Who killed JonBenet Ramsey?

[let`s talk]

Who killed her?

Mommy did it? Daddy? A stranger?

Ideas...
Moved from "education" to a more correct forum. It may eventually wind up in "conspiracy theories" depending on how this goes.

[That_guy]

Professor Snape... in the abbatoire... with a monkey.

[fuelair]

Mommy faked at least a note, so.............

[WildCat]

Yes.

[oldhat]

http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o193/noahyzimmerman/John_Mark_Karr_is_detained_2.jpg

[JimBenArm]

I shouted out "who killed JonBenet?"
when after all, it was you and me...

[billydkid]

I shouted out "who killed JonBenet?"
when after all, it was you and me...
and we all killed Michael Jackson.

[pipelineaudio]

well that was helpful

[Segnosaur]

Who killed JonBenet Ramsey?

Who killed her?

Mommy did it? Daddy? A stranger?


Not likely either of her parents... any 'evidence' against them appears to be rather flimsey at best. Plus, there are specific reasons that you could exclude the parents...

In the book "The Cases that Haunt Us" by former FBI criminal profiler John Douglas, he points out a few things...
- The body was found by John Ramsey... in most cases where someone murders a family member, the killer will set things up so that somone ELSE finds the body
- The Ransom note was rather, ahem, strange... it asked for a very small sum of money (far less than what the Ramseys could afford.) If the note was made up by either parent to deflect suspicion, why not make it a reasonable amount?

On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that points to an intruder...
- An opened window in the basement (along with debris, and palm/boot prints that didn't match any of the family's)
- Hair found on the blanket found with the body didn't match anyone in the house
- Duct tape and rope didn't match any found in the house
- There were marks on the body that may have been made by a stun gun

[JimBenArm]

well that was helpful
I do what I can.

[slingblade]

I shouted out "who killed JonBenet?"
when after all, it was you and me...

Pleased to meet you...


:p

[Segnosaur]

Mommy faked at least a note, so.............

Ummm... which note would that be?

If you're referring to the ransom note, that's not likely. While there may have been similarities between the mom's handwriting and the note's, the similarities were so broad that millions of people would have been similarly matched. (In other words, the handwriting would have been enough to exclude someone as a susptect, but not enough to include someone as a suspect.)

Furthermore, some of the elements of the note wouldn't match what you would expect a mom to write; it made references to certain action movies that were recently released (not the type of movie a young mother would go see), and the amount of money asked for was very small.

[Segnosaur]

http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o193/noahyzimmerman/John_Mark_Karr_is_detained_2.jpg

Yeah, I think John Mark Karr has pretty much been eliminated as a suspect...
- The only real evidence that seems to have come up against him is his own confession
- He has not provided any new details about the crime, and some of the stuff he HAS said has contradicted know facts
- There was a statement by an ex-wife that he was actually in Alabama at the time of the murder (http://www.denverpost.com/jonbenet/ci_4203931)

[Kel]

Ummm... which note would that be?

If you're referring to the ransom note, that's not likely. While there may have been similarities between the mom's handwriting and the note's, the similarities were so broad that millions of people would have been similarly matched. (In other words, the handwriting would have been enough to exclude someone as a susptect, but not enough to include someone as a suspect.)

Furthermore, some of the elements of the note wouldn't match what you would expect a mom to write; it made references to certain action movies that were recently released (not the type of movie a young mother would go see), and the amount of money asked for was very small.

I read the wikipedia page, but I could not find reference to it...

When the crime happened, I seem to recall that there were other copies (rough drafts) of the notes found and crumpled in the garbage bin. Was this covered in the book mentioned upthread? If so, what was the author's opinion?

[Cicero]

Perez Hilton. JonBenet gave the wrong answer to his question at a beauty pageant.

[AWPrime]

Glenn Beck?

[Segnosaur]

I read the wikipedia page, but I could not find reference to it...

When the crime happened, I seem to recall that there were other copies (rough drafts) of the notes found and crumpled in the garbage bin. Was this covered in the book mentioned upthread? If so, what was the author's opinion?

The author had explained that the intruder would likely have broken in to the house hours before the Ramsey's arrived home, and as such would have had ample opportunity to compose rough drafts of ransom notes.

ETA: The author does say that one of the unknown questions is why didn't the killer bring a note with him. He suggests a couple of ideas... perhaps the killer did bring one, but decided to re-write it while waiting, or perhaps, if this had been his first 'kill', he may not have thought of a note until later. Its one of the elements that we may never understand.

He also pointed out that it would not have been likely for anyone to compose a ransom note AFTER the murder, since the excitement/thrill/or whatever would have made it difficult for the killer to focus. So, if the mother had done it, she would have had to compose the note FIRST (including any rough drafts), THEN kill the daughter.

[thrombus29]

Glenn Beck?

I don't know why Glenn Beck hasn't yet provided the evidence that he hasn't committed this heinous act.

What is Glenn Beck trying to hide?

[TragicMonkey]

Nancy Grace

[lionking]

Not the parents

[Gord_in_Toronto]

The case of JonBenet Ramsey is what I usually bring up when I attempt to derail other threads about IMPORTANT THINGS IN THE NEWS on CNN and other like US "News" channels. So I am a bit slow in responding to this thread.

I think that the true answer is that we'll never know -- given the lousy job the police did at the crime scene. I suppose there might be a deathbed confession (with evidence) that would "explain all" but I don't see the police solving it.

[Chaos]

The author had explained that the intruder would likely have broken in to the house hours before the Ramsey's arrived home, and as such would have had ample opportunity to compose rough drafts of ransom notes.

ETA: The author does say that one of the unknown questions is why didn't the killer bring a note with him. He suggests a couple of ideas... perhaps the killer did bring one, but decided to re-write it while waiting, or perhaps, if this had been his first 'kill', he may not have thought of a note until later. Its one of the elements that we may never understand.

He also pointed out that it would not have been likely for anyone to compose a ransom note AFTER the murder, since the excitement/thrill/or whatever would have made it difficult for the killer to focus. So, if the mother had done it, she would have had to compose the note FIRST (including any rough drafts), THEN kill the daughter.

How about the following scenario:

A burglar breaks into the Ramsey home, is encountered by JonBenet. One or both panick, the burglar either kills her in panic, or tries to silence her and accidentally kills her in the process.

Now the burglar is in a *real* panic. He decides to hide the body and write a ransom note - which turns out to be easier thought than done, thus the rough drafts. He obviously doesn´t have any experience with kidnapping, is unable to think clearly due to panic, and/or is not very smart - thus the very low amount demanded in the note. Thus also the idea that nobody would find the body, so people would believe it to be a kidnapping.

That done (for any given value of "done"), the burglar/murderer absconds, never to be seen again.

[WildCat]

I bet it was one of her 6-year old beauty pageant rivals.

Serious 6 year old beauty pageants are serious.

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

A burglar breaks into the Ramsey home, is encountered by JonBenet. One or both panick, the burglar either kills her in panic, or tries to silence her and accidentally kills her in the process.

Now the burglar is in a *real* panic. He decides to hide the body and write a ransom note - which turns out to be easier thought than done, thus the rough drafts. He obviously doesn´t have any experience with kidnapping, is unable to think clearly due to panic, and/or is not very smart - thus the very low amount demanded in the note. Thus also the idea that nobody would find the body, so people would believe it to be a kidnapping.

That done (for any given value of "done"), the burglar/murderer absconds, never to be seen again.

Seems unlikely, mainly because the ransom note mentions Ramsey by name, seemed very personally directed at him, and even demands a sum of money that was very close to a bonus he had recently received. It seems likely that the kidnapper knew Ramsey at some point (this is also from the John Douglas book mentioned above).

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

It's worth noting that the prosecutors officially cleared the Ramseys of any wrongdoing last year. (http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=5341559&page=1)

[Darth Rotor]

Who killed JonBenet Ramsey?
[/info]
Who cares?

Hmm, apparently you do.

Why?

@ Jim

I shouted out "Who killed Ted Kennedy,
When after all, it was just Jim Beam ..."

DR

[firecoins]

It's worth nothing that the prosecutors officially cleared the Ramseys of any wrongdoing last year. (http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=5341559&page=1)
its worth nothing or worth noting?

[Cainkane1]

Who cares?

Hmm, apparently you do.

Why?

@ Jim

I shouted out "Who killed Ted Kennedy,
When after all, it was just Jim Beam ..."

DR
I care like hell who killed that girl. The murderer could be out there killing other children.

[fuelair]

Ummm... which note would that be?

If you're referring to the ransom note, that's not likely. While there may have been similarities between the mom's handwriting and the note's, the similarities were so broad that millions of people would have been similarly matched. (In other words, the handwriting would have been enough to exclude someone as a susptect, but not enough to include someone as a suspect.)

Furthermore, some of the elements of the note wouldn't match what you would expect a mom to write; it made references to certain action movies that were recently released (not the type of movie a young mother would go see), and the amount of money asked for was very small.

Unless something has changed since the early days of the case, the police were supposed to have found evidence that a note (I assume the one you mention, but do not know for sure) had been practiced on paper found in the house.

[fuelair]

I tend to respond as soon as I see a question re my post/s so did not see the answer to this point. I will say whatever the R's did or didn't do they worked hard to be unhelpful in any way.

[WildCat]

A dingo killed JonBenet!

[Kestrel]

It's worth nothing that the prosecutors officially cleared the Ramseys of any wrongdoing last year. (http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=5341559&page=1)

The Ramsey's were convicted by the tabloids. That seems to be enough for most Americans.

Find a match for the unidentified DNA found on JonBenet's body and the case will be solved.

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

its worth nothing or worth noting?

Urr.... noting. Heh heh. Fixed, thanks :blush:

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

Unless something has changed since the early days of the case, the police were supposed to have found evidence that a note (I assume the one you mention, but do not know for sure) had been practiced on paper found in the house.

They did find evidence that the killer started writing the note on a writing tablet, then stopped and wrote on a new page. The notepad in question was in their hallway, where an intruder would have had easy access to it. He/she apparently tried to disguise his/her handwriting but gave up.

I tend to respond as soon as I see a question re my post/s so did not see the answer to this point. I will say whatever the R's did or didn't do they worked hard to be unhelpful in any way.

In what way? The Ramseys responded to written questions. They met with police and prosecutors more than once, and went through several days of questioning.

They became uncooperative when it became clear that the police had little interest in investigating any other theories other than that they were the ones who killed their daughter. The police early on knew they had unidentifiable DNA in JonBenet's underwear, and an unidentifiable palm print at the crime scene. Instead of looking into those leads, they invented excuses (http://m.rockymountainnews.com/news/2002/Nov/19/dna-may-not-help-ramsey-inquiry/) to continue to focus on the Ramseys. At some point, I don't blame the Ramseys for becoming uncooperative. But they sure weren't from the start.

[firecoins]

Could have been blood thirsty Jews who drink the blood from Christian children. I heard reports there were dancing Israelis seen in Colorado that week.

[pgwenthold]

I just want to state, for the record, that although I lived in Boulder at the time, I was not in town that week, and was at my sisters the night of the murder. Honest!

[Just thinking]

To this day, whenever I'm reminded of this crime, I still feel sympathy for that child. Why this one, I really don't know --- for sure there are plenty of others to have sympathy toward --- but yet I do.

[Dorcas]

Probably because it looks like her parents manipulated and objectified her? I know nothing about this 'pageant' business but it doesn't look like she had a great childhood to me.

[Segnosaur]

A burglar breaks into the Ramsey home, is encountered by JonBenet. One or both panick, the burglar either kills her in panic, or tries to silence her and accidentally kills her in the process.

Now the burglar is in a *real* panic. He decides to hide the body and write a ransom note - which turns out to be easier thought than done, thus the rough drafts. He obviously doesn´t have any experience with kidnapping, is unable to think clearly due to panic, and/or is not very smart
Seems unlikely, mainly because the ransom note mentions Ramsey by name, seemed very personally directed at him, and even demands a sum of money that was very close to a bonus he had recently received. It seems likely that the kidnapper knew Ramsey at some point (this is also from the John Douglas book mentioned above).

A good point.

A couple of other things that wouldn't exactly fit with the 'suprised burglar' theory...

- A burglar would have to remain in the house for some time after the murder/accidental killing in order to write the note. Unless he was some stone-cold killer, I doubt whether he'd have the presence of mind to stick around the house at all. You would expect some sort of panicing burglar-turned-killer to want to flee the scene as quickly as possible

- JonBenet was strangled; that doesn't exactly seem like the mode of death that could 'accidentally' be caused by a burglar.

- There didn't seem to be any evidence of missing or disturbed property. Unless Jonbenet suprised the burglar the second he entered the house, he would have had at least SOME time to go through their valuables, and you'd expect at least some items to be missing/out of place. There were no reports of that however.

ETA: One other reason to discount the 'surprised burglar' theory.... rope and duct tape used in the assault did not match anything available inside the home, so it was likely brought by the intruder. Those aren't exactly the type of tools that someone needs for 'just' breaking into a house.

[Segnosaur]

Probably because it looks like her parents manipulated and objectified her? I know nothing about this 'pageant' business but it doesn't look like she had a great childhood to me.
Personally, if I had a daughter I would probably not want her participating in pageants myself. However, even if you or I question the wisdom of allowing children participate in pageants, by all accounts JonBenet actually enjoyed participating in them. She enjoyed the 'acting', and she enjoyed the ability to do stuff with her mom (who helped her with the pagaents).

So, even if it seems 'strange' to make a 6 year old child parade around on stage, it wasn't an activity that made JonBenet unhappy.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Moved from "education" to a more correct forum. It may eventually wind up in "conspiracy theories" depending on how this goes.

Magz (or Budly or 9-11 Investigator) with a metapedia "Jewish Ritual Murder" link in 3... 2... 1...

[Segnosaur]

The Ramsey's were convicted by the tabloids. That seems to be enough for most Americans.

There was also an episode of South Park that did the same thing. Normally, I'm a fan of South Park, and feel they do a good job of bringing skepticism to a wide audience (see: Biggest Douche in the Universe.) However, they had an episode where they lumped the Ramseys in with people like O.J. Simpson as murders who got away with it.


Find a match for the unidentified DNA found on JonBenet's body and the case will be solved.

There are a couple of problems with that...

There were 2 possible sources for DNA...

- DNA was found under her fingernails. However, the sample from there was contaminated (I believe due to police incompetence.)

- DNA was also found on her underwear. However, they ran some tests on brand new underwear obtained from the same manufacturer, and found that many were contaminated during the manufacturing process.

http://m.rockymountainnews.com/news/2002/Nov/19/dna-may-not-help-ramsey-inquiry/

[LONGTABBER PE]

This case has come up between myself and others many times over the years in discussions. It seems universally one of the most botched and 1 sided investigations of all times. ( Rivaling the Duke Rape case)

I have never sen a satisfactory answer to the published timelines.

If PR found the note and called 911 when she did ( around 5:30 ish)- why wasnt a room to room conducted then ( or even before she called- I would have accounted for my child if i found a note like that)

I'll never understand why the LE in the area didnt bring in the hounds. Thats SOP for every missing persons case everywhere I've ever been. ( might not have found a perp or trail but surely found the child)

My personal belief based on media evidence is that this was most likely a planned kidnapping gone bad by someone who knew or was aware of John and had an axe to grind with him.

That note I believe was pre thought out but altered during the writing.

I believe it was probably written before JB was abducted/killed. ( why would you write a ransom note for a dead vic after the fact ESPECIALLY if you left the body there to be found?)

Also, if you accept the time of death published ( shortly after she was last known to be alive around 10PM) versus the time the note was allegedly found- this implies someone she knew.

The questions I have never seen addressed was where was JB from 10 on?

Where was the family? Was she in bed? How did the perp get access and where was she physically abducted from? How did she get downstairs?

Lot of things never added up. I still havent ruled out someone on thew inside having knowledge of the killing.

This investigation was botched from the beginning- I'm afraid the perp will never be caught.

[joobie]

To this day, whenever I'm reminded of this crime, I still feel sympathy for that child. Why this one, I really don't know --- for sure there are plenty of others to have sympathy toward --- but yet I do.

me too - and i agree with you that there's plenty of others to have sympathy for. i'm glad that i am one of those people that has the capability to have sympathy for a whole lot of them at the same time.

the unsolved child murder that really, really gets to me though, maybe because he was from my hometown, is the boy in the box (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boy_in_the_Box_%28Philadelphia%29).

[sophia8]

Personally, if I had a daughter I would probably not want her participating in pageants myself. However, even if you or I question the wisdom of allowing children participate in pageants, by all accounts JonBenet actually enjoyed participating in them. She enjoyed the 'acting', and she enjoyed the ability to do stuff with her mom (who helped her with the pagaents).

So, even if it seems 'strange' to make a 6 year old child parade around on stage, it wasn't an activity that made JonBenet unhappy.
From what I've read, participating in beauty contests was a profession for three generations of the Ramsays - her mother had been a child pageant queen and her grandmother had been a beauty queen. So JB was following in the family business.
However unsuitable it seems to us, that was her tribe's culture.

[Segnosaur]

I have never sen a satisfactory answer to the published timelines.

If PR found the note and called 911 when she did ( around 5:30 ish)- why wasnt a room to room conducted then ( or even before she called- I would have accounted for my child if i found a note like that)

I can't really blame the Ramsey's for not doing a full house search. After all, most people would expect a ransom note to be rather definitive proof that a kidnapping had taken place. Not like the Ramseys would have had enough crime experience to think "There is a Ransom note, but it COULD be a ruse...".

Now, the police are a different matter. THEY should have done a complete search of the house. (Even if they weren't expecting to find a body, they should have at least been searching for any evidence an intruder might have left behind.)


My personal belief based on media evidence is that this was most likely a planned kidnapping gone bad by someone who knew or was aware of John and had an axe to grind with him.

Perhaps, but if it were a planned kidnapping, then why would the killers molest/violate the body on site? (She had died from strangulation, not something that you'd expect from a kidnapping gone bad.)


Also, if you accept the time of death published ( shortly after she was last known to be alive around 10PM) versus the time the note was allegedly found- this implies someone she knew.

Why do you say that?

This doesn't necessarily mean that JonBenet didn't know her killer, just wondering how the timeline matters... (After all, even a complete stranger could have broken in and waited for the family to go to sleep.)

The questions I have never seen addressed was where was JB from 10 on?

Where was the family? Was she in bed? How did the perp get access and where was she physically abducted from? How did she get downstairs?

The perp likely got access through a basement window. (There was debris in one of the rooms, and scuff marks on the wall near the window. Also, a suitcase had been moved to provide a step to get out.) There is also a slight chance that the killer may have had a key (the Ramseys had been doing a lot of renovations, and had a lot of cleaners/etc. with access to their house, but that's less likely than the window-access theory.)

She was likey either abuducted from her bed (They had put her to bed earlier), or she may have wandered downstairs. (There was undigested pineapple in her stomach, so its possible that she knew her killer and he offered her food.) There were also burn marks that might have come from a stun gun. So, her killer may have either stunned her in her room (if he were a complete stranger), or brought her to the kitchen, and THEN stunned her to bring her to the basement.

The family was upstairs at the time. Apparently, their home was quite large, and whatever happened in the basement would probably not be heard by anyone in the upper floors.

[LONGTABBER PE]

I can't really blame the Ramsey's for not doing a full house search. After all, most people would expect a ransom note to be rather definitive proof that a kidnapping had taken place. Not like the Ramseys would have had enough crime experience to think "There is a Ransom note, but it COULD be a ruse...".

Now, the police are a different matter. THEY should have done a complete search of the house. (Even if they weren't expecting to find a body, they should have at least been searching for any evidence an intruder might have left behind.)


Perhaps, but if it were a planned kidnapping, then why would the killers molest/violate the body on site? (She had died from strangulation, not something that you'd expect from a kidnapping gone bad.)


