A Comparable Case to the Ramsey Case?

[julianne]

why thank you Buzz. Glad to be here to tell it. I have 7 brothers and sisters so we probably would have attacked the guy anyway.
I think breaking into homes without leaving any clues is nothing for the pros. Moreover, I believe if the R's were indeed trying to cover up to make it look like an intruder, they would have made a very very obvious point of entry for their manufactured intruder. I think this would have been the first thing on their cover up list. Clear forced entry location. basic cover up 101, IMO. Ransom notes are in a more advanced course lol.

That WAS a close call, JBean, and I concur with Buzz that we're glad your still here to tell the story!!!

Ya know, in all the years knowing that there was no forced entry at the Ramsey's, it never occurred to me that if they were indeed guilty, they would've staged some forced entry first and foremost, IMO. Your right--that would be in Basic Coverup 101.

Interesting....

 

[JBean]

That WAS a close call, JBean, and I concur with Buzz that we're glad your still here to tell the story!!!

Ya know, in all the years knowing that there was no forced entry at the Ramsey's, it never occurred to me that if they were indeed guilty, they would've staged some forced entry first and foremost, IMO. Your right--that would be in Basic Coverup 101.

Interesting....

Thanks J.
All I know is , if I was trying to convince someone there was a break in, I would have made sure there was a break in. I think the notion of trying to finger someone with a key is such a long way around, why not take the shorter route? Don't make no sense at all.

 

[sandraladeda]

At first glance, this other case may appear similar, and one would hope this case was considered by the JBR investigators.

I find there to be a great difference between a 6 year old victim and a 14 year old. A 14 year old would not appeal to a pedo in the way a 6 year old would. I have a 14 yo, they are young women, physically, and a pedo does not want a young woman...imo.

As the intruder was heard by the mother, we will never know if he was just about to write a ransom note, or construct a garrote (did he have rope in his pockets?), or if he was just preparing to redress her in too large panties or feed her pineapple.

There are other factors which muddy the waters of the JBR case when compared to this one - in the 1997 case, the mother's sweater fibers and the father's shirt fibers were presumably not the only fibers present on the body or at the crime scene, and then there is the matter of the evidence of past sexual abuse of JBR.

If, indeed the assailant of this 14 year old girl was taken into custody and was looked at for the JBR murder, I think it is safe to say his lawyer would have little difficulty pointing out reasonable doubt as to his guilt for the murder of JBR.

The only link I see is the dance studio. This does not impress me that much, because I know that most girls in my quadrant of this city attend the same dance studio (I know this because their annual end of season dance recital decimates our annual community soccer tournament - we can't field girls teams, so many of them are attending the same dance recital), so if a girl who dances and lives 2 miles away from the Rs attends the same dance studio, I don't think that is a big "aha!" for me.

Lying in wait in the home/car/garage is also an MO that is not exactly unusual for a rapist....

imho

 

[julianne]

At first glance, this other case may appear similar, and one would hope this case was considered by the JBR investigators.

I find there to be a great difference between a 6 year old victim and a 14 year old. A 14 year old would not appeal to a pedo in the way a 6 year old would. I have a 14 yo, they are young women, physically, and a pedo does not want a young woman...imo.

As the intruder was heard by the mother, we will never know if he was just about to write a ransom note, or construct a garrote (did he have rope in his pockets?), or if he was just preparing to redress her in too large panties or feed her pineapple.

There are other factors which muddy the waters of the JBR case when compared to this one - in the 1997 case, the mother's sweater fibers and the father's shirt fibers were presumably not the only fibers present on the body or at the crime scene, and then there is the matter of the evidence of past sexual abuse of JBR.

If, indeed the assailant of this 14 year old girl was taken into custody and was looked at for the JBR murder, I think it is safe to say his lawyer would have little difficulty pointing out reasonable doubt as to his guilt for the murder of JBR.

The only link I see is the dance studio. This does not impress me that much, because I know that most girls in my quadrant of this city attend the same dance studio (I know this because their annual end of season dance recital decimates our annual community soccer tournament - we can't field girls teams, so many of them are attending the same dance recital), so if a girl who dances and lives 2 miles away from the Rs attends the same dance studio, I don't think that is a big "aha!" for me.

