the
word "you" above the "e" in attaché on the same page.
The word below that is "monitor." And it appears to be an accent
over the "r." We know, of course, that's not what the writer
meant.
The propensity to right-hook the bottom leg of the letter "y" is
fairly consistent right through the last word in the three-page note.
Given that, I'd say it appears most reasonable and probable that
there is no accent over the "e" in attaché and people saw it there
mistakenly cause of the "y" above it and because THEY knew that the
word would have the accent... they saw it because they thought they saw
it.
> There's a copy of the ransom note at
> http://www.acandyrose.com/12251996ransompage1.gif, but I can't say it's
> much, if any, clearer. (Click on the page to enlarge it.)
Thanks. I did, and it seems to be the exact same mark as on the Smoking
Gun site.
> >Incidentally, thank you for being polite and civil.
>
> Thinks seem to go more smoothly that way.
> Linda
Yep. And while I am at it, if you and I got off to a rocky start last
month because of my posting style versus yours, I apologize. I am a
blunt person.
I will deal with NS's other replies later. Too much, too vitriolic
and too bizarre even after morning coffee. Off to the mall and get
ready for the weekend. We expect snow here. I think I'll see if I can
get back into my house without leaving any prints. ;-)
EnEss
"-L." wrote:
No I'm not! I only started talking about this case here recently, and only
very recently stopped trying to defend the intruder theory.
> Obsessed doesn't begin to describe it.
You're defending a troll. Not a good practice.
Iarnrod
EnEss wrote:
> "Andrys Basten" wrote:
> >I made a correction with the word "FILM" below
> > to replace 'friend'...
> >
> > And this is also a reiteration that anyone who
> > *believed* any friends could 'vouch' for such a thing
> > is incredibly eager to believe.
>
> I agree. Talk about naive, or an eagerness to "gloss over" some aspect of a
> discussion--something Iarnrod accused others here of doing.
Talk about naïve... and eagerness to hang innocent people with no
evidence.
> While Iarnrod has been quick to demand cites from others to substantiate
> various talking points, note how he never furnishes any himself. When I
> pressed him on this question about what movies the Ramseys hadn't seen, the
> best he could do to support his claim that the Ramseys had not seen certain
> movies is to say they themselves denied it in police interviews and this was
> corroborated by "friends" who "vouched" for them.
I presented about all the possible evidence there could exist for such
a claim. There is no big government snooping program that keeps track
of all the movies we watch. The only sources for whether the Ramseys
watched those movies would be the Ramseys, backed up by people who know
them well who could attest to their character and general truthfulness.
You are placing them in an impossible Catch 22. If they say they
didn't see Ransom, they must be lying since they wrote the note. BS,
NS.
Incidentally, John did say that he "saw" the movie Speed on one
occasion. But he didn't "hear" the movie.
When it was out theatrically, he was on an airplane flight when it was
shown as the in-flight movie but he didn't rent or use headsets. He
ignored it except for occasionally glancing at the screen while in
flight. He thought it looked stupid without the sound.
> Unless I watched a movie w/ a friend myself, or we discussed a film in
> enough detail that I was convinced he or she had seen the film, there's no
> way I'd be able to "vouch" for that person to police about what movies he or
> she has or hasn't seen.
So you must watch child porn on your home VCR, eh? Prove that you
don't.
How exactly does an innocent person need to address this question to
satisfy you? Eh?
Iarnrod
EnEss wrote:
> "Andrys Basten" wrote:
>
> > EnEss wrote:
>
> >>"Iarnrod" wrote:
> >>> And, I would suggest, more strongly implicates a psycho intruder than a
> >>> set of typical loving parents who had never even seen the movies from
> >>> which many of the Hollywood lines in the ransom note were taken.
>
> >>Cite please. Provide a credible source that documents the Ramseys never
> >>saw
> >>any of the movies to which you refer. I wager you can't do it. How would
> >>you
> >>know what movies people who are total strangers--according to you--have or
> >>haven't seen? That presumes a high degree of intimate knowledge of
> >>someone,
> >>IMO.
>
> > Also, I did read and posted at the time that a report
> > mentioned that the "...grow a brain" line was in a film
> > they currently had under rental.
> >
> > I didn't keep the article but certainly it made an
> > impression when I was reading.
>
> I remember seeing this in a few sources too. There was something about how
> they denied they had seen the film "Speed" which contains the "grow a brain"
> line and then it was discovered that they had rented it in the months before
> the murder.
Check my immediately prior post...
John said he "saw" Speed playing as an in-flight movie when it was
out in theaters and he was on a business trip. He didn't watch or
listen to the movie and didn't use a headset.
> I also read that the film "Ransom" had aired on cable TV several
> times and it was aired on a network the Ramseys received in their cable
> package. It doesn't prove they saw it, of course--and it's something they
> denied I believe---but the word of someone in a murder investigation is not
> enough to go on.
Ransom played on local cable in Boulder at the time the Ramseys were
enjoying the White's Christmas party - 7:30 pm Christmas night.
Maybe the intruder was watching it at the Ramsey house and that gave
him the idea to write the note. But the Ramseys couldn't have seen it
at that time. At least their friends could "vouch" for that.
Iarnrod
> "-L." wrote:
> > Obsessed doesn't begin to describe it.
>
> You're defending a troll. Not a good practice.
PKB.
Poe
> Cliff and Linda Griffith wrote:
>
>>"Iarnrod" <iar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:1158937539.5...@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>>Again:
>>http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/ransom1.html
>>
>>Tell me where the accent is. Then look at the reverse hooks on the legs
>>of the letter "y" that the writer uses and tell me if that isn't
>>actually the mark that some people might have mistaken for an accent
>>over the "e" below it
>>
>>I did look at the site (and "attaché") last night when you provided the
>>link. I must admit that the accent mark isn't as clear as I had remembered
>>it, but I hope there's a clearer copy of it somewhere. That there was an
>>obvious accent mark over the e "was in all the papers". (That's just a
>>phrase I use in RL when someone hasn't heard of something that has received
>>widespread media coverage.) It looks to me as if the "crook" of the "y"s in
>>most other instances curls to the left, not to the right...or the crook of
>>the "tail" in a few cases is more like a dot, not curving either way.
>
I assume that more information about this mark can be obtained by
inspecting actual piece of paper it was written on rather than a scan of
it. From that one might be able to determine where the mark started and
ended, pressure from pen to paper associated with making it, etc.
I cannot tell from looking at the online images, and I assume everyone
else has the same issue with the scanned versions. Whatever it is, it is
more over the "h" than the "e".
-L.
EnEss wrote:
>
> You're defending a troll. Not a good practice.
So anyone who doesn't see your point of view is a troll, eh? S/he is
definitely not a troll. S/he has been arguing points and opinons just
like you have - for weeks. If s/he is a troll, then so are you, and
everyone else who is participating in this thread.
Seriously, take a step back and a breather. You're losing it.
-L.
EnEss
> EnEss wrote:
>> You're defending a troll. Not a good practice.
> So anyone who doesn't see your point of view is a troll, eh?
No, not for that. There's nothing wrong w/ having a POV.
There's something else going on here w/ this poster. He has ulterior reasons
for being here than just to particpate in a legimate and honest discussion.
> S/he is
> definitely not a troll. S/he has been arguing points and opinons just
> like you have - for weeks. If s/he is a troll, then so are you, and
> everyone else who is participating in this thread.
He's got you fooled so far, too. But that may not last.
> Seriously, take a step back and a breather. You're losing it.
Free advice is worth exactly what it costs to give.