Why do you say that?

This doesn't necessarily mean that JonBenet didn't know her killer, just wondering how the timeline matters... (After all, even a complete stranger could have broken in and waited for the family to go to sleep.)

The perp likely got access through a basement window. (There was debris in one of the rooms, and scuff marks on the wall near the window. Also, a suitcase had been moved to provide a step to get out.) There is also a slight chance that the killer may have had a key (the Ramseys had been doing a lot of renovations, and had a lot of cleaners/etc. with access to their house, but that's less likely than the window-access theory.)

She was likey either abuducted from her bed (They had put her to bed earlier), or she may have wandered downstairs. (There was undigested pineapple in her stomach, so its possible that she knew her killer and he offered her food.) There were also burn marks that might have come from a stun gun. So, her killer may have either stunned her in her room (if he were a complete stranger), or brought her to the kitchen, and THEN stunned her to bring her to the basement.

The family was upstairs at the time. Apparently, their home was quite large, and whatever happened in the basement would probably not be heard by anyone in the upper floors.

I'm just looking at this thru my experience and some things dont "fit"

>>>I can't really blame the Ramsey's for not doing a full house search. After all, most people would expect a ransom note to be rather definitive proof that a kidnapping had taken place. Not like the Ramseys would have had enough crime experience to think "There is a Ransom note, but it COULD be a ruse...".

I've never investigated a kidnapping but I've seen my share of parents with missing children. My mind cannot fathom a mother who just found a RANSOM note in strange hand INSIDE her house and NOT run immediately ( imagine the Enterprise entering warp) to put her hands on her child and not finding her/him, screaming their name frantically ( while screaming bloody murder) and searching every squre inch of the house then outside.

>>>Now, the police are a different matter. THEY should have done a complete search of the house. (Even if they weren't expecting to find a body, they should have at least been searching for any evidence an intruder might have left behind.)

No argument and i have never seen that explained to my satisfaction. Maybe they dont have them there but where were the bloodhounds? I know some neighboring county has them.

>>>Perhaps, but if it were a planned kidnapping, then why would the killers molest/violate the body on site? (She had died from strangulation, not something that you'd expect from a kidnapping gone bad.)

This is where I'm speculating based on not seeing the actual reports.

We dont know ( at least I've never seen) what cells or tissue this DNA was in. ( that makes a difference). We also dont know for certain she was molested. ( when you remove the media spin and remarks, the only documents i saw at CTV said it was inconclusive- not saying my memory is correct or something hasnt been released since but I dont remember it)

Strangulation isnt unheard of in abductions ( the garrott) because it keeps you "quiet" and they cant bite you like a hand over the mouth. Problem is- it can be quickly fatal too.

Thats why I wonder if the killing wasnt an "accident" and the body was made to look like it was molested as a cover.

I've also never heard of a kidnapper making a ransom note when he intended to kill the person and leave the body at the scene. ( kinda defeats the purpose doesnt it?)

>>>Why do you say that?

Easy, at night ( especially for small children and many females)- they tend to scream or otherwise make a ruckus when startled by a stranger especially with parents in the house.

>>>This doesn't necessarily mean that JonBenet didn't know her killer, just wondering how the timeline matters... (After all, even a complete stranger could have broken in and waited for the family to go to sleep.)

Heres more. It takes a brazen individual to enter a house at night with multiple occupants not knowing who was where. Or it takes someone who has an idea. An unknown perp wouldnt know if they had a dog, gun liked midnite snacks or whatever. The other thing is that between 10-12 the parents and brother are likely awake or in light sleep.

>>>The perp likely got access through a basement window. (There was debris in one of the rooms, and scuff marks on the wall near the window. Also, a suitcase had been moved to provide a step to get out.) There is also a slight chance that the killer may have had a key (the Ramseys had been doing a lot of renovations, and had a lot of cleaners/etc. with access to their house, but that's less likely than the window-access theory.)


I think it more likely because I've crawled in and out of those windows before. The ground, the dirt, moisture from melted snow etc would have been disturbed, prints all over the place ( ingress and egress) and should be on the body as a result. An average sized male would have to do a lot of wiggling and jiggling leaving all kinds of forensic evidence. ( maybe he did and the morons in the PD didnt find it)

>>>She was likey either abuducted from her bed (They had put her to bed earlier), or she may have wandered downstairs. (There was undigested pineapple in her stomach, so its possible that she knew her killer and he offered her food.) There were also burn marks that might have come from a stun gun. So, her killer may have either stunned her in her room (if he were a complete stranger), or brought her to the kitchen, and THEN stunned her to bring her to the basement.

you can forget the stun gun- that didnt happen. Thats a lot of movement and potential exposure toting a presumed struggling child. Plus why would he take her to the basement ( with intent to kidnap) because you sure as hell cant take 2 people thru that window at the same time or pull a struggling one thru.

Just educated guessing but everything I see leads me to believe it was a kidnapping gone bad by someone with knowledge of the family and that she was probably killed en route to outside and put in the basement deliberately and it made to look like molestation was the motive.

[Segnosaur]

>>>Perhaps, but if it were a planned kidnapping, then why would the killers molest/violate the body on site? (She had died from strangulation, not something that you'd expect from a kidnapping gone bad.)

This is where I'm speculating based on not seeing the actual reports.

We dont know ( at least I've never seen) what cells or tissue this DNA was in. ( that makes a difference). We also dont know for certain she was molested. ( when you remove the media spin and remarks, the only documents i saw at CTV said it was inconclusive- not saying my memory is correct or something hasnt been released since but I dont remember it)

You are right in that there was no evidence of actual 'sexual' molestation (although some sort of act might have occured). I used the term 'molestation/violation' to indicate something that would have been outside the range of activites you would expect from an 'accidental' death.


Strangulation isnt unheard of in abductions ( the garrott) because it keeps you "quiet" and they cant bite you like a hand over the mouth. Problem is- it can be quickly fatal too.

JonBenet was 6 years old; I don't think that the use of a garrott would have been necessary to carry out a kidnapping.

>>>This doesn't necessarily mean that JonBenet didn't know her killer, just wondering how the timeline matters... (After all, even a complete stranger could have broken in and waited for the family to go to sleep.)

Heres more. It takes a brazen individual to enter a house at night with multiple occupants not knowing who was where. Or it takes someone who has an idea. An unknown perp wouldnt know if they had a dog, gun liked midnite snacks or whatever. The other thing is that between 10-12 the parents and brother are likely awake or in light sleep.

They may have been brazen, or just not very smart at handling risks.

>>>The perp likely got access through a basement window. (There was debris in one of the rooms, and scuff marks on the wall near the window. Also, a suitcase had been moved to provide a step to get out.) There is also a slight chance that the killer may have had a key (the Ramseys had been doing a lot of renovations, and had a lot of cleaners/etc. with access to their house, but that's less likely than the window-access theory.)

I think it more likely because I've crawled in and out of those windows before. The ground, the dirt, moisture from melted snow etc would have been disturbed, prints all over the place ( ingress and egress) and should be on the body as a result. An average sized male would have to do a lot of wiggling and jiggling leaving all kinds of forensic evidence. ( maybe he did and the morons in the PD didnt find it)

Actually, there would likely be no melted snow, because there was no snowcover on the ground outside their house.

As for forensics, there actually WAS debris left behind. I'm pretty sure the cops did find it, but for whatever reason they ignored it in thier crusade to blame the parents.

>>>She was likey either abuducted from her bed (They had put her to bed earlier), or she may have wandered downstairs. (There was undigested pineapple in her stomach, so its possible that she knew her killer and he offered her food.) There were also burn marks that might have come from a stun gun. So, her killer may have either stunned her in her room (if he were a complete stranger), or brought her to the kitchen, and THEN stunned her to bring her to the basement.

you can forget the stun gun- that didnt happen. Thats a lot of movement and potential exposure toting a presumed struggling child.

Ummm... why are you suggesting the stun gun didn't happen? In fact it woudl have been an ideal weapon to stop the movement and struggling of a child.

(Note: There is no guarantee that a stun gun was used. However, given the size and layout of the Ramsey house, its possible that the child was lured downstairs, and then forcefully taken from the kitchen; the Ramsey house was quite soundproof (thick carpets, lots of distance from the kitchen and basement to the parent's bedroom, etc.).

Plus why would he take her to the basement ( with intent to kidnap) because you sure as hell cant take 2 people thru that window at the same time or pull a struggling one thru.

Its also possible that he never intended to kidnap her, that the letter was a ruse right from the start. Or its also possible that the individual was unsure of what they were doing and changed plans in mid-stream (originally thinking of a kidnapping, but once abducting the child decided that immidiate gratification through murder was preferable.)

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

I've never investigated a kidnapping but I've seen my share of parents with missing children. My mind cannot fathom a mother who just found a RANSOM note in strange hand INSIDE her house and NOT run immediately ( imagine the Enterprise entering warp) to put her hands on her child and not finding her/him, screaming their name frantically ( while screaming bloody murder) and searching every squre inch of the house then outside.


I could easily imagine a mother not doing that any of that. As far as I know, Patsy Ramsey found the note, checked to see if JonBenet was missing, and called 9-11. All very reasonable things to do. You seem to have the image in your mind of a 1950's-film stereotypical woman who freaks out when faced with adversity.

There is no "right" way for victims to react to crimes, and a lot of people react very different. The Ramseys also received a lot of bad press because they were apparently not emotional enough in public. Different people react differently to difficult situations.

[Olowkow]

Question 1: What is the point or reason behind the note?
Question 2: What is the significance of the garrote as an instrument of murder (paint brush)?
Question 3: Why hide the body in the basement?

It is very difficult to believe that either parent did it, particularly in light of all the real experts' opinions, and their own body language, but I really think that mom did it, and did not really have a good memory of having done it. Dad knows, but cannot handle it.
Nothing else makes sense to me.
And yes, it really matters who did it.

[Tricky]

Who killed JonBenet Ramsey?
The National Enquirer. They had the most to gain.

[LONGTABBER PE]

You are right in that there was no evidence of actual 'sexual' molestation (although some sort of act might have occured). I used the term 'molestation/violation' to indicate something that would have been outside the range of activites you would expect from an 'accidental' death.


JonBenet was 6 years old; I don't think that the use of a garrott would have been necessary to carry out a kidnapping.

They may have been brazen, or just not very smart at handling risks.

Actually, there would likely be no melted snow, because there was no snowcover on the ground outside their house.

As for forensics, there actually WAS debris left behind. I'm pretty sure the cops did find it, but for whatever reason they ignored it in thier crusade to blame the parents.

Ummm... why are you suggesting the stun gun didn't happen? In fact it woudl have been an ideal weapon to stop the movement and struggling of a child.

(Note: There is no guarantee that a stun gun was used. However, given the size and layout of the Ramsey house, its possible that the child was lured downstairs, and then forcefully taken from the kitchen; the Ramsey house was quite soundproof (thick carpets, lots of distance from the kitchen and basement to the parent's bedroom, etc.).

Its also possible that he never intended to kidnap her, that the letter was a ruse right from the start. Or its also possible that the individual was unsure of what they were doing and changed plans in mid-stream (originally thinking of a kidnapping, but once abducting the child decided that immidiate gratification through murder was preferable.)

>>>You are right in that there was no evidence of actual 'sexual' molestation (although some sort of act might have occured). I used the term 'molestation/violation' to indicate something that would have been outside the range of activites you would expect from an 'accidental' death.

I say that because I have writen those reports and know the difference between what they "say" and what they "mean" and how they are "spinned".

When theres strong evidence ( tearing, fluids, DNA and such) you will see the words like "sexual trauma"- when you see weak phrases like evidence of sexual "molestation"- that tells you they found things that can have any number of causes and they dont know.

>>>JonBenet was 6 years old; I don't think that the use of a garrott would have been necessary to carry out a kidnapping.

kidnapping no- to keep her silent and restrict movement and resistance- yes.

Unless you believe she willingly accompanied the perp and remained silent as a mouse from her alleged bedroom thru the house and during the event of her death- something kept her silent and kept her from kicking, knocking things over and such.

>>>They may have been brazen, or just not very smart at handling risks.

Highly unlikely. Kidnapping and abduction just by their nature are crimes where there is contact, proximity, some form of control and lots of risks of exposure. Also, its not something one intends to do in a strange house where multiple are present unless one has a reasonable belief he can remain undetected during the egress with a victim in tow.

Also, large or not- people are still 30-40 feet away. One of them may have a weapon.

Thats an awful lot of "luck" for a random actor to have.

>>>Actually, there would likely be no melted snow, because there was no snowcover on the ground outside their house.

Yep but the ground would be wet and soft, the grass would be dead and get on the clothing and the clothes would be wet as well from laying down to enter from a ground level window.

There should be footprints inside (wet) as well as massive evidence of entry/exit at the ground right before the window. Some of this contamination should be on the body and throughout the house as well.

>>>As for forensics, there actually WAS debris left behind. I'm pretty sure the cops did find it, but for whatever reason they ignored it in thier crusade to blame the parents.

Thats open to speculation ( the details from the media are largely unclear as to what they found and where they found it) but I'm forced to agree that this was a totally botched investigation so maybe everything was there and as you say ignored.

As to their crusade against the parents- if the media accounts are factually accurate in the details and timeline ( thats a BIG "if")- I can see why they zeroed in on the parents or brother.

>>>Ummm... why are you suggesting the stun gun didn't happen? In fact it woudl have been an ideal weapon to stop the movement and struggling of a child.

(Note: There is no guarantee that a stun gun was used. However, given the size and layout of the Ramsey house, its possible that the child was lured downstairs, and then forcefully taken from the kitchen; the Ramsey house was quite soundproof (thick carpets, lots of distance from the kitchen and basement to the parent's bedroom, etc.).

Nah, thats hollywood. I have used them and been a volunteer to be crash test dummy for one in training. ( i had to experience for myself what it would and wouldnt do for me to feel comfortable with its capability)

First of all- the SG leaves the telltale "snakebite" wound where the prongs pierce the skin. They dont arc enough to burn and they are rarely used by a perp because they have a range of about 10 ft and only give you 1 chance.

There is no such thing as a soundproof house. Especially when someone is making a physical ruckus.

>>>Its also possible that he never intended to kidnap her, that the letter was a ruse right from the start. Or its also possible that the individual was unsure of what they were doing and changed plans in mid-stream (originally thinking of a kidnapping, but once abducting the child decided that immidiate gratification through murder was preferable

That would qualify him for the "dumbest crook" or maybe even a Darwin award if true.

The perp took a lot of risks to be a random act so that indicates premeditation. The fact she was abducted indicates she was the primary target. I cant accept the change mind in the middle of the crime mentality.

[shemp]

I shot the sheriff
But I didn't kill JonBenet Ramsey, oh no! oh!

[LONGTABBER PE]

I could easily imagine a mother not doing that any of that. As far as I know, Patsy Ramsey found the note, checked to see if JonBenet was missing, and called 9-11. All very reasonable things to do. You seem to have the image in your mind of a 1950's-film stereotypical woman who freaks out when faced with adversity.

There is no "right" way for victims to react to crimes, and a lot of people react very different. The Ramseys also received a lot of bad press because they were apparently not emotional enough in public. Different people react differently to difficult situations.

Thats all well and good and whatever. I have in my "mind" actual FIELD EXPERIENCE with missing children reports. I've never seen one that wasnt climbing the wall.

Also ( if one accepts the timeline) lets say the immediate reaction was "shock" and she didnt.

The call allegedly went in around 5:30 and the body was discovered at approximately ONE PM. Thats SEVEN and ONE HALF HOURS.

Now you want me to believe that a family with a ransom note AND a missing daughter ( she was already dead thus she wasnt there for breakfast, play with the Christmas toys or even got out of bed) didnt prompt a MOTHER, FATHER and BROTHER to at least "wonder" where JB is and not at least go to her bedroom and see she wasnt there then look thru the house? ( not to mention the law enforcement first responders but thats another story because maybe there was a zillion to 1 chance the entire family was in shock or silly- there is no excuse for trained LEO's not to have)

That conduct is beyond all reason.

[Olowkow]

The intruder theory was, I thought, pretty remote since there were spider webs undisturbed at the broken window frame.

[Uncayimmy]

Thats all well and good and whatever. I have in my "mind" actual FIELD EXPERIENCE with missing children reports. I've never seen one that wasnt climbing the wall.

Also ( if one accepts the timeline) lets say the immediate reaction was "shock" and she didnt.

The call allegedly went in around 5:30 and the body was discovered at approximately ONE PM. Thats SEVEN and ONE HALF HOURS.

Now you want me to believe that a family with a ransom note AND a missing daughter ( she was already dead thus she wasnt there for breakfast, play with the Christmas toys or even got out of bed) didnt prompt a MOTHER, FATHER and BROTHER to at least "wonder" where JB is and not at least go to her bedroom and see she wasnt there then look thru the house? ( not to mention the law enforcement first responders but thats another story because maybe there was a zillion to 1 chance the entire family was in shock or silly- there is no excuse for trained LEO's not to have)

That conduct is beyond all reason.

I'm not a fan of the whole "how they should have reacted" stuff because it seems like sometimes it is given too much weight while other times I find the reaction well within reason, but I certainly appreciate that it's a factor that should be considered. That aside, I would be wondering how the person got into my house and then got my daughter out of the house. I'd be looking at every possible entrance/exit. I'd also be looking for signs that she may have been injured.

Then again, the police arrived within 7 minutes. I can certainly see them being in shock for that long and waiting on the police. Do we know for a fact that the Ramseys didn't run around the house checking windows and exit doors during that time? JB was found in a room in the basement. If there was no window in that room, would they automatically check it anyway? Maybe, but if your focus is on "how did they get in and out?" I can see skipping areas that don't lead outside.

Once the police arrived, I don't think it would be unreasonable for them to defer to their expertise, however misplaced it turned out to be. If the police mindset was, "She's missing and we're waiting to hear from kidnappers" would parents counter with, "Hey, lets go check every nook and cranny of the house to see if we can find her corpse!"

[LONGTABBER PE]

I'm not a fan of the whole "how they should have reacted" stuff because it seems like sometimes it is given too much weight while other times I find the reaction well within reason, but I certainly appreciate that it's a factor that should be considered. That aside, I would be wondering how the person got into my house and then got my daughter out of the house. I'd be looking at every possible entrance/exit. I'd also be looking for signs that she may have been injured.

Then again, the police arrived within 7 minutes. I can certainly see them being in shock for that long and waiting on the police. Do we know for a fact that the Ramseys didn't run around the house checking windows and exit doors during that time? JB was found in a room in the basement. If there was no window in that room, would they automatically check it anyway? Maybe, but if your focus is on "how did they get in and out?" I can see skipping areas that don't lead outside.

Once the police arrived, I don't think it would be unreasonable for them to defer to their expertise, however misplaced it turned out to be. If the police mindset was, "She's missing and we're waiting to hear from kidnappers" would parents counter with, "Hey, lets go check every nook and cranny of the house to see if we can find her corpse!"

whats up yimmy

>>>Then again, the police arrived within 7 minutes. I can certainly see them being in shock for that long and waiting on the police.

I can see that both ways but 7 MINUTES isnt unreasonable

>>>Do we know for a fact that the Ramseys didn't run around the house checking windows and exit doors during that time?

I've never seen or heard of their immediate actions but one has to believe ( in theory) they would search the basement too if they did

>>>If there was no window in that room, would they automatically check it anyway? Maybe, but if your focus is on "how did they get in and out?" I can see skipping areas that don't lead outside.