Lying in wait in the home/car/garage is also an MO that is not exactly unusual for a rapist....

imho

That's just it, though...this case WASN'T considered by the JBR investigators! Most of the JBR investigators didn't even KNOW about the sexual assault of this girl by an intruder until almost 4 years later! And when they were told about it, the words of Steve Ainsworth, a Boulder County police detective, were "I'M SHOCKED."

You're right that there is a big difference between a 6 year old and a 14 year old. But you can't say that a pedophile wouldn't want to assault a 14 year old if given the opportunity. All sexual predators have one thing in common when it comes to what it takes to commit their crimes.....OPPORTUNITY. A pedophile is a crazed, deranged type of personality....to say he would draw the line at a 14 year old because she wouldn't fit his "ideal" is really giving pedos more credit than they deserve. Are you saying that someone who brutally sexually assaults a 14 year old girl is NOT a pedophile??????

How can you say anything regarding fibers left at the scene in 1997? I don't believe anything is published regarding that, and if so, please direct me to the link. We cant inject self-made facts into a case ....

You stated:
"so if a girl who dances and lives 2 miles away from the Rs attends the same dance studio, I don't think that is a big "aha!" for me."

Except "that girl who dances and lives 2 miles away from the Rs attends the same dance studio", also had an intruder who broke into her home, waited inside for 4 long hours until Mom was asleep, sexually assaulted the girl with an object or finger, left no signs of forced entry into the home, and escaped without being caught..

Nope. No similarities at all. Not one. LOL! Geez, I have no idea why the detective said he was "shocked" to learn of this crime. Crazy guy!

 

[Zelda]

This is very interesting. Since I am an IDI, I find it especially interesting.

I personally don't think getting though locked doors or windows is a problem for professional criminals, so maybe the JBR intruder came ealry, maybe not. I can see it going both ways in my mind.

Maybe some of you recall the murder of Valerie Percy,daughter of Senator Charles Percy in '66, which is still unsolved although it could and should be. This was where I grew up and i lived not very far from the Percy home. Anyway, the night before she was murdered, we had an intruder in our home, he crept through the second floor while we all slept. My father inadvertantly scared him away, he heard someone in my mother's dressing room. He left through a window.There tool markings on the screen, a footrpint in the flowerbed and a bent gutter where he hung to drop from the 2 nd floor. It was ultimately determined that our intruder was most likely the same intruder that killed Valerie Percy. There were many simialrities and at least the LE made that connection. The break in at our home helped further the investigation, but still the murder has never been solved.
Like Boulder,the town of Kenilworth probably had very few, if any, murders so this was something LE was just not used to handling.
That unsolved case often reminds me of JBR only in that it really should have been solved, but the LE just wasn't equipped to handle a case like this. IMO.At least they checked out our connection for simialrities throughly.

A case like the one referenced should have risen right to the top for the JBR investigation and that is a real concern.



ETA: I should also add that the Percy family went into seclusion in California almost immediately after the murder, even though the murder was in Illinois. So, innocent people do sometimes leave town right away after their child is murdered. They relayed any information to Illinois investigators through their "associates" that is, not personally.FWIW

I was always interested in this case. Valerie was Sharon's twin sister. Are there any web sites about the murder?

 

[julianne]

Well, julianne, some of us RDIs don't believe that the vaginal injury JonBenet received was sexually motivated. That changes the crime a bit.

I understand that RDI's don't think it was sexually motivated, but my point is...How can ANYONE know what would motivate anyone to stick a foreign object into the vagina of a 6 year old girl?

 

[LinasK]

At first glance, this other case may appear similar, and one would hope this case was considered by the JBR investigators.

I find there to be a great difference between a 6 year old victim and a 14 year old. A 14 year old would not appeal to a pedo in the way a 6 year old would.

As the intruder was heard by the mother, we will never know if he was just about to write a ransom note, or construct a garrote (did he have rope in his pockets?), or if he was just preparing to redress her in too large panties or feed her pineapple.

There are other factors which muddy the waters of the JBR case when compared to this one - in the 1997 case, the mother's sweater fibers and the father's shirt fibers were presumably not the only fibers present on the body or at the crime scene, and then there is the matter of the evidence of past sexual abuse of JBR.

If, indeed the assailant of this 14 year old girl was taken into custody and was looked at for the JBR murder, I think it is safe to say his lawyer would have little difficulty pointing out reasonable doubt as to his guilt for the murder of JBR.