There is a window into the basement ( saw it on TV way back) but regardless- one would check every room, closet, hamper of whatever. ( could be a child joking or playing a trick)

>>>Once the police arrived, I don't think it would be unreasonable for them to defer to their expertise, however misplaced it turned out to be. If the police mindset was, "She's missing and we're waiting to hear from kidnappers" would parents counter with, "Hey, lets go check every nook and cranny of the house to see if we can find her corpse

That was my initial point. People can banter 'woulda/shoulda/coulda" all day about the parents. Maybe they did or didnt or whatever.

I simply cannot fathom a police department not conducting an immediate house AND grounds search and if nothing turns up- bring on the dogs and the site team. Thats department SOP everywhere i have ever heard of.

I remember when i first heard the timeline- I actually thought the reporter misspoke. Even then, I think the father found her- what were these keystone kops doing for all that time?

[Kestrel]

I simply cannot fathom a police department not conducting an immediate house AND grounds search and if nothing turns up- bring on the dogs and the site team. Thats department SOP everywhere i have ever heard of.

What makes you believe that the Boulder police had dogs trained to search for missing persons?

[LONGTABBER PE]

What makes you believe that the Boulder police had dogs trained to search for missing persons?

At the time of the incident, they in fact did not ( they do now) but thats not the point.

Many departments dont have their own K9 units indigenous but there are always a department close by that does and the state does. Its common practice to borrow them and doesnt take long to get them there.

[let`s talk]

The intruder theory was, I thought, pretty remote since there were spider webs undisturbed at the broken window frame.

... and the window was too small for an adult.
After reading a lot of stuff about this case I think that there was somebody else in the story, Mr./Ms.Unknown.
At the same time I think her parents did not tell us the whole truth. There was/is something that they were/are hiding.
And... we will probably never find out who did it. Sad.

www dot trutv dot com/library/cime/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/index_1.html
www dot crimeshots dot com/JonBenetCase.html
jonbenetramsey dot pbworks dot com

[Kestrel]

At the time of the incident, they in fact did not ( they do now) but thats not the point.

Many departments dont have their own K9 units indigenous but there are always a department close by that does and the state does. Its common practice to borrow them and doesnt take long to get them there.

At the time, they had a ransom note pointing to a probable kidnapping. Searchers would be looking for how a kidnapper entered the house, trying not to disturb any trace evidence that might point to the culprit. They did not expect to find the victims body inside the house.

On TV crime dramas, the dogs are magical. One sniff of the victims clothing and they follow a trail directly to the kidnapper. In the real world, it's a bit more complicated. How would the dogs be able to pick out a trail of a six year old victim being carried by a kidnapper?

[LONGTABBER PE]

At the time, they had a ransom note pointing to a probable kidnapping. Searchers would be looking for how a kidnapper entered the house, trying not to disturb any trace evidence that might point to the culprit. They did not expect to find the victims body inside the house.

On TV crime dramas, the dogs are magical. One sniff of the victims clothing and they follow a trail directly to the kidnapper. In the real world, it's a bit more complicated. How would the dogs be able to pick out a trail of a six year old victim being carried by a kidnapper?

>>>At the time, they had a ransom note pointing to a probable kidnapping.

Note or no note- procedure 1 is a search for the vic- house and grounds

>>>Searchers would be looking for how a kidnapper entered the house, trying not to disturb any trace evidence that might point to the culprit.

You have no clue as to how an investigation actually works do you?

>>>They did not expect to find the victims body inside the house.

Rule # 1 in Law Enforcement- You never know what to expect- follow the procedures

>>>On TV crime dramas, the dogs are magical. One sniff of the victims clothing and they follow a trail directly to the kidnapper. In the real world, it's a bit more complicated.

I know, I've run them a many a time

>>>How would the dogs be able to pick out a trail of a six year old victim being carried by a kidnapper

The same way they do everywhere else. They are given a sample ( preferably recently worn clothes, shoes or a hairbrush) and get the scent of the body and skin cells and off they go.

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

Thats all well and good and whatever. I have in my "mind" actual FIELD EXPERIENCE with missing children reports. I've never seen one that wasnt climbing the wall.

Many of us have actual FIELD EXPERIENCE with victims of various crimes. You said earlier you'd never dealt with a kidnapping. And presumably, you've never been there when a parent first realized their child was kidnapped.

When Charles Lindbergh realized his baby had been kidnapped (in similar fashion, by the way, including a note left in the house), his reaction was, "Anne, they've kidnapped our baby." Then they called the police. They didn't flip out and go tearing around the house in a mad panic.

My point isn't that Patsy Ramsey was completely calm. By the accounts I've read, she was understandably very stressed, very worried, and very shocked. She just happened to have had enough wits about her to call the police and not start freaking out and go tearing through the house while screaming at the top of her lungs in a mad panic.


The call allegedly went in around 5:30 and the body was discovered at approximately ONE PM. Thats SEVEN and ONE HALF HOURS.

Now you want me to believe that a family with a ransom note AND a missing daughter ( she was already dead thus she wasnt there for breakfast, play with the Christmas toys or even got out of bed) didnt prompt a MOTHER, FATHER and BROTHER to at least "wonder" where JB is and not at least go to her bedroom and see she wasnt there then look thru the house? ( not to mention the law enforcement first responders but thats another story because maybe there was a zillion to 1 chance the entire family was in shock or silly- there is no excuse for trained LEO's not to have)

That conduct is beyond all reason.

They didn't "wonder" where JB was, because they had a ransom note that said where she was. She was kidnapped. They found the ransom note, checked to see if the child was missing from her bed -- she was -- and called the police. The police arrived, and stupidly didn't search the house. Then later, a friend (Fleet White) came to the house (again, more people the police let trample through the crime scene) and he suggested that they search the house for clues (not for the child herself), and again stupidly, the police let them.

Yes, it is absolutely reasonable that they would a) find a ransom note b) check to see if the daughter was missing and then c) call and wait for the police to arrive.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Many of us have actual FIELD EXPERIENCE with victims of various crimes. You said earlier you'd never dealt with a kidnapping. And presumably, you've never been there when a parent first realized their child was kidnapped.

When Charles Lindbergh realized his baby had been kidnapped (in similar fashion, by the way, including a note left in the house), his reaction was, "Anne, they've kidnapped our baby." Then they called the police. They didn't flip out and go tearing around the house in a mad panic.

My point isn't that Patsy Ramsey was completely calm. By the accounts I've read, she was understandably very stressed, very worried, and very shocked. She just happened to have had enough wits about her to call the police and not start freaking out and go tearing through the house while screaming at the top of her lungs in a mad panic.



They didn't "wonder" where JB was, because they had a ransom note that said where she was. She was kidnapped. They found the ransom note, checked to see if the child was missing from her bed -- she was -- and called the police. The police arrived, and stupidly didn't search the house. Then later, a friend (Fleet White) came to the crime scene (again, more people the police let trample through the crime scene) and he suggested that they search the house for clues (not for the child herself), and again stupidly, the police let them.

Yes, it is absolutely reasonable that they would a) find a ransom note b) check to see if the daughter was missing and then c) call and wait for the police to arrive.

You need to stick with whatever it is you do and leave Law Enforcement to trained professionals

>>>Many of us have actual FIELD EXPERIENCE with victims of various crimes.

good- then you know exactly what I'm saying

>>>You said earlier you'd never dealt with a kidnapping. And presumably, you've never been there when a parent first realized their child was kidnapped.

Thats correct but I've been there for several missing ( basically the same thing)

>>>When Charles Lindbergh realized his baby had been kidnapped (in similar fashion, by the way, including a note left in the house), his reaction was, "Anne, they've kidnapped our baby." Then they called the police. They didn't flip out and go tearing around the house in a mad panic.

you were there?

>>>My point isn't that Patsy Ramsey was completely calm. By the accounts I've read, she was understandably very stressed, very worried, and very shocked. She just happened to have had enough wits about her to call the police and not start freaking out and go tearing through the house while screaming at the top of her lungs in a mad panic.

Stay on point and dont deviate from the main point. I dont know or care her mental state at incident zero- logic, common sense and normal care and concern would predicate looking for a child.

>>>They didn't "wonder" where JB was, because they had a ransom note that said where she was. She was kidnapped. They found the ransom note, checked to see if the child was missing from her bed -- she was -

And a ransom note is always 100% trustworthy? LOL

>>>The police arrived, and stupidly didn't search the house. Then later, a friend (Fleet White) came to the crime scene (again, more people the police let trample through the crime scene) and he suggested that they search the house for clues (not for the child herself), and again stupidly, the police let them.

Yeah i know- but thats a subject for another thread.

>>>Yes, it is absolutely reasonable that they would a) find a ransom note b) check to see if the daughter was missing and then c) call and wait for the police to arrive

I never said it wasnt- go back and read carefully this time

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

You need to stick with whatever it is you do and leave Law Enforcement to trained professionals

It's probably best not to make assumptions about what complete strangers have or haven't done for work. In any event, here is exactly your problem: we're not talking about law enforcement professionals. We're talking about an average family who had a child kidnapped, and how they reacted to it.

good- then you know exactly what I'm saying

If you're saying that her reaction was generally reasonable, then yes, I agree.


you were there?

It was one of the most reported on crimes in the past century. Of course, you admitted you haven't been at any kidnappings, so your analysis is therefore equally unfounded, if not more so (at least the Lindbergh kindapping account was a first-hand account of what occurred at a kidnapping).

I respect that you have experience with parents whose children are missing. But the presence of a ransom note is the exact difference that could make a parent react differently. If your child is missing and you have no idea where he/she is, then yes, you are probably going to search anywhere and everywhere. If your child is missing and you have a note that tells you where he/she is, there's a good chance you may not search the entire house right away.


Stay on point and dont deviate from the main point. I dont know or care her mental state at incident zero- logic, common sense and normal care and concern would predicate looking for a child.

Firstly, you brought up mental state, noting that you'd never seen a parent not "up the wall." So don't bring up subjects if you don't want to talk about them.

Secondly, by all accounts she did look for the child, where the child was supposed to be -- in her room. When you have a combination of a ransom note and a missing child, "logic, common sense, and normal care" would predicate calling the police, which is what she did.

Of course, it's also odd that you on the one hand expect the mother to be "up the wall" and on the other hand expect her to behave consistent with "logic, common sense, and normal care." (From what I read, she was shocked but kept it together enough to stay calm and call the police).


And a ransom note is always 100% trustworthy? LOL

To someone who has never dealt with criminals before, yes. I don't think most average parents, however, would automatically think, "Well, my daughter is missing from her room. There's a ransom note here that says she was kidnapped.... but maybe, she's really dead in the basement!"


I never said it wasnt- go back and read carefully this time

No clue what your point is then. So what she did was reasonable. What are you arguing about?

[Cainkane1]

Who killed her?

Mommy did it? Daddy? A stranger?

Ideas...
Moved from "education" to a more correct forum. It may eventually wind up in "conspiracy theories" depending on how this goes.
I don't believe a family member did it but I do beliieve the parents know who did. They were too closed mouthed. I used to think her brother did it but DNA from under the little girls fingernails disprove that theory. There were rumors that the ramseys were involved in a child porn ring and they didn't want the police to get wind of this. Maybe this is wrong also. After all this time I doubt if the truth will ever be known.

[Kestrel]

>>>How would the dogs be able to pick out a trail of a six year old victim being carried by a kidnapper

The same way they do everywhere else. They are given a sample ( preferably recently worn clothes, shoes or a hairbrush) and get the scent of the body and skin cells and off they go.

Works fine for a kid who wanders away into the woods on their own two feet. In this case, you are starting from a the victims house. She lived here, played in the yard and quite likely took walks around the neighborhood with her parents. All of which would leave a much better scent trail than a child being carried.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Works fine for a kid who wanders away into the woods on their own two feet. In this case, you are starting from a the victims house. She lived here, played in the yard and quite likely took walks around the neighborhood with her parents. All of which would leave a much better scent trail than a child being carried.

Thats right- thats why it takes a little time

You dont think the little kid who walked in the woods lived and played in the woods and took walks too? ( heres a clue- they all do)

You ever wonder why the dogs find the trail the deer is on instead of following everywhere he has ever been?

FYI, hounds follow skin cells more than "scent" and those cells stay mostly in the air. Its not all about the ground so carrying wont make much difference. The most cells ( most recent) is what they normally zero in on.

Dogs have been proven to be able to track people in vehicles

[LONGTABBER PE]

I don't believe a family member did it but I do beliieve the parents know who did. They were too closed mouthed. I used to think her brother did it but DNA from under the little girls fingernails disprove that theory. There were rumors that the ramseys were involved in a child porn ring and they didn't want the police to get wind of this. Maybe this is wrong also. After all this time I doubt if the truth will ever be known.

I tend to agree but dont let the DNA fool you. DNA under nails isnt proof positive it came from the perp. It could have come from anywhere.

[Kestrel]

I don't believe a family member did it but I do beliieve the parents know who did. They were too closed mouthed. I used to think her brother did it but DNA from under the little girls fingernails disprove that theory. There were rumors that the ramseys were involved in a child porn ring and they didn't want the police to get wind of this. Maybe this is wrong also. After all this time I doubt if the truth will ever be known.

Did you see any evidence backing up the claims that they were involved in child porn?

If not, what justification do you have for believing such a rumor is true?

[chillzero]

I will say whatever the R's did or didn't do they worked hard to be unhelpful in any way.

How helpful do you think their lawyers should have advised them to be after several days complete and open cooperation - while in a state of shock - and then finding that all the police wanted to do was implicate them?

[LONGTABBER PE]

How helpful do you think their lawyers should have advised them to be after several days complete and open cooperation - while in a state of shock - and then finding that all the police wanted to do was implicate them?

Their lawyers would have advised them to cooperate regardless. ( reminds me of a case I did have a hand in for one of the defense that involved a Lax team in NC where the DA was clearly out to frame them along with LE)

There are a lot of good reasons for the parents to be prime suspects in this case.

That doesnt excuse the shoddy investigation under any circumstance

[CptColumbo]

I'm not a fan of the whole "how they should have reacted" stuff because it seems like sometimes it is given too much weight while other times I find the reaction well within reason, but I certainly appreciate that it's a factor that should be considered. That aside, I would be wondering how the person got into my house and then got my daughter out of the house. I'd be looking at every possible entrance/exit. I'd also be looking for signs that she may have been injured.

Then again, the police arrived within 7 minutes. I can certainly see them being in shock for that long and waiting on the police. Do we know for a fact that the Ramseys didn't run around the house checking windows and exit doors during that time? JB was found in a room in the basement. If there was no window in that room, would they automatically check it anyway? Maybe, but if your focus is on "how did they get in and out?" I can see skipping areas that don't lead outside.

Once the police arrived, I don't think it would be unreasonable for them to defer to their expertise, however misplaced it turned out to be. If the police mindset was, "She's missing and we're waiting to hear from kidnappers" would parents counter with, "Hey, lets go check every nook and cranny of the house to see if we can find her corpse!"
IIRC that is how the body was found. After the police arrived and they had waited to hear from the kidnapper, John Ramsey and a friend started searching the house. None of the police who were present went with them, for some unexplained reason. After they found JonBennet, John untied her and carried the body upstairs. IMO if the police had conducted a search of the house, that evidence wouldn't have been comprimised as badly as it was.

[chillzero]

There are a lot of good reasons for the parents to be prime suspects in this case.
Which makes a lot of good reasons for their lawyers to advise them only to speak to anyone - including LE, through them (the lawyers).

That doesnt excuse the shoddy investigation under any circumstance
Agreed.

[Ryokan]

( reminds me of a case I did have a hand in for one of the defense that involved a Lax team in NC where the DA was clearly out to frame them along with LE)

Was that where also the Dru team in HY tried to frame the JS along with SH?

I appreciate that you're probably a professional, but most of us are not. Could you please remember that most here are civilians and many don't have English as their first language? I'm sure you have an insight into things most here don't, but for me most of it is lost in your 'shop talk'. I hope you don't talk like that in real life.

[Cainkane1]

Did you see any evidence backing up the claims that they were involved in child porn?

If not, what justification do you have for believing such a rumor is true?
back when this story first came out the police suspected the ramseys were part of a child porn ring using the childrens beauty pageant as a front but time has passed and no evidence for this has turned up. To appearances the ramseys are innocent of any wrong doing.

[Uncayimmy]

... and the window was too small for an adult.

Nope.
http://www.jameson245.com/louwindow.jpg

[LONGTABBER PE]

Which makes a lot of good reasons for their lawyers to advise them only to speak to anyone - including LE, through them (the lawyers).
Agreed.

Well,( not to split hairs but you raise a good point in 2 directions) you first referenced cooperation now speaking.

My advice to EVERYONE who is accused of a crime is to SAY NOTHING and let your lawyer do ALL the talking. ( thats what his job is and what you pay him for) Its not a sign of guilt- its a protected RIGHT- USE IT!!!

Now, that said, "cooperation" takes several forms- run everything thru the attorney.

Its completely normal to view the immediate family as suspects in a variety of cases.

In this case- there are a lot of flags that would cause them to be suspect. ( personally, I still havent totally ruled them out as accessories)

It all goes back to the botched investigation- we will never know what evidence was destroyed that could have solved this case

[LONGTABBER PE]

IIRC that is how the body was found. After the police arrived and they had waited to hear from the kidnapper, John Ramsey and a friend started searching the house. None of the police who were present went with them, for some unexplained reason. After they found JonBennet, John untied her and carried the body upstairs. IMO if the police had conducted a search of the house, that evidence wouldn't have been comprimised as badly as it was.

Thats basically the version I remember.

Why did JR search the house if they "believed" the note and she wasnt there but kidnapped?

Why the police didnt search it? ( thats its own separate issue)

Then, when found- why the hell did he disturb the scene? ( he doesnt have to be a detective- watching 1 episode of any TV show would tell you that)

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

Then, when found- why the hell did he disturb the scene? ( he doesnt have to be a detective- watching 1 episode of any TV show would tell you that)

You're seriously asking this? He "disturbed" the scene because he isn't a cop, he was a father who just found the dead body of his 6 year-old daughter. He tore the duct tape off her face to check if she was still alive. Then he took the dead body of his daughter out of the dirty basement where it was lying.

I'm sure in hindsight, had he thought in terms of the area being a crime scene, and thought about the fact that not moving the body would help catch the person who murdered his daughter, he wouldn't have moved the body. But then, I'd imagine that the first thought of a grieving parent who just discovered the garroted body of his child wouldn't be to ponder the implications of last night's episode of Law & Order.

[LONGTABBER PE]

You're seriously asking this? He "disturbed" the scene because he isn't a cop, he was a father who just found the dead body of his 6 year-old daughter. He tore the duct tape off her face to check if she was still alive. Then he took the dead body of his daughter out of the dirty basement where it was lying.

I'm sure in hindsight, had he thought in terms of the area being a crime scene, and thought about the fact that not moving the body would help catch the person who murdered his daughter, he wouldn't have moved the body. But then, I'd imagine that the first thought of a grieving parent who just discovered the garroted body of his child wouldn't be to ponder the implications of last night's episode of Law & Order.

Make up your mind or do you just like arguing for the sake of arguing?

Upthread, you opined about how "calm" they were and whatever- now you give him an out for disturbing a crime scene which may or may not have a direct result in identifying the perp?

Which one is it.

I dont know how many dead bodies you have seen but its hard to mistake one thats been dead for hours( which she was at that time). ( face turns, eyes cave in, rigor and contractions and such)

I dont buy the "checking to see if she was breathing" bit at all and even if so- untying her ( dead) and carrying her upstairs is a little more than checking for a pulse or breathing. ( lack of both is a good indicator of death) rather than summoning officers to the location

>>>I'm sure in hindsight, had he thought in terms of the area being a crime scene, and thought about the fact that not moving the body would help catch the person who murdered his daughter, he wouldn't have moved the body. But then, I'd imagine that the first thought of a grieving parent who just discovered the garroted body of his child wouldn't be to ponder the implications of last night's episode of Law & Order

What else would he think it was? If this was within minutes of finding the note- I could see it. That would be shock of the moment- 7.5 ish hours later after LE was onsite is hard to accept

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

Make up your mind or do you just like arguing for the sake of arguing?

Upthread, you opined about how "calm" they were and whatever- now you give him an out for disturbing a crime scene which may or may not have a direct result in identifying the perp?

They were (relatively) calm because they still thought their child was alive. And for the billionth time, neither John Ramsey nor his wife are cops, as such there is no expectation that they would be held responsible for disturbing a "crime scene." They don't need an "out."

You don't understand the difference between finding out your child is missing and finding him/her dead, and why they might react differently in each situation?? I'll explain it for you: In one case, there is a good chance the child is alive and could be returned (especially if you've been told the child was kidnapped, and there is a ransom demand). Staying calm and together is pretty important, since it could lead to the return of your child. In the other.. dun dun dun... THE CHILD IS DEAD!


I dont know how many dead bodies you have seen but its hard to mistake one thats been dead for hours( which she was at that time). ( face turns, eyes cave in, rigor and contractions and such)

Again, you seem to have little to no concept of the fact that John Ramsey is not a cop, probably had never seen a dead body before, and would have no idea whether she had been seriously injured, or killed just by looking at her.


I dont buy the "checking to see if she was breathing" bit at all and even if so- untying her ( dead) and carrying her upstairs is a little more than checking for a pulse or breathing. ( lack of both is a good indicator of death) rather than summoning officers to the location

Again -- you're expecting that a father who just discovered the dead body of his child is going to immediately think about the fact that he is in a "crime scene," rather than have a typical human reaction, which is to take your child out of the dirty basement and bring her to her family.


What else would he think it was? If this was within minutes of finding the note- I could see it. That would be shock of the moment- 7.5 ish hours later after LE was onsite is hard to accept

And I explain once again: up until he found the body, he had every reason to believe that his child was still alive, and could be returned to him alive. Finding the body -- obviously -- is a big shock if you are under the impression that your child is still alive.

And given that the police didn't treat the area like a crime scene, why would he treat it like one? Talk about having it both ways. "Upthread" you demanded that I "leave Law Enforcement to trained professionals." Now you are expecting John Ramsey to have acted more like a "trained professional" than the actual "trained professionals" who were there.

[LONGTABBER PE]

You don't understand the difference between finding out your child is missing and finding him/her dead????? I'll explain it for you: In one case, there is a good chance the child is still alive and could be returned to you (especially if you've been told the child was kidnapped, and there is a ransom demand). As such, staying calm and together is pretty important, since it could lead to the return of your child. In the other.. dun dun dun... THE CHILD IS DEAD!



Again, you seem to have little to no concept of the fact that John Ramsey is not a cop, probably had never seen a dead body before, and would have no idea whether she had been seriously injured, or killed just by looking at her.



Again -- you're expecting that a father who just discovered the dead body of his child is going to immediately think about the fact that he is in a "crime scene," and not a typical human reaction, which is to take your child out of the dirty basement and bring her to her family.



And I explain once again: up until he found the body, he had every reason to believe that his child was still alive, and could be returned to him alive. Finding the body -- obviously -- is a big shock if you are under the impression that your child is still alive.

And given that the police didn't treat the area like a crime scene, why would he?

Talk about having it both ways. "Upthread" you demanded that I "leave Law Enforcement to trained professionals." But apparently, you also expect John Ramsey to have acted like a "trained professional" rather than what he was -- a grieving father.

>>>You don't understand the difference between finding out your child is missing and finding him/her dead????? I'll explain it for you: In one case, there is a good chance the child is still alive and could be returned to you (especially if you've been told the child was kidnapped, and there is a ransom demand). As such, staying calm and together is pretty important, since it could lead to the return of your child. In the other.. dun dun dun... THE CHILD IS DEAD!

I understand the difference quite well. Heres the contradiction in profile from your earlier post. ( contradictions are things that flag)

On the one hand- he has a ransom note so he believed his child was kidnapped ( thus gone) so there was no reason to search past the bedroom.

On the other hand, with the above still in effect- 7.5 hours later he decides to search the house looking for her with a friend? ( but she wouldnt be there so why search- since there was a note and all that?)

What changed?

>>>Again, you seem to have little to no concept of the fact that John Ramsey is not a cop, probably had never seen a dead body before, and would have no idea whether she had been seriously injured, or killed just by looking at her.

Sure, I'll buy every bit of that as likely correct- seems odd the calm person who didnt search ( then did) finds his child ( dead) and rather than calling out ( police are still there)- unties here and brings her up for everyone? I assure you that a person can tell a 7.5 hour corpse immediately. If this was within minutes- thats another story.

I dont accept that.

>>>Again -- you're expecting that a father who just discovered the dead body of his child is going to immediately think about the fact that he is in a "crime scene," and not a typical human reaction, which is to take your child out of the dirty basement and bring her to her family.

I find it impossible to accept that a rational and educated person ( who was calm remember ) would find a body that has been dead to the point of rigor untying her, picking her up, walking up the stairs and dropping her on the table in front of the mother and LE just saying "look what I found" rather than calling for assistance from people who were less than 50 odd feet away.

>>>And I explain once again: up until he found the body, he had every reason to believe that his child was still alive, and could be returned to him alive. Finding the body -- obviously -- is a big shock if you are under the impression that your child is still alive.

Shock I understand, grief also- not his actions tho

>>>And given that the police didn't treat the area like a crime scene, why would he?

Different story altogether- there can be a difference of opinion and legitimate suspicion regarding his actions as he was a civilian- there is no explantion or justification for LE conduct /performance in this case.

>>>Talk about having it both ways. "Upthread" you demanded that I "leave Law Enforcement to trained professionals." But apparently, you also expect John Ramsey to have acted like a "trained professional" rather than what he was -- a grieving father

Thats right. I dont expect him to tape off the scene and pull out the magnifying glass- I do expect a rational human to stand there, do nothing and call for assistance when they are literally up the stairs.

[Kestrel]

Thats right- thats why it takes a little time

You dont think the little kid who walked in the woods lived and played in the woods and took walks too? ( heres a clue- they all do)

You ever wonder why the dogs find the trail the deer is on instead of following everywhere he has ever been?

FYI, hounds follow skin cells more than "scent" and those cells stay mostly in the air. Its not all about the ground so carrying wont make much difference. The most cells ( most recent) is what they normally zero in on.

Dogs have been proven to be able to track people in vehicles

Skin cells floating in the air will float away with the breeze. Sounds more like woo than a scientific explanation of how a bloodhound follows a trail that is an hour or two old.

Has anyone done a proper scientific double blind test to prove that dogs can follow people in vehicles? Or does it only work when the handler knows where the dog has to go?

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

I understand the difference quite well. Heres the contradiction in profile from your earlier post. ( contradictions are things that flag)

On the one hand- he has a ransom note so he believed his child was kidnapped ( thus gone) so there was no reason to search past the bedroom.

On the other hand, with the above still in effect- 7.5 hours later he decides to search the house looking for her with a friend? ( but she wouldnt be there so why search- since there was a note and all that?)

What changed?

A valid question -- and it has a valid answer, and a rather stunning one: the single detective at the house (Linda Arndt), asked him to. That's right -- the police asked him to take someone else to go search around the house. It might have been a kindhearted attempt to keep him occupied and keep his mind off what was happening. As it was, it was yet another stupid move by the police.


Sure, I'll buy every bit of that as likely correct- seems odd the calm person who didnt search ( then did) finds his child ( dead) and rather than calling out ( police are still there)- unties here and brings her up for everyone? I assure you that a person can tell a 7.5 hour corpse immediately. If this was within minutes- thats another story.

And I assure you that parents who find dead children a) may be in denial initially and may not want to believe their child is dead and b) having never seen a dead body 7.5 hours after death, would still not be confident in saying their child was dead. Whether he, deep down, knew she was dead -- maybe he did. But emotion isn't logical. And finding the garroted body of your 6 year-old is an emotional event if there is one.


I find it impossible to accept that a rational and educated person ( who was calm remember ) would find a body that has been dead to the point of rigor untying her, picking her up, walking up the stairs and dropping her on the table in front of the mother and LE just saying "look what I found" rather than calling for assistance from people who were less than 50 odd feet away.

I'm pretty sure he didn't say "look what I just found." In fact, they brought the body up while yelling to call for an ambulance. As for being calm -- apparently I have to repeat myself numerous times here -- I doubt he was calm once he realized his daughter was seriously injured or dead.


Shock I understand, grief also- not his actions tho

So you understand he was shocked, probably filled with grief, but can't understand how that might affect his behavior? Really?


Thats right. I dont expect him to tape off the scene and pull out the magnifying glass- I do expect a rational human to stand there, do nothing and call for assistance when they are literally up the stairs.

Or bring the child to the people who could offer assistance. Which is what he did. Do you think it's incredibly illogical that he brought the child upstairs to the police, rather than demanding that they come downstairs??

[LONGTABBER PE]

Skin cells floating in the air will float away with the breeze. Sounds more like woo than a scientific explanation of how a bloodhound follows a trail that is an hour or two old.

Has anyone done a proper scientific double blind test to prove that dogs can follow people in vehicles? Or does it only work when the handler knows where the dog has to go?

Thats only because you have zero knowledge on how hounds track so listen to one who grew up running hounds, raising them, training them, still has kennels for them and has worked K9 so you can learn.

The hound ( not all species as the hound is particularly suited for tracking- all can sniff the same and larger dogs work better for takedowns) has big floppy ears that concentrate the scent and cells he smells to his nose ( like a dish antenna) and salivates adding humidity. ( some people will tell you they can taste it as well- I've personally seen evidence supporting that but far from conclusive)

The handler never knows when the K9 will hit or where he goes.

I cant speak to tests ( dont generally read them regarding dogs but in my current life as a PE with a PhD, I conduct tests to standard and am intimately familiar with the process and protocols) but I'm sure they have been.

I can say from personal experience as well as hundreds of documented cases- they can track a person in a vehicle ( how do you think lost dogs find owners who have moved- thru the internet?) and in some cases from a vehicle.

The skin cells dont "float" but move like pollen and settle. ( they are heavier than air)- thats why dogs follow the general direction more often that in the footsteps as portrayed in the movies. Like everything else- they lose the scent, find concentrations and what not. They also fail at times. Nothing is perfect or infallible.

Good thing is that they succeed a lot more often than not. Thats why the K9 nose has been ruled and accepted as probable cause even by the USSC

[LONGTABBER PE]

A valid question -- and it has a valid answer, and a rather stunning one: the single detective at the house (Linda Arndt), asked him to. That's right -- the police asked him to take someone else to go search around the house. It might have been a kindhearted attempt to keep him occupied and keep his mind off what was happening. As it was, it was yet another stupid move by the police.



And I assure you that parents who find dead children a) may be in denial initially and may not want to believe their child is dead and b) having never seen a dead body 7.5 hours after death, would still not be confident in saying their child was dead. Whether he, deep down, knew she was dead -- maybe he did. But emotion isn't logical. And finding the garroted body of your 6 year-old is an emotional event if there is one.



I'm pretty sure he didn't say "look what I just found." In fact, they brought the body up while yelling to call for an ambulance. As for being calm -- apparently I have to repeat myself numerous times here -- I doubt he was calm once he realized his daughter was seriously injured or dead.



So you understand he was shocked, probably filled with grief, but can't understand how that might affect his behavior? Really?



Or bring the child to the people who could offer assistance. Which is what he did. Do you think it's incredibly illogical that he brought the child upstairs to the police, rather than demanding that they come downstairs??

>>>A valid question -- and it has a valid answer, and a rather stunning one: the single detective at the house (Linda Arndt), asked him to. That's right -- the police asked him to take someone else to go search around the house. It might have been a kindhearted attempt to keep him occupied and keep his mind off what was happening. As it was, it was yet another stupid move by the police.

As i said before- thats another subject for another thread- there is simply no excuse for their conduct.

>>>And I assure you that parents who find dead children a) may be in denial initially and may not want to believe their child is dead and b) having never seen a dead body 7.5 hours after death, would still not be confident in saying their child was dead. Whether he, deep down, knew she was dead -- maybe he did. But emotion isn't logical. And finding the garroted body of your 6 year-old is an emotional event if there is one.

I dont dispute any of that- still no excuse

>>>I'm pretty sure he didn't say "look what I just found." In fact, they brought the body up while yelling to call for an ambulance. As for being calm -- apparently I have to repeat myself numerous times here -- I doubt he was calm once he realized his daughter was seriously injured or dead.

He obviously knew the child was dead at that point as rigor had set- what did he think an ambulance was going to do? I dont accept that either

>>>So you understand he was shocked, probably filled with grief, but can't understand how that might affect his behavior? Really?

Sure, I've seen it up close and personal too many times already. Every time an IED goes off and someone gets hit. Still no excuse.

>>>Or bring the child to the people who could offer assistance. Which is what he did. Do you think it's incredibly illogical that he brought the child upstairs to the police, rather than demanding that they come downstairs

dead is dead- what assistance would he think they could offer? The "assistance" would be to gather evidence to hopefully identify the killer. No, I dont excuse his actions there at all.

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

As i said before- thats another subject for another thread- there is simply no excuse for their conduct.

Uh... it's not "another subject for another thread." You asked a question about why John Ramsey decided to search the house 7 hours later. And the answer is that the police asked him to. As such, there is no contradiction with his behavior. He didn't search the house when the ransom note was found, believing his daughter to have been kidnapped. The detective asked him to search the house to look for things that might be missing or out of place. So he did, and stumbled upon the body of his daughter.


I dont dispute any of that- still no excuse

He doesn't need you to "excuse" him for anything, so I'm not sure what "excuse" you're talking about. It's an explanation, and a perfectly valid one. Whether you morally approve of it is irrelevant.


He obviously knew the child was dead at that point as rigor had set- what did he think an ambulance was going to do? I dont accept that either

Obviously if he was yelling for an ambulance he didn't know she was dead, or was in denial about it.


Sure, I've seen it up close and personal too many times already. Every time an IED goes off and someone gets hit. Still no excuse.

Non-sequitor. John Ramsey has nothing to do with IEDs, nor does this thread. And yet again -- he was not a trained soldier, or a cop, or anything like that, so comparing his actions with those of somebody who is trained to handle situations like that is absurd.


dead is dead- what assistance would he think they could offer? The "assistance" would be to gather evidence to hopefully identify the killer. No, I dont excuse his actions there at all.

Again, you seem to think I care whether you "excuse" his actions. This thread isn't about your moral approval for how he acted.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Uh... it's not "another subject for another thread." You asked a question about why John Ramsey decided to search the house 7 hours later. And the answer is that the police asked him to. As such, there is no contradiction with his behavior. He didn't search the house when the ransom note was found, believing his daughter to have been kidnapped. The detective asked him to search the house to look for things that might be missing or out of place. So he did, and stumbled upon the body of his daughter.



He doesn't need you to "excuse" him for anything, so I'm not sure what "excuse" you're talking about. It's an explanation, and a perfectly valid one.



Obviously if he was yelling for an ambulance he didn't know she was dead, or was in denial about it.



Non-sequitor. John Ramsey has nothing to do with IEDs, nor does this thread. And yet again -- he was not a trained soldier, or a cop, or anything like that, so comparing his actions with those of somebody who is trained to handle situations like that is absurd.



Again, you seem to think I care whether you "excuse" his actions. This thread isn't about your moral approval for how he acted.

LOL, you have an excuse for everything dont you- and yet people wonder why it was never solved and why they were under such scrutiny

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

LOL, you have an excuse for everything dont you- and yet people wonder why it was never solved and why they were under such scrutiny

Nonsensical post. If you actually have any substantive responses, I'm all ears. You don't get to wiggle out of things when your arguments get blown out of the water (e.g. the "contradiction" in when they searched the house -- which was a valid question, but apparently the answer was not to your liking).

The victim's family doesn't need to be "excused" for anything.

The case was never solved because the police botched the case. As such, the police may have needed excuses to explain what they did or failed to do. The victims don't.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Nonsensical post. If you actually have any substantive responses, I'm all ears. You don't get to wiggle out of things when your arguments get blown out of the water (e.g. the "contradiction" in when they searched the house -- which was a valid question, but apparently the answer was not to your liking).

The victim's family doesn't need to be "excused" for anything.

The case was never solved because the police botched the case. As such, the police may have needed excuses to explain what they did or failed to do. The victims don't.

All of my responses have been substansive and based on the REAL WORLD- not an internet forum by people who get their knowledge from google.

Since they are my observations and opinions- they are no more or less valid than yours or anyone elses. None of us have all the facts in this case.

>>>You don't get to wiggle out of things when your arguments get blown out of the water (e.g. the "contradiction" in when they searched the house -- which was a valid question, but apparently the answer was not to your liking).

You arent capable of blowing my argument out of the water so dont get excited. Their conduct was more than enough to bring suspicion upon them. I'm still not entirely convinced at least one of them doesnt know the whole story.

>>>The victim's family doesn't need to be "excused" for anything.

Yes they do- granted critical and high stress situations will make people do things they normally wouldnt but at the same time, its not a license to excuse everything either.

>>>The case was never solved because the police botched the case. As such, the police may have needed excuses to explain what they did or failed to do. The victims don't

I dont disagree- the police really blundered this from incident 1 forward.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Not likely either of her parents... any 'evidence' against them appears to be rather flimsey at best. Plus, there are specific reasons that you could exclude the parents...
I think you're talking about what could exclude them from having physically done it, but they could still have contracted someone or been involved in covering for someone (see below).



- The body was found by John Ramsey... in most cases where someone murders a family member, the killer will set things up so that somone ELSE finds the body
Not for a helluva long time. The cops sure did a poor job of handling a missing child/kidnapping call. I would think a thorough search of the premises should've been the first thing they did.

- The Ransom note was rather, ahem, strange... it asked for a very small sum of money (far less than what the Ramseys could afford.) If the note was made up by either parent to deflect suspicion, why not make it a reasonable amount?
Not so. The figure corresponded to a work bonus Ramsey received or was about to receive. If they made it up (and there's evidence that they did), using a number like that would throw suspicion on any number of business acquaintances.

Personally, I always thought it might've been that the brother killed her accidentally (some kind of weird accident where he wasn't necessarily innocent of some sort of crime), and the family did an elaborate cover-up. Unlike TV shows, in real life you sometimes can remove all trace of whodunit and manage to leave red herrings around. Still--I mostly based my opinion (and it's just that) on a book I read some time back. As I recall, the Boulder cops sure didn't handle the crime scene like CSI! All sorts of people in and out of the house (granted that was when they thought it was *only* a missing child and not a murder, yet).

There was some weird stuff going on, though. There was a 911 call from their home the evening of the party (the 23rd) where the caller just hung up. An officer even went out and left when nothing seemed to be wrong.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Personally, I always thought it might've been that the brother killed her accidentally (some kind of weird accident where he wasn't necessarily innocent of some sort of crime), and the family did an elaborate cover-up. Unlike TV shows, in real life you sometimes can remove all trace of whodunit and manage to leave red herrings around. Still--I mostly based my opinion (and it's just that) on a book I read some time back. As I recall, the Boulder cops sure didn't handle the crime scene like CSI! All sorts of people in and out of the house (granted that was when they thought it was *only* a missing child and not a murder, yet).


Thats been my personal primary theory as well- still havent ruled it out. ( I also think the apology given to them might have been a product of a feared lawsuit- I'm not aware of any fruits of an investigation that has effectively excluded the possibility of them being involved either directly or indirectly)

The main thing that keeps me looking internal is the ground in front of the alleged ingress/egress window.

Sure a small person could get thru with some difficulty but they couldnt without wiggling and pushing which would have disturbed the ground in front of it. ( digging with elbows/knees etc) Without that point- there were no signs of forced entry.