The only link I see is the dance studio. This does not impress me that much, because I know that most girls in my quadrant of this city attend the same dance studio (I know this because their annual end of season dance recital decimates our annual community soccer tournament - we can't field girls teams, so many of them are attending the same dance recital), so if a girl who dances and lives 2 miles away from the Rs attends the same dance studio, I don't think that is a big "aha!" for me.

Lying in wait in the home/car/garage is also an MO that is not exactly unusual for a rapist....

imho

I agree with you Sandra, not strong enough of a link compared to the Ramsey fibers that can't be explained, their non-cooperative fleeing-type behavior, the lies about the pineapple, and the ransom note. Same dance studio? It's a coincidence, that's all...

 

[Rupert]

The fact that the 14 year old girl went to the same dance studio is interesting. This needs to be investigated more.

Why no description? Why no DNA? A clever high risk intruder.

 

[OceanEyes]

I find it strange that in the 2nd case, the intruder performed oral sex on the girl, but there was no DNA. John Karr also claimed to perform oral sex on JonBenet, and didn't he say that there would be no DNA? That's a weird coincidence.

 

[Buzz Mills]

I find it strange that in the 2nd case, the intruder performed oral sex on the girl, but there was no DNA. John Karr also claimed to perform oral sex on JonBenet, and didn't he say that there would be no DNA? That's a weird coincidence.

The science of collecting, and testing for, DNA, has improved dramatically in the last ten years. John Mark Karr said that his DNA might not match the DNA collected from Jon Benet.

 

[LinasK]

The science of collecting, and testing for, DNA, has improved dramatically in the last ten years. John Mark Karr said that his DNA might not match the DNA collected from Jon Benet.

That's because JMKarr was never in that basement, only in his imagination!

 

[Camper]

It was my impression from the news coverage of this event (14 yr old) that the BPD was all over this like a GORILLA.

It was in the press forever, here in the Denver area. Plus I am recalling a 'special' that was poorly done, tying this pervert to another pervert, and that they both wore LOTS OF BLACK.

As one poster stated, perverted attackers will find it quote easy to 'slip' into a home, IF IF they are prepared to do so, (their own tools etc.)

IF YOU like this 14 year olds aborted attack, YOU should really like Susannah Chase murder almost one year to the same date, Christmas time, as Jon Benets. Susannah was murdered in 1997, downtown Boulder, just a couple blocks from Paughs apartment.

Initially attacked near Pasta Jays, WITH a ballbat, in the alley. She was bludgeoned to death with the BALL BAT, when the killer tracked her down in a CAR.

Susannah was a runner from a young age, and had ribbons and awards for her running prowess. I kept a lot of info on this case, it is packed in my garage too.

She attended CU and her family was BIG INTO BOATING.

She looked so much like JonBenet when she was tiny, and as a young woman as well, she was beautiful, and I will never forget her.

My opinion is that it is possible that the same person who killed Susannah, killed JonBenet.

Hmmm.

.

 

[BBB167893]

"Well, julianne, some of us RDIs don't believe that the vaginal injury JonBenet received was sexually motivated. That changes the crime a bit."

I'll say. The other girl was legitimately attacked sexually. JB's assault was part of the staging.

"Don't let facts get in their way."

Sure, much easier to believe what you tell me!

"Moreover, I believe if the R's were indeed trying to cover up to make it look like an intruder, they would have made a very very obvious point of entry for their manufactured intruder. I think this would have been the first thing on their cover up list. Clear forced entry location. basic cover up 101, IMO."

I already went through this once! But, since I was apparently ignored, here we go again:

"In answer to the question posed above, "why did they not leave an 'obvious' means of entry and exit into the house?," it looks very much like someone DID. The scene at the basement window certainy looks like a staged break-in. What else could it be? It was determined by the police on the scene, who examined that window very carefully (unlike Smit, who worked only with photos), that no one could have passed through it without leaving obvious signs. No such signs were found. Yet the window was both broken and open on the morning of the 26th. If no one passed through it, then how did all that debris from the well find its way to the floor? If it had been scooped from the well, that would explain the disturbance Smit saw in the photos he examined. Who could have scooped it? And who could have placed a suitcase directly beneath that same window? How is all this evidence to be explained if not as staging? It certainly didn't get there on its own."

"I understand that RDI's don't think it was sexually motivated, but my point is...How can ANYONE know what would motivate anyone to stick a foreign object into the vagina of a 6 year old girl?"