The key argument is valid but very weak.

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

All of my responses have been substansive and based on the REAL WORLD- not an internet forum by people who get their knowledge from google.

I'll repeat: it's best not to make assumptions about the backgrounds of people you don't know. Your "real world" experience has limits. And since you already admitted that you have no real-world experience with victims of kidnappings and ransom demands, it's largely moot with regards to how/why the Ramseys acted as they did during the time their daughter was missing. Your "real world" experience also doesn't make up for not knowing some very well publicized facts about this specific case (like why they searched the house).


Since they are my observations and opinions- they are no more or less valid than yours or anyone elses. None of us have all the facts in this case.

I agree. That seems to contradict the tone of what you wrote a couple lines above that, but I'll go with it.


You arent capable of blowing my argument out of the water so dont get excited.

When you try to change the subject and blatantly ignore points, it's a pretty good indication that your argument is pretty well done. I thought you asked a valid question. I gave you a factual answer. You ignored it, apparently because it didn't fit with your POV. Bad form.


Their conduct was more than enough to bring suspicion upon them. I'm still not entirely convinced at least one of them doesnt know the whole story.

The scenario is enough to bring some suspicion on them (their daughter found dead in their home -- yes, the parents are an obvious suspect. No argument there). Their conduct, however, was not. You haven't given a single relevant example of any "suspicious" conduct on their part. All you've given are example of how you think they should have reacted if they were... heck I don't even know. You? Cops? Soldiers?



Yes they do- granted critical and high stress situations will make people do things they normally wouldnt but at the same time, its not a license to excuse everything either.

And we're not excusing "everything." We're excusing... what? That the father found his daughter's body and moved it upstairs? That's about it. In hindsight, I'm sure if he knew it could have helped catch the murderer, he would have left it there. Personally, I'm willing to "excuse" a father who just found his 6-year old's body, for not acting like a police officer (especially since he wasn't a police officer).

[LONGTABBER PE]

I'll repeat: it's best not to make assumptions about the backgrounds of people you don't know. Your "real world" experience has limits. And since you already admitted that you have no real-world experience with victims of kidnappings and ransom demands, it's largely moot with regards to how/why the Ramseys acted as they did during the time their daughter was missing. Your "real world" experience also doesn't make up for not knowing about some very well publicized facts about this specific case (like why they searched the house).



I agree. That seems to contradict the tone of what you wrote a couple lines above that, but I'll go with it.



When you try to change the subject and blatantly ignore points, it's a pretty good indication that your argument is pretty well done. I thought you asked a valid question. I gave you a factual answer. You ignored it, apparently because it didn't fit with your POV. Bad form.



The scenario is enough to bring some suspicion on them (their daughter found dead in their home -- yes, the parents are an obvious suspect. No argument there). Their conduct, however, was not. You haven't given a single relevant example of any "suspicious" conduct on their part. All you've given are example of how you think they should have reacted if they were... heck I don't even know. You? Cops? Soldiers?




And we're not excusing "everything." We're excusing... what? That the father found his daughter's body and moved it upstairs? That's about it. In hindsight, I'm sure if he knew it could have helped catch the murderer, he would have left it there. Personally, I'm willing to "excuse" a father who just found his 6-year old's body, for not acting like a police officer (especially since he wasn't a police officer).

>>>I'll repeat: it's best not to make assumptions about the backgrounds of people you don't know. Your "real world" experience has limits. And since you already admitted that you have no real-world experience with victims of kidnappings and ransom demands, it's largely moot with regards to how/why the Ramseys acted as they did during the time their daughter was missing. Your "real world" experience also doesn't make up for not knowing about some very well publicized facts about this specific case (like why they searched the house).

Wrong again ( I see you are very well practiced at it tho) I'm basing my assumption on their actions compared to those of like. My not having direct experience with a kidnapping specifically is moot- its an investigation like any other. Same rules apply. ( that red herring didnt work) "How" they acted is VERY critical in assessing their possible involvement. ( why do you think they started off as prime suspects- it wasnt just me apparentally) I know the same "facts" ( thats a stretch) as everyone else knows- I just have the virtue of dealing with similar up close and a lot more personal. Part of the job is making assessments of people we dont know.

>>>When you try to change the subject and blatantly ignore points, it's a pretty good indication that your argument is pretty well done. I thought you asked a valid question. I gave you a factual answer. You ignored it, apparently because it didn't fit with your POV. Bad form.

I didnt ignore it- I explained it- you just think that repeating the same rant changes things- it doesnt

>>>The scenario is enough to bring some suspicion on them (their daughter found dead in their home -- yes, the parents are an obvious suspect. No argument there). Their conduct, however, was not. You haven't given a single relevant example of any "suspicious" conduct on their part. All you've given are example of how you think they should have reacted if they were... heck I don't even know. You? Cops? Soldiers?

Heres a newsflash- their "conduct" is the MAIN reason they maintained their status as prime suspects. I have cites several suspicious acts and circumstances- you just dont want to hear it or accept it.

>>>And we're not excusing "everything." We're excusing... what? That the father found his daughter's body and moved it upstairs? That's about it. In hindsight, I'm sure if he knew it could have helped catch the murderer, he would have left it there. Personally, I'm willing to "excuse" a father who just found his 6-year old's body, for not acting like a police officer (especially since he wasn't a police officer

Already covered that- I'm also very used to armchair types who think with their emotions advising us on how to conduct operations when they themselves dont have any idea.

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

Wrong again ( I see you are very well practiced at it tho) I'm basing my assumption on their actions compared to those of like.

Like who? You already said you have no experience in kidnapping. I cited an actual kidnapping case and a first-hand account of another reaction, which was similar to the Ramseys. You had no response to that, since again -- it didn't fit your hypothesis. Ignoring evidence doesn't make it go away.


My not having direct experience with a kidnapping specifically is moot- its an investigation like any other. Same rules apply. ( that red herring didnt work)

The same rules apply -- in that you have no experience with the victims in this case, so you have no idea how they should or shouldn't react, let alone trying to psychoanalyze individual details of their reaction.


"How" they acted is VERY critical in assessing their possible involvement. ( why do you think they started off as prime suspects- it wasnt just me apparentally) I know the same "facts" ( thats a stretch) as everyone else knows- I just have the virtue of dealing with similar up close and a lot more personal. Part of the job is making assessments of people we dont know.

Yes, how they act is critical. If they had, say, jumped on a plane and fled to Mexico, that might be a good indication that they are hiding something. That they chose to call the police rather than searching the house -- that means nothing in relation to their guilt or innocence. That the father brought the body upstairs -- that means nothing as it relates to their guilt or innocence. You can talk about your "personal" experience (which you don't have with kidnapping) all you want. It doesn't cover up poor analysis.


I didnt ignore it- I explained it- you just think that repeating the same rant changes things- it doesnt

Let's recap: You asked "what had changed" when John Ramsey searched the house, and that it was suspicious. I gave you the factual answer, which didn't fit with your hypothesis. You responded with, "That's a different subject." That's the very definition of changing the subject. If the answer to your question is "a different subject," then I'm not sure why you even asked it.


Heres a newsflash- their "conduct" is the MAIN reason they maintained their status as prime suspects. I have cites several suspicious acts and circumstances- you just dont want to hear it or accept it.

Do you have any proof that that was the MAIN reason they maintained their status as suspects, or are you just making that up? Cite, please.

They were considered suspects because:
a) Percentage-wise, the parents are most likely to be the perpetrators
b) The murder occurred in the house
c) The note was written in the house

Those are all perfectly valid reasons to consider them initial suspects. And they have nothing, whatsoever, to do with their conduct.

Not to mention that this is all a bit circular. If you start with the premise that how they acted is suspicious, then they are going to be suspects. And if you suspect that they killed their daughter, you are going to believe they acted suspiciously.

Your "suspicious acts" are based on poor analysis and a failure to grasp the facts. As I noted, a pretty significant part of your suspicion was easily answered by a very-well publicized fact that you didn't bother to know or look up. The rest of your "suspicions" are based on a faulty assumption: that there is one "right" way for victims to act when dealing with a crime. That is absurd on its face.

Not all mothers scream at the top of their lungs and go on a mad searching spree. Not all fathers find the body of their child and immediately think, "we'd better preserve this here crime scene!"


Already covered that- I'm also very used to armchair types who think with their emotions advising us on how to conduct operations when they themselves dont have any idea.

Who is "us"? You didn't work on this case. You noted above that your opinion is worth [u]no more[/i] or less than anyone else's. You are as much an "armchair type" in regards to this thread as anyone. And all the background in the world won't make up for lousy analysis.

So here, I will quote John Douglas, who actually did a full analysis of the case, and is a 25-year FBI veteran and author. He compared the case to the Lindbergh's as well:
As we noted in the Lindbergh kindapping, each individual is going to react differently. Many people thought Charles Lindbergh might be involved in the disappearance of his toddler son because of his seeming coldness and aloofness....(next page): So on this first point, remember that each person reacts differently.

And this, by the way, jibes with my own REAL WORLD experience in seeing people in crisis situations.

[Olowkow]

I spent a few hours reading about the hand writing, psychological, and linguistic analysis comparing the ransom note and P. Ramsey's writings. Subtle stuff, like the use of "and hence", and just that it really appears to be written from a woman's perspective, and the change from Mr. Ramsey to John, etc. Pretty compelling stuff. Then, when you look at the "left handed" writing sample, and compare it to the ransom note, wow, awfully close, but I can see why they said that it is not close enough. Just the letter "R" at the beginning of "Ramsey", to me it is identical to hers.

[CptColumbo]

Yes, how they act is critical. If they had, say, jumped on a plane and fled to Mexico, that might be a good indication that they are hiding something. That they chose to call the police rather than searching the house -- that means nothing in relation to their guilt or innocence. That the father brought the body upstairs -- that means nothing as it relates to their guilt or innocence. You can talk about your "personal" experience (which you don't have with kidnapping) all you want. It doesn't cover up poor analysis.

BTW they actually were supposed to hop a plane that morning to go on the Disney Cruise.

[doobiedoright]

Thats right- thats why it takes a little time

You dont think the little kid who walked in the woods lived and played in the woods and took walks too? ( heres a clue- they all do)

You ever wonder why the dogs find the trail the deer is on instead of following everywhere he has ever been?

FYI, hounds follow skin cells more than "scent" and those cells stay mostly in the air. Its not all about the ground so carrying wont make much difference. The most cells ( most recent) is what they normally zero in on.

Dogs have been proven to be able to track people in vehicles




This is correct! It is scents in the air thus that is why when deploying a k9 wind speed and direction is very important!


BTW I have a kennel and have 9 here @ the moment.tracking is not my specialty but it is not that hard.
training k9's is not hard,training the humans how to use the k9's
well it can be a pain in the

[Kestrel]

Thats only because you have zero knowledge on how hounds track so listen to one who grew up running hounds, raising them, training them, still has kennels for them and has worked K9 so you can learn.

The hound ( not all species as the hound is particularly suited for tracking- all can sniff the same and larger dogs work better for takedowns) has big floppy ears that concentrate the scent and cells he smells to his nose ( like a dish antenna) and salivates adding humidity. ( some people will tell you they can taste it as well- I've personally seen evidence supporting that but far from conclusive)

The handler never knows when the K9 will hit or where he goes.

I cant speak to tests ( dont generally read them regarding dogs but in my current life as a PE with a PhD, I conduct tests to standard and am intimately familiar with the process and protocols) but I'm sure they have been.

I can say from personal experience as well as hundreds of documented cases- they can track a person in a vehicle ( how do you think lost dogs find owners who have moved- thru the internet?) and in some cases from a vehicle.

The skin cells dont "float" but move like pollen and settle. ( they are heavier than air)- thats why dogs follow the general direction more often that in the footsteps as portrayed in the movies. Like everything else- they lose the scent, find concentrations and what not. They also fail at times. Nothing is perfect or infallible.

Good thing is that they succeed a lot more often than not. Thats why the K9 nose has been ruled and accepted as probable cause even by the USSC

I asked for some scientific proof that a dog can track a person traveling in a vehicle. All you did was repeat the assertion. Repeating a claim does nothing to prove the claim.

Claiming that dogs can track the occupants of a vehicle is the kind of extraordinary claim that requires scientific validation before a skeptic accepts it as true. What tests have been done to prove this is possible and what were the conditions of the test?

We do know that dog handlers can be dishonest (http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20090830/NEWS01/908300322/1006/rss01), working to produce the results the police and prosecutors want instead of searching for the truth.

[Uncayimmy]

Here's a link to the actual note:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/ransom1.html

My reaction is that the note is a fake. That, of course, is not a big surprise since she wasn't kidnapped. It just doesn't read as real. So that means that somebody got into a house where the family was home, fashioned a weapon from the basement, and killed the daughter. Then with a dead body lying around and a sleeping family that might stir at any time, the person wrote a couple of drafts of a rather lengthy ransom note, then put the final version on the stairs. This note revealed that the murderer knew the family (the request for $118,000 and the use of the first and last name of the father).

I can totally see why the cops focused on the family. The whole thing is crazy. Too bad the cops were so incompetent.

[Kestrel]

Here's a link to the actual note:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/ransom1.html

My reaction is that the note is a fake. That, of course, is not a big surprise since she wasn't kidnapped. It just doesn't read as real. So that means that somebody got into a house where the family was home, fashioned a weapon from the basement, and killed the daughter. Then with a dead body lying around and a sleeping family that might stir at any time, the person wrote a couple of drafts of a rather lengthy ransom note, then put the final version on the stairs. This note revealed that the murderer knew the family (the request for $118,000 and the use of the first and last name of the father).

I can totally see why the cops focused on the family. The whole thing is crazy. Too bad the cops were so incompetent.

Can you come up with a motive anyone in the Ramsey family had to kill this little girl? A real motive, not something invented out of thin air like the claims they were running a child porn network.

It's the kind of thing an insane person might do, but none of the Ramsey's showed signs of being insane.

Outside of the household there were thousands of people that knew the Ramsey's. Add to this everyone that had seen or read about their daughter at pageants. Is it really that hard to believe that someone in this vast pool could have been a homicidal nutcase?

[let`s talk]

Can you come up with a motive anyone in the Ramsey family had to kill this little girl? A real motive

... a very good question...

[Uncayimmy]

Can you come up with a motive anyone in the Ramsey family had to kill this little girl? A real motive, not something invented out of thin air like the claims they were running a child porn network.

It's the kind of thing an insane person might do, but none of the Ramsey's showed signs of being insane.
Do crimes of passion need a motive beyond the immediate emotional state? It's not like there's much practical motive for killing a six year old.

Outside of the household there were thousands of people that knew the Ramsey's. Add to this everyone that had seen or read about their daughter at pageants. Is it really that hard to believe that someone in this vast pool could have been a homicidal nutcase?
Can you come up with a motive for someone else?

All I said was that I see why the parents were the focus. You go where the evidence leads you.

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

Can you come up with a motive for someone else?

John Ramsey was the wealthy CEO of a company, so I could imagine somebody doing it to "get back" at him for a slight, being fired/laid off, or anything like that. The ransom note (if you believe it is real) seems to indicate something along those lines -- someone with a very personal grudge against John Ramsey.


All I said was that I see why the parents were the focus. You go where the evidence leads you.

I agree that it made perfect sense to suspect the parents initially. Playing the odds alone, the parents are more often the killers than not. Then you have the fact the the body was found in their house, with a ransom note written on their notepad, etc. It made sense. It would have been foolish for the police not to look at the parents.

What didn't make sense was the continued, unrelenting focus on them when evidence started popping up that seemed to point elsewhere. Evidence like:
- Foreign DNA under the fingernails
- Foreign DNA in the underwear
- An unidentified palm print at the scene
- An unidentified boot print in the dust of the basement
- The fact that the duct tape and cord used to bind JonBenet were not found anywhere in the house

I doubt they could have ruled them out completely right away (although ultimately they did, a decade later), but it doesn't seem like they put a lot of stock into other possibilities, even though the evidence pointed elsewhere.

[Kestrel]

Do crimes of passion need a motive beyond the immediate emotional state? It's not like there's much practical motive for killing a six year old.

Can you come up with a motive for someone else?

I would assume that the killer was insane. The motive could be revenge for an imagined wrong or something as crazy as believing that the kid was possessed by demons.

A crime of passion by someone in the household doesn't make much sense. Would someone overcome with rage take the time to fashion a garrote instead of just strangling the kid with their bare hands? I would also expect a parent prone to such fits of rage to have a history of abusing children.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Here's a link to the actual note:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/ransom1.html

My reaction is that the note is a fake. That, of course, is not a big surprise since she wasn't kidnapped. It just doesn't read as real. So that means that somebody got into a house where the family was home, fashioned a weapon from the basement, and killed the daughter. Then with a dead body lying around and a sleeping family that might stir at any time, the person wrote a couple of drafts of a rather lengthy ransom note, then put the final version on the stairs.

Yes. Well said.


Can you come up with a motive anyone in the Ramsey family had to kill this little girl? A real motive, not something invented out of thin air like the claims they were running a child porn network.
I think it could've been an accidental killing that was part of sex abuse. It could be that most of the family's involvement is more about covering up to protect the killer rather than complicity in the killing itself.

Imagine that your young son accidentally killed your young (already objectified child beauty pageant) daughter. It's a horrible tragedy, with plenty of emotional blame to go around even if no one would be deemed guilty of first degree murder. I think they have pretty good motive for attempting a coverup.

[DevilsAdvocate]

You are not the only fat cat around so don't think that killing will be difficult.

To me, this is the most confusing detail about the case. What could it mean? Cleary John is the "fat cat". I assume a fat cat is a rich, powerful person. But what is the logic?

If a man is the only rich, powerful person around, then killing his daughter would be difficult. Killing a rich, powerful person's daughter is easier when there are more rich powerful people around.

I see connections between Patsy and the note, but this sentence seems to throw that off. It only makes sense to me if the note writer is saying that he is also a "fat cat" (in his opinion). I can't see why Patsy would write this line. But it would make sense from a persion jealous of the Ramsey's who might want to take their precious pagent daughter and big bonus away fromthe Ramseys.

I'm still torn between Patsy and some drunken, jealous, introverted associate.

I wish I could find the complete copies of Patsy's exmepler renditions of the ransom note (both right and left hand). All I can find is a tabloid picture of one page. The specific way she wrote some things on those other pages would be WAY more valuable than all the shady handwriting analysis I have seen.

[Uncayimmy]

I would assume that the killer was insane. The motive could be revenge for an imagined wrong or something as crazy as believing that the kid was possessed by demons.
Sounds to me like speculation without evidence.

A crime of passion by someone in the household doesn't make much sense. Would someone overcome with rage take the time to fashion a garrote instead of just strangling the kid with their bare hands? I would also expect a parent prone to such fits of rage to have a history of abusing children.

The cause of death was "asphyxia by strangulation associated with craniocerebral trauma." She had part of her skull crushed and bruises on her brain. She had abrasions on her back and on the back of her leg. And she had "abrasion and vascular congestion of vaginal mucosa."

I'm no expert in reading autopsies, but it sounds to me that there was physical violence and some sort of sexually related violence present. This could have come first followed by strangulation later and probably did. The killing may not have been a premeditated decision at all but actually an attempt to silence the girl from identifying her attacker.

Why use a garrote instead of strangling her with your bare hands? Again, I am no crime expert, but a garrote is far less personal. If I were reluctant to kill her (perhaps the head trauma was an accident during a struggle) and had some personal attachment, I would choose a garrote over my bare hands.

The presence of a history of violence or sexual abuse is an indicator of possible guilt, but the lack of a known history is not an indicator of innocence. It is not difficult to sexually abuse a child and leave no long-term traces so long as there is no intercourse and no breaking of the hymen. Same goes for physical violence. And remember, any person who is subject to fits of rage has a first one.

Going back to the weapon, if the original intent were to kill, why build the garrote using a stick found in the home?

Basically, I still think the initial evidence pointed towards the Ramseys. I have no issues with the investigation going that way. The fact that the investigation was so horribly botched renders conclusions beyond that point so much conjecture (not that I have a problem with conjecture in this thread). But all things considered, I'm looking at the family first.

[let`s talk]

Do crimes of passion need a motive beyond the immediate emotional state?

If it were a crime of passion, the kid was supposed to be sexually abused and being abused for some time before the death.
I read that her mommy took her to the hospital for some vaginal examinations. Rather unusual thing to do. The girl was 6 years only. Unless the kid was abused. Any visit to a hospital is documented. But it looks like police didn`t go to that direction.

[LONGTABBER PE]

I asked for some scientific proof that a dog can track a person traveling in a vehicle. All you did was repeat the assertion. Repeating a claim does nothing to prove the claim.

Claiming that dogs can track the occupants of a vehicle is the kind of extraordinary claim that requires scientific validation before a skeptic accepts it as true. What tests have been done to prove this is possible and what were the conditions of the test?

We do know that dog handlers can be dishonest (http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20090830/NEWS01/908300322/1006/rss01), working to produce the results the police and prosecutors want instead of searching for the truth.

You can ask until you are blue in the face. You want "scientific proof"- google is your friend. I'm not in the research business for you.

The results have been documented. Its not a "claim"- its well known

[LONGTABBER PE]

Like who? You already said you have no experience in kidnapping. I cited an actual kidnapping case and a first-hand account of another reaction, which was similar to the Ramseys. You had no response to that, since again -- it didn't fit your hypothesis. Ignoring evidence doesn't make it go away.



The same rules apply -- in that you have no experience with the victims in this case, so you have no idea how they should or shouldn't react, let alone trying to psychoanalyze individual details of their reaction.



Yes, how they act is critical. If they had, say, jumped on a plane and fled to Mexico, that might be a good indication that they are hiding something. That they chose to call the police rather than searching the house -- that means nothing in relation to their guilt or innocence. That the father brought the body upstairs -- that means nothing as it relates to their guilt or innocence. You can talk about your "personal" experience (which you don't have with kidnapping) all you want. It doesn't cover up poor analysis.



Let's recap: You asked "what had changed" when John Ramsey searched the house, and that it was suspicious. I gave you the factual answer, which didn't fit with your hypothesis. You responded with, "That's a different subject." That's the very definition of changing the subject. If the answer to your question is "a different subject," then I'm not sure why you even asked it.



Do you have any proof that that was the MAIN reason they maintained their status as suspects, or are you just making that up? Cite, please.

They were considered suspects because:
a) Percentage-wise, the parents are most likely to be the perpetrators
b) The murder occurred in the house
c) The note was written in the house

Those are all perfectly valid reasons to consider them initial suspects. And they have nothing, whatsoever, to do with their conduct.

Not to mention that this is all a bit circular. If you start with the premise that how they acted is suspicious, then they are going to be suspects. And if you suspect that they killed their daughter, you are going to believe they acted suspiciously.

Your "suspicious acts" are based on poor analysis and a failure to grasp the facts. As I noted, a pretty significant part of your suspicion was easily answered by a very-well publicized fact that you didn't bother to know or look up. The rest of your "suspicions" are based on a faulty assumption: that there is one "right" way for victims to act when dealing with a crime. That is absurd on its face.

Not all mothers scream at the top of their lungs and go on a mad searching spree. Not all fathers find the body of their child and immediately think, "we'd better preserve this here crime scene!"



Who is "us"? You didn't work on this case. You noted above that your opinion is worth [u]no more[/i] or less than anyone else's. You are as much an "armchair type" in regards to this thread as anyone. And all the background in the world won't make up for lousy analysis.

So here, I will quote John Douglas, who actually did a full analysis of the case, and is a 25-year FBI veteran and author. He compared the case to the Lindbergh's as well:


And this, by the way, jibes with my own REAL WORLD experience in seeing people in crisis situations.

>>>Like who? You already said you have no experience in kidnapping. I cited an actual kidnapping case and a first-hand account of another reaction, which was similar to the Ramseys. You had no response to that, since again -- it didn't fit your hypothesis. Ignoring evidence doesn't make it go away.

Gee, you cited "a" case- whoopee

>>>The same rules apply -- in that you have no experience with the victims in this case, so you have no idea how they should or shouldn't react, let alone trying to psychoanalyze individual details of their reaction.

How many calls have you answered? If the number is zero or less, theres your answer

>>>Yes, how they act is critical. If they had, say, jumped on a plane and fled to Mexico, that might be a good indication that they are hiding something. That they chose to call the police rather than searching the house -- that means nothing in relation to their guilt or innocence. That the father brought the body upstairs -- that means nothing as it relates to their guilt or innocence. You can talk about your "personal" experience (which you don't have with kidnapping) all you want. It doesn't cover up poor analysis.

Your experience is what again?

>>>Let's recap: You asked "what had changed" when John Ramsey searched the house, and that it was suspicious. I gave you the factual answer, which didn't fit with your hypothesis. You responded with, "That's a different subject." That's the very definition of changing the subject. If the answer to your question is "a different subject," then I'm not sure why you even asked it.

You gave an appeal to emotion- nothing more

>>>Do you have any proof that that was the MAIN reason they maintained their status as suspects, or are you just making that up? Cite, please.

They were considered suspects because:
a) Percentage-wise, the parents are most likely to be the perpetrators
b) The murder occurred in the house
c) The note was written in the house

"proof' no- instinct yes, again- your experience is what again?

>>>Not to mention that this is all a bit circular. If you start with the premise that how they acted is suspicious, then they are going to be suspects. And if you suspect that they killed their daughter, you are going to believe they acted suspiciously.

Thats only part of it

>>>Your "suspicious acts" are based on poor analysis and a failure to grasp the facts. As I noted, a pretty significant part of your suspicion was easily answered by a very-well publicized fact that you didn't bother to know or look up. The rest of your "suspicions" are based on a faulty assumption: that there is one "right" way for victims to act when dealing with a crime. That is absurd on its face.

I know the facts as good as anyone- again, you have how many years?

>>>Not all mothers scream at the top of their lungs and go on a mad searching spree. Not all fathers find the body of their child and immediately think, "we'd better preserve this here crime scene!"

No, but most get upset

>>>Who is "us"? You didn't work on this case. You noted above that your opinion is worth [u]no more[/i] or less than anyone else's. You are as much an "armchair type" in regards to this thread as anyone. And all the background in the world won't make up for lousy analysis.

Thats what all the couch potatoes say

>>>So here, I will quote John Douglas, who actually did a full analysis of the case, and is a 25-year FBI veteran and author. He compared the case to the Lindbergh's as well:

I'm aware of that- thats why I look at the whole picture

>>>And this, by the way, jibes with my own REAL WORLD experience in seeing people in crisis situations

how many times have you been on the scene? Let me guess

[Kestrel]

You can ask until you are blue in the face. You want "scientific proof"- google is your friend. I'm not in the research business for you.

The results have been documented. Its not a "claim"- its well known

You made a claim. The burden of providing evidence to back up that claim is yours.

Bluster is not an appropriate substitute for evidence.

[LONGTABBER PE]

You made a claim. The burden of providing evidence to back up that claim is yours.

Bluster is not an appropriate substitute for evidence.

I stated observations and real world experience from actually DOING IT.

What do you bring?

Wanna refute it- get busy

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I stated observations and real world experience from actually DOING IT.

What do you bring?

Wanna refute it- get busy

Riley, is that you? :confused:

[Matthew Best]

I know the facts as good as anyone-

You have a strange way of demonstrating that.

[LONGTABBER PE]

You have a strange way of demonstrating that.

I demonstrate very well- I just dont cater to people who argue from google

[Matthew Best]

Here's where you demonstrated your knowledge of the facts:

On the one hand- he has a ransom note so he believed his child was kidnapped ( thus gone) so there was no reason to search past the bedroom.

On the other hand, with the above still in effect- 7.5 hours later he decides to search the house looking for her with a friend? ( but she wouldnt be there so why search- since there was a note and all that?)

What changed?

Quite what your ignorance of the fact that he was asked to search the house by the police has to do with Google is a mystery.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Here's where you demonstrated your knowledge of the facts:



Quite what your ignorance of the fact that he was asked to search the house by the police has to do with Google is a mystery.

No ignorance sweetcheeks- pay attention and read slower this time.

I know he was asked by the police but as i have said numerous times, thats another story altogether

[Ryokan]

I know he was asked by the police but as i have said numerous times, thats another story altogether

CFLarsen, is that you?

[Matthew Best]

No ignorance sweetcheeks- pay attention and read slower this time.

I know he was asked by the police but as i have said numerous times, thats another story altogether

Sure it is. :rolleyes:

[Cainkane1]

All I have to say is this. Poor little girl. Shes the victim of an unsolved murder and it doesn't look like its ever going to be solved. She like other child victims makes me hurt when I think about it. Some little six year old girl fighting for her life while shes beaten over her head and strangled presents the worst possible image in my mind.

Hopefully a measure of justice either will or has been meted out to whomever did this thng.

[aggle-rithm]

He obviously doesn´t have any experience with kidnapping,

I once read an article that said police consider kidnappers to be the stupidest criminals on the planet. They are almost always caught, usually when they pick up the ransom. Unfortunately, their stupidity can make them very dangerous, as they often injure or kill the kidnap victim by mistake or out of incompetence.

[bokonon]

Is the text of the draft ransom note available anywhere?

I just read the text of the ransom note itself, and it didn't seem "fake" to me. I'd be interested in hearing what causes others to think it is.

To me, it sounds like a kidnapping gone bad. If someone who knew John Ramsey and knew about his bonus broke into the house, choked Jon Benet unconscious to silence her, and took her to the basement, it might have happened like this:

He binds the child and tapes her mouth to make sure she won't alert anyone if she wakes up. Then he composes the first note, and prepares to leave. He discovers the child is dead, and revises the note to have a shorter, more urgent deadline, because he intends to leave the child in the house, and doesn't want her body discovered before he gets the money.

This would seem more likely if the draft note either contained a longer deadline, or asked for a larger amount. Is the text of the draft available?

[Uncayimmy]

Who breaks into an occupied house for a kidnapping intending to write a ransom note after he gets there using whatever pen and paper he can find? You're also forgetting the crushed part of the skull and the signs of sexual abuse.

Here's why I read the ransom note as fake:

* It's way too long.

* It says far too many things that don't need to be said in the first place. It's like in any interview situation where you keep quiet and let the interviewee keep talking. If they are deceptive, they keep going and going until they think they have been convincing.

* There were two misspellings (Bussiness and posession) in the first paragraph that seem deliberate. For the most part the rest of the document uses proper grammar and punctuation. The choice of vocabulary (faction, attache, countermeasures, exhausting) doesn't seem consistent with not knowing how to spell business. It seems like the misspelling idea fell to the wayside after the first paragraph.

* Why ask for the amount of the guy's bonus and reveal that you're on the short list of people who knew the amount of the bonus.

* Why ask for such a small amount of money? Obviously they had plenty of money, especially with a bonus that large.

* What's with all this stuff about a foreign faction and his business? It makes no sense.

* Why tell them to withdraw the money from their account? Seems odd. Just come up with the money. Who cares how?

* Why tell them to bring an attache to the bank?

* Why use decimal places ($118,000.00)?

* Why advise them to be well rested because the drop will be exhausting?

* What's with the reference to beheading?

* Why switch from first person plural to singular (we, I)?

* Why point out that there are "two gentleman" guarding the daughter?

* Why use the phrase "watching over" the daughter?

* They say they will scan him for electronic devices. Do they plan to make the exchange in person?

* What's with all the "John" stuff in the last paragraph?

Individually these things mean little. Collectively it sounds like somebody is putting together a ransom note they are desperate to be believed because they know it's not real.

[bokonon]

Who breaks into an occupied house for a kidnapping intending to write a ransom note after he gets there using whatever pen and paper he can find?
Gosh, I don't know, someone who doesn't want to bring a note with him that might be easier to trace back to someone outside the home?

And how do you know that's what happened? Maybe he DID bring a note from home, but after the girl died whatever was in that original note no longer seemed like a good idea.


Here's why I read the ransom note as fake:

* It's way too long.
How long does Emily Post recommend?

* It says far too many things that don't need to be said in the first place. It's like in any interview situation where you keep quiet and let the interviewee keep talking. If they are deceptive, they keep going and going until they think they have been convincing.
It seems to me that everything that's said in the note has a purpose; what is it that you think would have made the note sound more legitimate if it had been left out?

* There were two misspellings (Bussiness and posession) in the first paragraph that seem deliberate. For the most part the rest of the document uses proper grammar and punctuation. The choice of vocabulary (faction, attache, countermeasures, exhausting) doesn't seem consistent with not knowing how to spell business. It seems like the misspelling idea fell to the wayside after the first paragraph.
Could be, but if so it would only suggest that the writer of the note was attempting to be deceptive, perhaps to conceal his identity, not that there wasn't a real ransom demand.

* Why ask for the amount of the guy's bonus and reveal that you're on the short list of people who knew the amount of the bonus. How short was the list? Maybe whoever wrote the note heard the amount third-hand, and didn't think he'd be on any such list the police compiled.

* Why ask for such a small amount of money? Obviously they had plenty of money, especially with a bonus that large.As I say, maybe the original intent was to ask for more, but once the kidnapper had decided not to leave the house with the child, he thought it prudent to settle for an amount that could presumably be readily raised by writing a check, rather than one which would require liquidating assets.

* What's with all this stuff about a foreign faction and his business? It makes no sense.I suspect the "foreign faction" is fictitious, but again this only indicates an attempt to disguise motive, not that the writer isn't making a real ransom demand.

* Why tell them to withdraw the money from their account? Seems odd. Just come up with the money. Who cares how?To show that you know they HAVE the money in their account available to withdraw, and will not be receptive to excuses that "I need time to raise the money."

Obviously, if it IS a real ransom demand, the kidnapper doesn't want to spend time communicating after the authorities may have been notified. The more potential objections / problems that can be anticipated and dismissed in the note, the more likely it is that the next communication will be "I have the money, what next?"

* Why tell them to bring an attache to the bank?Suggests that you are watching them, and want to see them go into the bank with an attache which can be used to walk out with the cash that has been requested.

* Why use decimal places ($118,000.00)?Are you serious? Why not? Why use a comma? Why use a dollar sign?

* Why advise them to be well rested because the drop will be exhausting?Again, to forestall excuses. If the kidnapper planned some movie-style scavenger hunt from one location to the next to make it more likely he'd be able to retrieve the money without being captured, who's to say that being "well rested" isn't good advice?

* What's with the reference to beheading?Not something a parent would be likely to write, but something likely to terrorize a parent.

* Why switch from first person plural to singular (we, I)?Carelessness? Is there any reason to think the "foreign faction" was real, and "we" was ever appropriate?

* Why point out that there are "two gentleman" guarding the daughter?A lie intended to make the claim that the girl was still alive more convincing.

* Why use the phrase "watching over" the daughter?A lie intended to make the claim that the girl was being treated well more convincing.

* They say they will scan him for electronic devices. Do they plan to make the exchange in person?Perhaps, or perhaps they just don't want him to be wearing a tracking device that will make it easier for authorities to follow his movements remotely.

* What's with all the "John" stuff in the last paragraph?It has a menacing tone, like "I know more about you than you think. I may be someone close. You can't trust anyone, so you'd better do what I say and not try to plan with your friends how to catch me."

Individually these things mean little. Collectively it sounds like somebody is putting together a ransom note they are desperate to be believed because they know it's not real.
Obviously, at the time the last note was being written, the person writing it knows it isn't real. The girl is dead; she will not be ransomed.

It may be that a real kidnapper would just pack it in at that point, and leave the body in the basement without trying to extort any money. If there is a real kidnapper, maybe his need for money at that point WAS desperate. I don't think I agree that the points you raise, even collectively, lead me to the conclusion that the note as a whole was phony. Obviously, there are elements in the note which are intended to mislead. I suspect there was never any follow-up attempt to collect the money, which could either indicate that the note was phony or that the discovery of the body had become public knowledge.

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

You gave an appeal to emotion- nothing more


Wow -- this is getting borderline silly. I cited a fact about the case that contradicted your "suspicion." What "emotion" does that appeal to, other than perhaps your emotion of being unable to admit you're wrong?

The rest of your post is nonsensical -- again. This seems to be a theme when you have nothing of relevance to say.

Although this is actually pretty funny:
Not to mention that this is all a bit circular. If you start with the premise that how they acted is suspicious, then they are going to be suspects. And if you suspect that they killed their daughter, you are going to believe they acted suspiciously.

Thats only part of it

Oh, you mean circular logic is only part of your analysis? Phew. That's much better.

[JimBenArm]

Oh, if only the people in this thread had been there, the crime would have been solved within hours. Hours!
Or maybe JonBenet would be alive today.

If only...

[Uncayimmy]

Gosh, I don't know, someone who doesn't want to bring a note with him that might be easier to trace back to someone outside the home?
Huh? I think you watch too much TV. Shorting of leaving a monogrammed pen and using paper that reads, "From the Desk of UncaYimmy" nobody is going to trace anything back to you. At best they might find the paper and pen consistent with something you already own. However, at that point you're screwed anyway.

And how do you know that's what happened? Maybe he DID bring a note from home, but after the girl died whatever was in that original note no longer seemed like a good idea.
Which would mean what? Go ahead and say it. We all know the answer. It would mean...c'mon...the note was a fake.

Just like I figured would happen on the Internet, you picked apart each little thing when I clearly stated that by themselves they hold little meaning. It's like if I say that somebody is very likely to be the suspect because we know the culprit was a blue eyed, blond male with detached earlobes, six fingers on his left hand, a missing big toe on his right foot who could wiggle his ears and roll his tongue. Sure, lots of people match each one of those things but how many people have all those characteristics and happen to live next door to where the crime was committed?


It seems to me that everything that's said in the note has a purpose; what is it that you think would have made the note sound more legitimate if it had been left out?
Probably 90% of it. "We have your daughter. If you want to see her alive again, you need to give us $500,000. We will call you Tuesday morning between 8 and 10. Do not involve the police or try to find us yourself or she will be harmed or killed. We'll be watching you."

I'm pretty confident that the above combined with the fact that the daughter is missing and that the note was found in the house before the daughter was discovered to be missing is enough to convince anyone that the ransom note was real.

Everything else was just an attempt to convince someone that the note was real. The person did that because they knew the note was a fake. I'm just pointing out the numerous clues that taken together led me to this conclusion.

Could be, but if so it would only suggest that the writer of the note was attempting to be deceptive, perhaps to conceal his identity, not that there wasn't a real ransom demand.
You don't conceal yourself by revealing that you know the person's surname, given name, his southern accent, and the amount of his bonus. Doing so eliminates a few billion possible suspects.

How short was the list? Maybe whoever wrote the note heard the amount third-hand, and didn't think he'd be on any such list the police compiled.
If 68 people were on that list, that's 0.000001% of the population. I'd call that a short list, wouldn't you? Unless, of course, you're arguing that the person overheard a conversation in a bar that John Ramsey of 1313 Mockingbird Lane just got a $118,000 bonus and has a six year old daughter.

As I say, maybe the original intent was to ask for more, but once the kidnapper had decided not to leave the house with the child, he thought it prudent to settle for an amount that could presumably be readily raised by writing a check, rather than one which would require liquidating assets.
I see. So, when the kidnapping was real, they would ask for an unrealistic amount of money, but when the kidnapping was fake, they would ask for a realistic amount. That makes a lot of sense.