Let's ask them! Oops! I DID!

Here you go:

"The sexual violation of JonBenet, whether pre or postmortem did not appear to have been committed for the perpetrators gratification. The penetration, which caused minor genital trauma, was more likely part of a staged crime scene intended to mislead the police." PMPT

 

[Honibugs]

Moreover, I believe if the R's were indeed trying to cover up to make it look like an intruder, they would have made a very very obvious point of entry for their manufactured intruder.

:woohoo: I am sure glad that someone has finally pointed this out. They did all of this thoughtful staging, but must have forgot to make an obvious point of entry. How clever.

 

[SleuthingSleuth]

Moreover, I believe if the R's were indeed trying to cover up to make it look like an intruder, they would have made a very very obvious point of entry for their manufactured intruder. I think this would have been the first thing on their cover up list. Clear forced entry location. basic cover up 101, IMO. Ransom notes are in a more advanced course lol.

Thanks J.
All I know is , if I was trying to convince someone there was a break in, I would have made sure there was a break in. I think the notion of trying to finger someone with a key is such a long way around, why not take the shorter route? Don't make no sense at all.

I too would have made an obvious POE of entry were I staging a break in crime, if possible.

However...perhaps the Ramseys were worried about being perhaps seen or heard breaking a window from the outside or some such. Wouldn't want someone calling 911 before they were ready for that call to be made.
Perhaps instead of risking staging forced entry, they planned to have things point towards someone with a key (after all, a rich family vs. the housekeeper...they'd figure it a sureshot. AKA "wealthy logic"). It would seem like a safe thing to do.
Along the way though they might have become worried that story might not stick...and along comes the basement window idea (as it's too late by then to stage forced entry without anyone knowing).

The whole deal with the basement window...that seems like something that was thought up on the 26th, and not the 25th. On the spot sort of thing when an original plan possibly could go south.

The Ramseys clearly were dropping hints to "investigate the housekeeper". Upon hearing Jonbenet was dead, John openly said that it had to be an "inside job". Why would John so conveniently offer up that nugget of thought at that time within earshot of the detective on the scene? Ahhh, but to motion towards the housekeeper, whom Patsy would later emphasize as being the only other person in Colorado having the only other keys to the house (which was false).

 

[JBean]

I too would have made an obvious POE of entry were I staging a break in crime, if possible.

However...perhaps the Ramseys were worried about being perhaps seen or heard breaking a window from the outside or some such. Wouldn't want someone calling 911 before they were ready for that call to be made.
Perhaps instead of risking staging forced entry, they planned to have things point towards someone with a key (after all, a rich family vs. the housekeeper...they'd figure it a sureshot. AKA "wealthy logic"). It would seem like a safe thing to do.
Along the way though they might have become worried that story might not stick...and along comes the basement window idea (as it's too late by then to stage forced entry without anyone knowing).

The whole deal with the basement window...that seems like something that was thought up on the 26th, and not the 25th. On the spot sort of thing when an original plan possibly could go south.

The Ramseys clearly were dropping hints to "investigate the housekeeper". Upon hearing Jonbenet was dead, John openly said that it had to be an "inside job". Why would John so conveniently offer up that nugget of thought at that time within earshot of the detective on the scene? Ahhh, but to motion towards the housekeeper, whom Patsy would later emphasize as being the only other person in Colorado having the only other keys to the house (which was false).

maybe he thought it was an inside job because he didn't do it and there was no obvious point of entry. Since the poe wasn't obvious THEY REALLY DID THINK it had to be someone with a key because they are telling the truth.
I don't buy the staged intruder with a key. Just doesn't add up. I think they could have jimmied a window or door with relatively little noise. have the presence of mind to write an RN, but no true break in? nope.Can't go with that, JMHO of course.

 

[sandraladeda]

The Ramseys clearly were dropping hints to "investigate the housekeeper". Upon hearing Jonbenet was dead, John openly said that it had to be an "inside job". Why would John so conveniently offer up that nugget of thought at that time within earshot of the detective on the scene? Ahhh, but to motion towards the housekeeper, whom Patsy would later emphasize as being the only other person in Colorado having the only other keys to the house (which was false).