To show that you know they HAVE the money in their account available to withdraw, and will not be receptive to excuses that "I need time to raise the money."
How does the person know the money is in the account? Does he know for a fact that Ramsey has already received the bonus in a lump sum and that he has deposited into his account and the check has already cleared? He knows it wasn't a stock related bonus or a bonus paid out over time? And he knows that no taxes were taken out of the $118,000? And he assumes this guy who owns multiple homes, airplanes and servants has no other easily liquidated assets? He can't borrow the money quickly?

Suggests that you are watching them, and want to see them go into the bank with an attache which can be used to walk out with the cash that has been requested.
Right. It's not like they could walk into and out of the bank with an empty attache, huh?

Are you serious? Why not? Why use a comma? Why use a dollar sign?
Who includes a cents column when asking for $118,000? It's odd, especially since the author didn't do it a second time. It doesn't fit with the style of writing in the rest of the document. It was a further attempt to make people think the person wasn't all that bright.

Again, to forestall excuses. If the kidnapper planned some movie-style scavenger hunt from one location to the next to make it more likely he'd be able to retrieve the money without being captured, who's to say that being "well rested" isn't good advice?
Sure. "Sorry, Jonbenet, but Daddy is too sleepy to drive another 30 miles to rescue his little princess. If only the kidnappers had told me to rest up I would have skipped my YMCA league basketball game last night!"

Not something a parent would be likely to write, but something likely to terrorize a parent.
Back in 1996, when did anybody ever talk about beheading people. It's exceedingly rare and totally unnecessary.

Carelessness? Is there any reason to think the "foreign faction" was real, and "we" was ever appropriate?
Right. Careless. Somebody was trying to convince people it was real.

Obviously, at the time the last note was being written, the person writing it knows it isn't real. The girl is dead; she will not be ransomed.

Duh! That's what I am saying - the note was fake and intended to convince people it was real.

Your argument, which has no basis in evidence, is that the kidnapping scheme was real but botched. The old ransom note, for some strange reason known only to you, was insufficient to convince people it was real even though from the perspective of the Ramseys the situation would have been the same.

You've conceded twice now that perhaps the note wasn't real. That's enough for me.

[Matthew Best]

How do we know the amount of John Ramsey's bonus? Can someone point me to a source for this?

[Olowkow]

Who breaks into an occupied house for a kidnapping intending to write a ransom note after he gets there using whatever pen and paper he can find? You're also forgetting the crushed part of the skull and the signs of sexual abuse.

Here's why I read the ransom note as fake:
...

All these points and more are made in various books on the subject. I find them convincing, in certain ways, but I see the points that Bokonon raises as well. What a mystery! Something that I found quite interesting was the use of "and hence" in the ransnom note:

If we
14. monitor you getting the money early, we might call you early to
15. arrange an earlier delivery of the money and hence a earlier
16. delivery pickup of your daughter.
I can't find the references now, but John was fond of using "and hence" with the same noun on each side of the equation. "Hence" is pretty rare in my speech at least. Note that "delivery" is used, and then "delivery" was used again, as per the formula, but the writer had second thoughts and crossed it out preferring "pickup" with daughter. The use of "a earlier" and "an earlier" suggests to me that the letter is being dictated, by a businessman.

This guy, McClish, is pretty good:
http://www.statementanalysis.com/ramseynote/

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

How do we know the amount of John Ramsey's bonus? Can someone point me to a source for this?

It's mentioned in most articles about the case, but here is one:
The Ramsey case: a primer (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_4946532,00.html)

The ransom note: A three-page ransom note discovered by Patsy Ramsey contains several bizarre statements, including a claim that the kidnappers are part of a "small foreign faction." The ransom amount of $118,000 matches John Ramsey's 1996 bonus from his company. Also puzzling is the sign-off of the writer, "SBTC," the meaning of which investigators have never settled on.

[Olowkow]

I can't find the references now, but John was fond of using "and hence" with the same noun on each side of the equation.

This guy, McClish, is pretty good:
http://www.statementanalysis.com/ramseynote/
It turns out that reference I was looking for is in fact in the link I gave.:)

[Matthew Best]

The ransom amount of $118,000 matches John Ramsey's 1996 bonus from his company.

How do they know?

[M.R.B.]

Probably 90% of it. "We have your daughter. If you want to see her alive again, you need to give us $500,000. We will call you Tuesday morning between 8 and 10. Do not involve the police or try to find us yourself or she will be harmed or killed. We'll be watching you."


Hi
I think you might be confusing "real" with "professional" here.
That's exactly the type of notes left behind by professional kidnappers in, say, Russia, or eastern Europe.

The note might be fake, but to me it reads more like someone delusional, paranoid and with a (real or, more likely, imagined) personal axe to grind.

But I am not at all familiar with the case, other than what I have read in this thread and the links posted in it.

[Uncayimmy]

I can't find the references now, but John was fond of using "and hence" with the same noun on each side of the equation. "Hence" is pretty rare in my speech at least.

Somebody pointed out that "and hence" is not proper since hence by itself is sufficient. Turns out the Pat Ramsey used "and hence" either in the speech or in the printed materials at the memorial service. She explained that perhaps she used it because she had seen it so many times in the days before.

As for it being rare, look at Google:

"hence" - 121,000,000 hits
"and hence" - 36,600,00 hits

Granted, some of the uses of hence might not be in the same manner such as a list of words: "my favorite words are pickle, genre and hence." However, I would not say that hence or "and hence" are rare by any means. Now, if you want to argue about how often "hence" or "and hence" is used in ransom notes, that's another story altogether. :D

[Olowkow]

Ok, so it's "relatively" rare. :) I don't think I have ever used it in spoken language. Here is the actual reference from the link I posted.

The word "hence" is not a very common word. When was the last time you used that word in a sentence? Chances are you have not used it this week. We should look to see if this word appears in any writings of John or Patsy Ramsey. Well, it does. On December 14, 1997, the First United Methodist Church in Boulder, Colorado held a memorial service for JonBenet. In the program, there was "A Christmas Message from the Ramsey Family." This message was also posted on the Ramsey family's web site. In the message, we find the statement, "Had there been no birth of Christ, there would be no hope of eternal life, and, hence, no hope of ever being with our loved ones again."

Oh, by the way, "therefore" gets 410,000,000 on the Google.

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

How do they know?

I don't know if it came from the police report, or if the Ramseys themselves noted it. According to this article (http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/1997/01/23/1997-01-23_colo__killer_knew_home___dad.html), a "family spokesperson" mentions it, and it seems to be confirmed by someone else who works at the company, so it appears to be valid.

The puzzling $118,000 ransom amount was the same figure as the annual bonus Ramsey received late last year from his company, Access Graphics, according to family spokesman Pat Korten.

"Very few" people other than John Ramsey would know the bonus amount, said Access Graphics Vice President Laurie Wagner.

[Olowkow]

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2006/aug/23/check-stub-adds-to-ramsey-mystery/
.....That's because, according to John Ramsey in his book, the $118,117.50 was deferred compensation awarded in January 1996.
That means, Ramsey wrote, that the figure was printed on every pay stub issued him in 1996. Therefore, a December pay stub laying around the house would have contained the figure, even though it was awarded to him at the beginning of the year.

[boooeee]

CFLarsen, is that you?


I thought this seemed familiar.

[shuize]

To me, it sounds like a kidnapping gone bad. If someone who knew John Ramsey and knew about his bonus broke into the house, choked Jon Benet unconscious to silence her, and took her to the basement, it might have happened like this:

He binds the child and tapes her mouth to make sure she won't alert anyone if she wakes up. Then he composes the first note, and prepares to leave. He discovers the child is dead, and revises the note to have a shorter, more urgent deadline, because he intends to leave the child in the house, and doesn't want her body discovered before he gets the money.


It has been reported that JonBenet was killed by a garrote made from items in the house. It may have been a kidnapping gone bad, but it was not an accident.

[Olowkow]

It has been reported that JonBenet was killed by a garrote made from items in the house. It may have been a kidnapping gone bad, but it was not an accident.
She had a severe skull fracture, which would have killed her, but she was strangled. One theory is that she could have fallen against the bath tub when struck by the mother...an accident, which then somehow escalated.

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

It has been reported that JonBenet was killed by a garrote made from items in the house. It may have been a kidnapping gone bad, but it was not an accident.

I tend to agree, though an alternative could be that the perpetrator was trying to subdue her via a blow to the head or strangulation (perhaps he'd seen too many movies, where that kind of thing works) and ended up killing her.

[shuize]

She had a severe skull fracture, which would have killed her, but she was strangled. One theory is that she could have fallen against the bath tub when struck by the mother...an accident, which then somehow escalated.


Well then, my mistake. I was going with the reports listing the garrote as the cause of death which suggests more than just a botched taping job.

[Fiona]

Sorry - no matches. Please try some different terms.
The following words are either very common, too long, or too short and were not included in your search : hence

Our very own search function :)

[Uncayimmy]

Ok, so it's "relatively" rare. :) I don't think I have ever used it in spoken language. Here is the actual reference from the link I posted.



Oh, by the way, "therefore" gets 410,000,000 on the Google.

I'm wondering if hence and therefore are like soda and pop. I grew in Maryland where we called a coke soda. Out here in Phoenix the natives call it pop. It looks like therefore is used 4x as much as hence, but I don't think that's enough to make me think twice about the usage.

I do recall a couple of years ago catching a Usent sock puppet because he misspelled Lynyrd Skynyrd in an unusual way. Turns out that during the last 8 years on Usenet only two people had written those two words like that: the guy who stormed off saying "I'm never coming back!" and the guy who showed up two weeks later that we suspected was the same person.

[Uncayimmy]

She had a severe skull fracture, which would have killed her, but she was strangled. One theory is that she could have fallen against the bath tub when struck by the mother...an accident, which then somehow escalated.

Where did that theory come from? It doesn't explain the abrasions on other parts of her body or the abrasions and blood around her "wiped clean" vagina. It also doesn't explain the urine on her clothes.

[LTC8K6]

Scrutiny...

We are a group of individuals...

And hence...

What an odd and rambling note...in addition to what uncayimmy already mentioned.

You can't spell "business" or "possession", but you spell some difficult words correctly and you use the word "scrutiny"?

Who says "and hence"...

[LTC8K6]

"Delivery of your daughter" also became "pick-up of your daughter", with delivery crossed out.

Most of the note is "we", "our", "us" but then it's "any deviation from my instructions"...

Odd note. But then, criminals have mental problems anyway...

[LTC8K6]

Where did that theory come from? It doesn't explain the abrasions on other parts of her body or the abrasions and blood around her "wiped clean" vagina. It also doesn't explain the urine on her clothes.

I recall that being discussed a lot. That the garotte was to cover up the fact she was killed via the head trauma.

Which leads to the idea that she was killed by someone in the family, either accidentally, or through rage, and the whole kidnap and garotte deal was to cover up her true manner of death.

[LTC8K6]

Obviously, at the time the last note was being written, the person writing it knows it isn't real. The girl is dead; she will not be ransomed.

Then why write the note? Shouldn't you bail on this disaster of a kidnapping?

Do you think they intended to take Jon Benet's body with them, so they could still try to get the ransom money, but for some reason were not able to remove JB through the basement window? Maybe something disturbed them and they dropped her? Heard a noise or whatever and abandoned her as they were getting ready to get her out?

Perhaps they never intended to kill JB, but she saw them and maybe even recognized the kidnapper? I mean they may have intended to kidnap her without her ever getting a look at them, but something went wrong and JB got a look at them and knew who they were and then they had to kill her?

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

Where did that theory come from? It doesn't explain the abrasions on other parts of her body or the abrasions and blood around her "wiped clean" vagina. It also doesn't explain the urine on her clothes.

John Douglas mentions a similar "theory" in his book: JonBenet was a bed wetter, so the theory goes that Patsy Ramsey got angry with her for messing her bed, and in a fit of rage, accidentally smacked her head on something. The vaginal wounds were caused by her wiping violently on her daughter's vagina.

Then they stage the strangulation, ransom note, etc.

There isn't any evidence to support it, as far as I know, other than that it kind of fits the injuries, but it was one theory put out there, I guess.

Of course, none of this explains the evidence on which they were ultimately exonerated (http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/07/09/jonbenet.dna/): that the DNA found in her underwear also matched "touch" DNA on her leggings (e.g. the same unidentified person who put his hand in her underwear also touched her leggings, which discounts the original explanation put forth by police that the DNA in the underwear could have come from the manufacturer, and points to an unidentified male having been there).

[LTC8K6]

Yes, there is good DNA evidence in the case, so if someone shows up as a good suspect, we will know.

[LTC8K6]

There seems to be another bit of movie similarity in the ransom note, in addition to the "Ruthless People" and "Speed" similarities, imo.

In the movie "Dirty Harry" the kidnapper has Harry run all over town to various locations with the ransom money. Similar to the ransom note's reference to be well rested and that the delivery will be exhausting.

The kidnapper in the movie also references not talking to even a dog:

A pay phone rings with a call that warns he will be 'bounced all over town' to make sure he's alone. Scorpio threatens with a deadly game:

If I even think you're being followed, the girl dies. If you talk to anyone, I don't care if it's a Pekinese pissing against a lamppost, the girl dies...No car. I give you a certain amount of time to go from phone booth to phone booth. I ring four times. You don't answer by the fourth ring, I hang up and that's the end of the game. The girl dies...Cop!...I hope you're not stupid.

Also in the movie, IIRC, the girl is in fact, already dead....

[Uncayimmy]

I recall that being discussed a lot. That the garotte was to cover up the fact she was killed via the head trauma.

The head trauma didn't kill her, that much is clear in the autopsy report. Whether she might have died from it is another thing altogether. I have no idea.

[Uncayimmy]

Oh, if only the people in this thread had been there, the crime would have been solved within hours. Hours!
Or maybe JonBenet would be alive today.

If only...

We couldn't have done any worse than the cops did that first 12 hours.

[Uncayimmy]

The kidnapper in the movie also references not talking to even a dog:


Also in the movie, IIRC, the girl is in fact, already dead....

The note also repeatedly said, "if you do <whatever>, she dies." Your quote uses "she dies" as well.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Wow -- this is getting borderline silly. I cited a fact about the case that contradicted your "suspicion." What "emotion" does that appeal to, other than perhaps your emotion of being unable to admit you're wrong?

The rest of your post is nonsensical -- again. This seems to be a theme when you have nothing of relevance to say.

Although this is actually pretty funny:



Oh, you mean circular logic is only part of your analysis? Phew. That's much better.

>>>Wow -- this is getting borderline silly.

Yes but its normal when discussing it with armchair commentators who think they know how things they have never done work. Its part of the fun of the net.

>>>I cited a fact about the case that contradicted your "suspicion."

Thats why we look at the total body of evidence.

>>>What "emotion" does that appeal to, other than perhaps your emotion of being unable to admit you're wrong?

I was referring to your emotions. You dont have a clue or field experience but you are right and you keep repeating it in hopes that one day it will become so.

>>>The rest of your post is nonsensical -- again. This seems to be a theme when you have nothing of relevance to say.
You still never address the question about your experience on the scene of a crime

>>>Oh, you mean circular logic is only part of your analysis? Phew. That's much better

not circular- staying on point- but you wouldnt understand that would you?

[Uncayimmy]

Longtabber, you should read this site:
http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/

It seems that the police did search the house early on as did Ramsey and a family friend. It turns out none bothered to open the door to wine cellar.

And according to what I've read, Patsy Ramsey changed into the clothes she was wearing the night before and put on make-up while John Ramsey was taking a shower (all before the ransom note was found). They were supposed to take a plane trip that day. It's yet another strange thing in a very strange case.

From what I have read, the DNA evidence does not match the family members. There was DNA under JBR's fingernails and some more DNA comingled in the fluids on her panties (not semen). The new "touch DNA" evidence from her clothing where the person pulled down her pants matches these two other sources. The three sources are consistent.

To me that just makes the whole case even more strange.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Longtabber, you should read this site:
http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/

It seems that the police did search the house early on as did Ramsey and a family friend. It turns out none bothered to open the door to wine cellar.

And according to what I've read, Patsy Ramsey changed into the clothes she was wearing the night before and put on make-up while John Ramsey was taking a shower (all before the ransom note was found). They were supposed to take a plane trip that day. It's yet another strange thing in a very strange case.

From what I have read, the DNA evidence does not match the family members. There was DNA under JBR's fingernails and some more DNA comingled in the fluids on her panties (not semen). The new "touch DNA" evidence from her clothing where the person pulled down her pants matches these two other sources. The three sources are consistent.

To me that just makes the whole case even more strange.


I agree- "strange" is the best way to describe this particular case.

>>>It seems that the police did search the house early on as did Ramsey and a family friend. It turns out none bothered to open the door to wine cellar.

Yeah, the way I read that is they did a cursory walk thru- again, theres simply no excuse on the part of LE for not doing a complete and thorough search immediately upon the scene.

>>>From what I have read, the DNA evidence does not match the family members. There was DNA under JBR's fingernails and some more DNA comingled in the fluids on her panties (not semen). The new "touch DNA" evidence from her clothing where the person pulled down her pants matches these two other sources. The three sources are consistent.

Heres where you have to take it with a grain of salt from an objective viewpoint and I'll illustrate from a case i had personal involvement in- the Lax case)

The DNA under the fingernails- according to the ME report, the nails were clipped and then sent for SANE exam. Theres really no way to know if the referenced DNA came from UNDER the nails (implicating a violent struggle) or was deposited there. ( they used the same argument with Crystal saying she scratched her attacker with her fake nails) It does make a difference.

Also, we dont have the full report to analyze so we dont know just how much of a match it was with the other sample. ( remember the press jumping up and down saying Dave Evan's DNA was on her nails- under factual examination it was in a group where he couldnt be excluded- hardly the same thing and could have come from cross contamination in a waste basket)

I also find it hard to accept that they identified every possible person who may have been in contact with the body and tested/eliminated them. ( just the fact they say they did tells you they themselves felt it was necessary due to the possibility)

We also dont know specifically what cells this DNA came from.

Also, the police were called early in the morning, the body was found in the afternoon and the ME didnt get there until around 2000 hours. Thats a lot of opportunity for cross contamination.

The problem with the "touch DNA" is that nobody knows when it was deposited there on the clothes or by whom. Thats not to say the current theory isnt correct but presence of DNA does not default to thats from the perp. Nobody will know the answer to that until a suspect is matched to the DNA and see where he was during the event window.

In any case, it doesnt ( in and of itself) exclude any family member from being a part of the crime. All it says is that it wasnt their DNA on the clothes.

I have often wondered how much of the DA's statement stating their innocence was a result of watching what happened as a result of another DA and Keystone Kop department botching an investigation in Durham.

[Uncayimmy]

Understood, Longtabber. That's why I said that the DNA didn't match the family rather than saying it cleared the family, which is what the DA essentially said.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Understood, Longtabber. That's why I said that the DNA didn't match the family rather than saying it cleared the family, which is what the DA essentially said.

Exactly and I know you fully understand ( after your dealings with VFF, you ought to be a Jedi Master of sifting thru spin by now)

The thing I want to see avoided is the "public" being swayed into what may be a false lead by selective wording of LE or the media. ( like thats never happened)

DNA is what it is and theres very little room to question its accuracy if all done properly but due to the media mainly, release of small portents of information like this can lead to more false assumptions.

People should realize the DA's example of the DNA coming from the manufacturing process was a grab at straws because while possible- one good laundering ( especially with bleach) would have neutralized that.

Not to mention, theres no way to know if that DNA was there from innocent pre event handling. ( or post for that matter)

I would like to see the report and see exactly how close it was an actual match to the panty sample. I wonder if its the same person or just in the same profile category- which if it is will probably be another red herring.

Another thing I felt strange was with all the alleged struggle ( carrying her, killing her, allegedly molesting her and whatnot) that the SANE brushdown didnt find hair or other fibers. I wonder if they did and its just unreleased.

[JimBenArm]

We couldn't have done any worse than the cops did that first 12 hours.
Yes, similar to the Monday morning lamenting that "If only I had been quarterback for the Chiefs, we would have won!"
More likely, you would have just made different mistakes, maybe even more serious ones. You are no more qualified to do investigations than I am, yet you seem to think you're some kind of internet Sherlock Holmes. Sorry, Watson.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Yes, similar to the Monday morning lamenting that "If only I had been quarterback for the Chiefs, we would have won!"
More likely, you would have just made different mistakes, maybe even more serious ones. You are no more qualified to do investigations than I am, yet you seem to think you're some kind of internet Sherlock Holmes. Sorry, Watson.

In this case not really.

Investigation protocols, while often individually modified to meet specific department requirements are pretty standard stuff.

Sure there are mistakes made everywhere everyday but in this specific case- it goes well beyond "mistakes" into major procedural violations that may have directly resulted in a killer going free.

[JimBenArm]

In this case not really.

Investigation protocols, while often individually modified to meet specific department requirements are pretty standard stuff.

Sure there are mistakes made everywhere everyday but in this specific case- it goes well beyond "mistakes" into major procedural violations that may have directly resulted in a killer going free.
And why should I believe that you would have done any better, Mr. Monday Morning Quarterback? I have a bunch of people reading news reports, none of which were at the scene, collected any evidence, or interviewed anyone. Yet, somehow, through the magic of the internet, they suddenly have superpowers that make them the most amazing criminologists the world has ever seen!
Please, call me when you make an arrest, 'kay? Then I might be impressed. Until then, you're another "never was".

[LONGTABBER PE]

And why should I believe that you would have done any better, Mr. Monday Morning Quarterback? I have a bunch of people reading news reports, none of which were at the scene, collected any evidence, or interviewed anyone. Yet, somehow, through the magic of the internet, they suddenly have superpowers that make them the most amazing criminologists the world has ever seen!
Please, call me when you make an arrest, 'kay? Then I might be impressed. Until then, you're another "never was".

Well, lets just make you fully understand me.

First, I was an investigator for years so I dont really feel the need to cater to or even consider the unqualified ramblings of an "Internet commentator" on "Monday Morning Quarterbacking" in a subject that the sole level of his experience comes from TV as anything more than uneducated blog commentary.

Second, Frankly, I dont give a tinker's damn what you think- it doesnt alter the accuracy of what I said 1 bit.

[Olowkow]

Where did that theory come from? It doesn't explain the abrasions on other parts of her body or the abrasions and blood around her "wiped clean" vagina. It also doesn't explain the urine on her clothes.

As I recall, she wet the bed, mom was upset and was brutal in cleaning, etc. so goes the theory.

Autopsy: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/jonbenet1.html

[JimBenArm]

Well, lets just make you fully understand me.

First, I was an investigator for years so I dont really feel the need to cater to or even consider the unqualified ramblings of an "Internet commentator" on "Monday Morning Quarterbacking" in a subject that the sole level of his experience comes from TV as anything more than uneducated blog commentary.

Second, Frankly, I dont give a tinker's damn what you think- it doesnt alter the accuracy of what I said 1 bit.
Gee, Inspector Clouseau, who did steal the Pink Panther?

Really, it's too bad you weren't there, isn't it? The bad guy would be in jail right now. At least, SOMEBODY would be, bad guy or not!

[Segnosaur]

>>>What "emotion" does that appeal to, other than perhaps your emotion of being unable to admit you're wrong?

I was referring to your emotions. You dont have a clue or field experience but you are right and you keep repeating it in hopes that one day it will become so.

While it may be possible that you have more field experience than RubberChicken (or myself), keep in mind that many of the claims made by him and I are based on statements made by John Douglas, who IS a rather well-noted criminal profiler and DOES have substantially more field experience in the field of murder investigation than anyone on this board.

When he claims "some people appear calm in these situations", he's referring to statements made by professionals. Its a shame that we don't have John Douglas on this board here to ask questions to directly, but we do have access to many of the books that he's written on the subject.

[Segnosaur]

Here's a link to the actual note:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/ransom1.html

My reaction is that the note is a fake. That, of course, is not a big surprise since she wasn't kidnapped. It just doesn't read as real. So that means that somebody got into a house where the family was home, fashioned a weapon from the basement, and killed the daughter. Then with a dead body lying around and a sleeping family that might stir at any time, the person wrote a couple of drafts of a rather lengthy ransom note, then put the final version on the stairs.

Once again, I'll defer to the opinion of Criminal Profiler John Douglas, who pointed out that it is extremely unlikey that the note was written after the death. Anyone involved in the murder would probably not have had the presence of mind at that point (with the excitement/adreneline/etc.) to calmly fashion a note.

I could also ask... why would they bother? If the child is dead, you'd have no chance at collecting ransom, so why bother leaving behind potential evidence?

This note revealed that the murderer knew the family (the request for $118,000 and the use of the first and last name of the father).

Acutally, there are a couple of other possibilities:

- The father probably had left varioius pay stubs around; any potential killer/kidnapper lurking for a time in the empty house may have had the opportunity to notice one of these stubs.

- One of the police investigating the case noticed that $118,000 at the time worked out to roughly 1 million mexican pesos. A potential kidnapper might have decided to collect the ransom and then flee the country, and 1 million pesos is a nice round number.

If the murder 'knew' the family, they'd know the family had a lot more than just $118,000. why not ask for more?

[Segnosaur]

She had a severe skull fracture, which would have killed her, but she was strangled. One theory is that she could have fallen against the bath tub when struck by the mother...an accident, which then somehow escalated.
I recall that being discussed a lot. That the garotte was to cover up the fact she was killed via the head trauma.


This probably isn't likely...

Head wounds tend to bleed a lot.... if the head injury happened first, you might find evidence of blood in the bathroom (or wherever the injury occured).

On the other hand, strangling FIRST would have slowed/stopped the heart, so that any head injury would not bleed as much.

[Uncayimmy]

Yes, similar to the Monday morning lamenting that "If only I had been quarterback for the Chiefs, we would have won!"
More likely, you would have just made different mistakes, maybe even more serious ones. You are no more qualified to do investigations than I am, yet you seem to think you're some kind of internet Sherlock Holmes. Sorry, Watson.

Your analogy is silly.

Beyond that, I think you are confusing armchair analysis of the data with the obvious blunders by the police.

First off, the entire house was a crime scene. That's patently obvious. You have a child missing from the home, ostensibly taken from her bed. You have a ransom note left on the back stairs. Obviously, somebody had to enter the home, move through the home by himself, then exit the home transporting a little girl. Evidence could be anywhere inside or around the home. It's a freaking crime scene!

The only thing the cops did was put police tape up at the door to her room. They allowed people to walk all around the house and yard. And not just the family, we're talking friends as well. Nobody had been eliminated as a suspect at that point. This was a horrendous blunder.

Second, they did a cursory search for forced entry but came up empty. So what does that tell you? It's a very strong indicator that it was an "inside job" of some sort. Couple this with the fact that most crimes like this are not done by strangers and you have to be thinking family and friends rather than psycho off the street. So why let the most likely suspects hang around the crime scene?

Third, they sent the father and a friend to look around the house for things out of ordinary. These are suspects. You don't send them off unsupervised to look for evidence at a crime scene. That's just ridiculous.

Fourth, they didn't do a thorough search of the house. We're not talking about a forensics tech missing a drop of blood behind the stove. We're talking about not opening the door to the wine cellar and missing an unlatched window in the basement.

Fifth, they let a potential witness sleep (the son) instead of asking him if he saw or heard anything that night.

This was a horribly botched investigation. They had 7 hours to do or think of all that stuff, which is really standard operating procedure. To use your Monday Morning Quarterback analogy, it's like bitching that the coach punted on third down from the opponent's 20 yard line while down by 2 points with 30 seconds left in the game.

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

>>>I cited a fact about the case that contradicted your "suspicion."

Thats why we look at the total body of evidence.

Yes, which also entails understanding when things are not evidence. Like your "suspicion" about why John Ramsey searched the house, which is the specific piece of "evidence" (or non-evidence as it turned out to be) we were discussing.


>>>What "emotion" does that appeal to, other than perhaps your emotion of being unable to admit you're wrong?

I was referring to your emotions. You dont have a clue or field experience but you are right and you keep repeating it in hopes that one day it will become so.

So are you disputing the fact that John Ramsey searched the house because the police asked him?

That was what we were talking about. And it was what you claimed was first "a different subject" and then "an appeal to emotion." Otherwise, what the heck are you talking about?

I appreciate you admitting that I am right, though.


You still never address the question about your experience on the scene of a crime

I have this weird thing about not answering completely irrelevant questions. Call it a personality quirk.


not circular- staying on point- but you wouldnt understand that would you?

When I'm talking with someone who doesn't have a point -- yes, that makes it a bit difficult.

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

While it may be possible that you have more field experience than RubberChicken (or myself), keep in mind that many of the claims made by him and I are based on statements made by John Douglas, who IS a rather well-noted criminal profiler and DOES have substantially more field experience in the field of murder investigation than anyone on this board.

When he claims "some people appear calm in these situations", he's referring to statements made by professionals. Its a shame that we don't have John Douglas on this board here to ask questions to directly, but we do have access to many of the books that he's written on the subject.

And just to be clear: on the topic we were discussing (victim reactions) I indeed have real world experience in dealing with both crime victims and people in other crisis situations, several involving the death of a friend or loved one. I mentioned it more than once in this discussion, it's just been ignored -- I guess because I don't feel the need to post my entire resume on a message board to complete strangers (crazy, I know!).

EDIT: That said, I would still defer to the books and experience of Mr. Douglas, over my own experience.

[Olowkow]

This probably isn't likely...

Head wounds tend to bleed a lot.... if the head injury happened first, you might find evidence of blood in the bathroom (or wherever the injury occured).

On the other hand, strangling FIRST would have slowed/stopped the heart, so that any head injury would not bleed as much.

Thanks for the input. Well, apparently no blood was found, so does that rule out completely head trauma happening first? Your use of the word "might" causes me some concern. Do you have a medical reference for this?

I am familiar with some of what Douglas has written, he is very good. What if it is not an intruder though. The only thing we all have a problem with is how parents could possibly be so callous, as to sit down after an accidental rage killing of a child, and coldly compose a scenario to prevent their involvement from being discovered and (hence :D)their being punished. It happens.

[Olowkow]

And just to be clear: on the topic we were discussing (victim reactions) I indeed have real world experience in dealing with both crime victims and people in other crisis situations, several involving the death of a friend or loved one. I mentioned it more than once in this discussion, it's just been ignored -- I guess because I don't feel the need to post my entire resume on a message board to complete strangers (crazy, I know!).

Nothing personal, but there have been a lot of appeals to authority going on here. None of us has real knowledge of this crime, so we are all just guessing. It's just an intellectual game. I am not ignoring you, but I guess the problem is, what can one say to "Hey, I'm an expert." "OH, okay".

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

Nothing personal, but there have been a lot of appeals to authority going on here. None of us has real knowledge of this crime, so we are all just guessing. It's just an intellectual game. I am not ignoring you, but I guess the problem is, what can one say to "Hey, I'm an expert." "OH, okay".

Hey, I agree. I initially only mentioned my experience in response to someone trying to dismiss my opinion because I supposedly don't have "field experience," and all that nonsense. I attempted to cite other experts (as Segnosaur noted) and another specific case to bolster my point. These were also ignored, apparently for the same reason.

So I'm with you. I'm just here to enjoy a lively discussion, that's about it.

[Olowkow]

Hey, I agree. ....
So I'm with you. I'm just here to enjoy a lively discussion, that's about it.

Cool, glad you took no offense.
Probably about 10 years ago, I got really hooked on reading every non-fiction crime book I could find. At the time I had some friends in law enforcement, and I loved to pick their brains. I really think everyone here respects the experience of those who are participating, it's just that we are all looking for more than opinions, however well informed. At least for me, it would be nice to have some really convincing evidence of what the heck happened. I keep saying it, wow, what a mystery.

BUT, to many people the OJ case is still a mystery.

[Segnosaur]

Thanks for the input. Well, apparently no blood was found, so does that rule out completely head trauma happening first? Your use of the word "might" causes me some concern. Do you have a medical reference for this?

Well, there is a chance that maybe the parents were really really good at cleaning up any blood evidence. Or maybe the cops overlooked signs of blood elsewhere in the house. (After all, they messed up so much with the case.) However, given the excessive attention the Ramsey's received, I figure the cops would be eager to find any evidence like that.

Its a case of looking at odds...what's more likely, that the parents were some of the rare people who were able to successfully clean up after themselves, or that there was no blood because the head was not bleading because of the strangulation.

(I should also point out that the coroner's report mentioned petechial hemorrhages, which likely wouldn't occur if she were already dead prior to the strangulation.)

I am familiar with some of what Douglas has written, he is very good. What if it is not an intruder though. The only thing we all have a problem with is how parents could possibly be so callous, as to sit down after an accidental rage killing of a child, and coldly compose a scenario to prevent their involvement from being discovered and (hence :D)their being punished. It happens.

Again, if you look at the odds, its not JUST that the parents were callous following the murder, but it was also that:

- They would spontaneiously lash out in rage in the first place, when there has been no evidence that the Ramseys ever abused their children BEFORE. Yeah, its physically possible, but they'd be an exceptionally rare case.

- That they would be organized enough to be able to dispose of any and all incriminating evidence. No blood elsewhere, no sign of the tape or rope that was used.

[LTC8K6]

Was the head injury an open one?

[LTC8K6]

"Now listen to me carefully."
"Now listen. Listen very carefully."
"It sounds like you had a good rest. You'll need it."

Some of the phrases the kidnapper in Dirty Harry uses.

[LTC8K6]

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/search1.html

This is a good read. The search warrant account of what happened when the police arrived and how JB was found is interesting.

[Olowkow]

Was the head injury an open one?
The search warrant states that there was a skull fracture 8.5" from front to rear, the entire length of the skull...and a displaced piece of skull 1.75 x .5", but no mention is made of bleeding of the skull. ETA: consistent with a blow to the head, or falling in a bathtub???
Sorry, the document won't let me copy and paste.

[Beerina]

ETA: The author does say that one of the unknown questions is why didn't the killer bring a note with him. He suggests a couple of ideas... perhaps the killer did bring one, but decided to re-write it while waiting, or perhaps, if this had been his first 'kill', he may not have thought of a note until later. Its one of the elements that we may never understand.

He also pointed out that it would not have been likely for anyone to compose a ransom note AFTER the murder, since the excitement/thrill/or whatever would have made it difficult for the killer to focus. So, if the mother had done it, she would have had to compose the note FIRST (including any rough drafts), THEN kill the daughter.


I'd think after the murder you'd wanna get the hell out of there and abandon the ransom plan. Why stick around wasting time putting together a note when, at that point, you'd know its only purpose would be to delay finding the body by an hour or two, if you're lucky? Hell, if anything, it would accelerate finding the body since the first thing people would do would be to scour the house looking for clues.

Best to let the parents just search, worried, for half an hour or hour, hoping she fell asleep under a bed or went to the neighbors because she saw them playing their new Playstation before calling the police.

[Olowkow]

Not much to disagree with there. I can't get past the handwriting analysis. It is just so close, that is it really hard to ignore.

[LTC8K6]

Perhaps the idea of kidnapping JB was formed on the fly when the opportunity presented itself? This would account for the perp not being prepared.

Maybe the intent was just a robbery of the house and then the opportunity came up to kidnap JB, but she was killed during the attempt to control her? Perhaps one of those check stubs influenced the idea to kidnap JB?

Or maybe the intent was to sexually assault JB, and she was killed in that attempt and then the ransom ruse is used to confuse law enforcement?

Perhaps the body is moved to the wine cellar just for the probable delay in discovery.

[Segnosaur]

Not much to disagree with there. I can't get past the handwriting analysis. It is just so close, that is it really hard to ignore.

Actually, the handwriting (matching the Mother's writing with the note's) wasn't "close". There were enough similarities that it couldn't be discounted, but appaently the same would go for millions of other people.

[Segnosaur]

Was the head injury an open one? The search warrant states that there was a skull fracture 8.5" from front to rear, the entire length of the skull...and a displaced piece of skull 1.75 x .5", but no mention is made of bleeding of the skull.
True, the injury wasn't bleeding. That could either be due to JonBenet being dead already (because of the asphixia, as bruising seemed to indicate) or because the wound didn't break the skin.

I'm not a doctor, but wouldn't such a serious wound cause bleeding in normal circumstances? The scalp is pretty rich in blood vessels, and someting running the entire lengh of the skull sounds pretty significant.


ETA: consistent with a blow to the head, or falling in a bathtub???


I believe that the coroner suggested it was more consistent with a blow to the head.

[Segnosaur]

Perhaps the idea of kidnapping JB was formed on the fly when the opportunity presented itself? This would account for the perp not being prepared.

But the perp WAS prepared... at least partly. After all, he did bring rope and duct tape with him. (At least the rope and tape used did not match any that were in the house.)

Plus, as I mentioned before, there were possible marks left on the body that came from a Tazer.

Its possible that the suspect forgot the note (hey, not like there's some sort of 'master checklist' that kidnappers use, is there?). Or its possible that he decided to rewrite it while waiting (perhaps after seeing the bonus amounts on the pay stubs.) Or perhaps the suspect was thinking ahead and didn't want to run the risk of bringing a note written on his own paper. All of them seem like reasonable alternatives.

Maybe the intent was just a robbery of the house and then the opportunity came up to kidnap JB, but she was killed during the attempt to control her?

But again, if the note were written AFTER the killing, then why bother? Its not going to help at all, and leads to a higher chance of getting caught. And would you expect the suspect to have the frame of mind to concentrate on writing a note after the death? He wouldn't have been some stone-cold killer.

[Alt+F4]

Its possible that the suspect forgot the note (hey, not like there's some sort of 'master checklist' that kidnappers use, is there?). Or its possible that he decided to rewrite it while waiting (perhaps after seeing the bonus amounts on the pay stubs.) Or perhaps the suspect was thinking ahead and didn't want to run the risk of bringing a note written on his own paper. All of them seem like reasonable alternatives.

I remember reading somewhere that the bonus was paid to John Ramsey about a year before the murder so I doubt there would be a pay stub still lying around for someone to see.

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

I remember reading somewhere that the bonus was paid to John Ramsey about a year before the murder so I doubt there would be a pay stub still lying around for someone to see.

I think it was mentioned here earlier in a cite, but the "bonus" was actually deferred compensation, and was listed on all of his pay stubs from the year (same fiscal year as when JonBenet was murdered. So it would have been on his pay stub from that December as well.

[Alt+F4]

I think it was mentioned here earlier in a cite, but the "bonus" was actually deferred compensation, and was listed on all of his pay stubs from the year (same fiscal year as when JonBenet was murdered. So it would have been on his pay stub from that December as well.

Ah, ok. I wonder if John Ramsey was ever asked where he kept his pay stubs. If he kept them with his other financial papers then the note writer would have easily seen he was worth much more than $118,000.

There is also the possibility that is was just a coincidence that the bonus amount and ransom amount were the same.

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

Ah, ok. I wonder if John Ramsey was ever asked where he kept his pay stubs. If he kept them with his other financial papers then the note writer would have easily seen he was worth much more than $118,000.

There is also the possibility that is was just a coincidence that the bonus amount and ransom amount were the same.

The other possibility is that it was someone he worked with who had access to company financial information or had heard about the bonus. Given how personal the letter sounds, it sure seems like it was someone familiar with him. The company he worked for said that only a limited few people would have access to the amount of his bonus, but in a small company, it wouldn't shock me if word got out somehow. One off-hand comment by an accountant or financial analyst or to a buddy would be enough.