When JR said "it had to be an inside job", he certainly wasn't pointing the finger at himself, PR or BR! Who did that leave?

imo, the RN pointed to a FF or a disgruntled AG employee who knew JR's bonus amount, the staged sexual assault pointed at a pedo, and, as you say, the R's tossed LHP's name into the hat. Had there been a blatant point of entry staged, this would have taken away from the LHP accusation. She had a key - why would she break in?

 

[SleuthingSleuth]

maybe he thought it was an inside job because he didn't do it and there was no obvious point of entry. Since the poe wasn't obvious THEY REALLY DID THINK it had to be someone with a key because they are telling the truth.
I don't buy the staged intruder with a key. Just doesn't add up. I think they could have jimmied a window or door with relatively little noise. have the presence of mind to write an RN, but no true break in? nope.Can't go with that, JMHO of course.

John was already well aware of the basement window that would become "the" POE according to the Ramsey team. In fact, he'd showed Fleet the window prior to finding Jonbenet's body.
John's statement is thereby strange.

Something to bear in mind, is that if the Ramseys did it, the staging wasn't perfect. The RN was written the way someone thought RN's were supposed to sound. The garrotte was imperfect in construction and use. Strangulation was done on a victim who appeared to be dead already.
The crime itself has an air of confusion as to what it's supposed to be. Botched kinapping? Brutal murder by a pedophile?
In the Ramsey mind, a break in may have meant more like a broken window then simply a jostled door. That is, in thinking what they might have thought a break in should look like.

One could say the whole sequence of events with the Ramseys was an revolving door of pointing fingers...and their behavior afterwards, pointing fingers at anybody and everybody, seems to fit in with it.
If it's not the housekeeper, it must be an intruder...if not that, well, then it must be Fleet White, etc. The Ramseys pointed fingers at just about everybody.

 

[rashomon]

Great find SleuthingSleuth. It's amazing that none of the investigators on the Ramsey case were even made aware of this case, and should we say that, it is, or isn't, very surprising that the owner of the Dance Studio wasn't interviewed about either case. The Boulder PD and the D.A. had a very bad case of myopia....almost a criminal case of myopia.

I don't see many similarites. Sexual assault does happen, and perps like e. g. Ted Bundy used to hide in houses too.

But one has to look at the whole picture. There was no ransom note in the case you mentioned, and no staged scene at all.
And since in the JB case, Patsy Ramsey obviously wrote the ransom note, what does that say? That she covered up for someone. Now would Patsy cover up for a sexual predator? Of course not.
In addition, all IDIs have to consider the Ramseys' highly suspicious behavior right from the start.

 

[BBB167893]

"However...perhaps the Ramseys were worried about being perhaps seen or heard breaking a window from the outside or some such. Wouldn't want someone calling 911 before they were ready for that call to be made.
Perhaps instead of risking staging forced entry, they planned to have things point towards someone with a key (after all, a rich family vs. the housekeeper...they'd figure it a sureshot. AKA "wealthy logic"). It would seem like a safe thing to do.
Along the way though they might have become worried that story might not stick...and along comes the basement window idea (as it's too late by then to stage forced entry without anyone knowing)."

I've been saying that for years. Not that it matters, I guess.

"have the presence of mind to write an RN, but no true break in? nope.Can't go with that, JMHO of course."

Nobody can figure them all, JBean. But, since you insist, I shall indulge you:

In answer to the question posed above, "why did they not leave an 'obvious' means of entry and exit into the house?," it looks very much like someone DID. The scene at the basement window certainy looks like a staged break-in. What else could it be? It was determined by the police on the scene, who examined that window very carefully (unlike Smit, who worked only with photos), that no one could have passed through it without leaving obvious signs. No such signs were found. Yet the window was both broken and open on the morning of the 26th. If no one passed through it, then how did all that debris from the well find its way to the floor? If it had been scooped from the well, that would explain the disturbance Smit saw in the photos he examined. Who could have scooped it? And who could have placed a suitcase directly beneath that same window? How is all this evidence to be explained if not as staging? It certainly didn't get there on its own.

"Something to bear in mind, is that if the Ramseys did it, the staging wasn't perfect."

THANK YOU! The staging wasn't "thoughtful." It was extremely amateurish.

You want the opinion of the experts? Here you go, from the mouths of the CASKU agents:

"Staging" and "staging within staging."

"In addition, all IDIs have to consider the Ramseys' highly suspicious behavior right from the start."

Good luck!