Are the Ramseys involved or not?

[questfortrue]

Not sure if the Ramsey's are master criminals or that they are any sort of genius's. I think it was a perfect storm of bad police work and timing with a whole lot of confusion thrown in by the Ramseys. LE should have seen this for what it probably was right from the beginning. The Ramseys should have been confined to one room and no guests should have been allowed access. Dogs should have been brought in early and the Ramseys should have been taken in for questioning the moment the body was found. The biggest problem was that the cops bought in to that convoluted ransom note despite being advised by the FBI that it was likely fake. If they had treated the scene as a possible kidnapping/possible foul play scene from the beginning, John and Patsy would probably still be locked up in a jail somewhere.

A perfect storm, an elusive perpetrator, or a train wreck, and the train was driven by AH and ML. . .

Mark McLish from We Know You are Lying: Over the years, the Ramseys have stated several times they believe this was a kidnapping that turned into a murder. John Ramsey reaffirms this belief, “We think it was a kidnapping… and something went terribly wrong.” However, when Larry King asked Patsy Ramsey what would be the point of a ransom note when JonBenet’s body was left in the house, she responds “I don’t know.” Why didn’t she say she thought this was a kidnapping? That the kidnapper wrote the note, but then for some reason killed JonBenet before he left the house? She goes on to say, “I think it was a ruse to throw us off.” She is now supporting the theory that JonBenet was intentionally murdered, and the murderer left the note to confuse the police.

SuperDave from book An Angel Betrayed: Steve Ainswroth "did a break-dance to make the evidence fit an intruder, believing that the intruder staged the crime scene so it looked like the R’s had staged the crime scene to look like an intruder. Confused yet? . . .”

Patsy: “We have a kidnapping!”

ML: We have DNA!

Alan Prendergast: But as discussed in this week's feature story about how the Ramsey homicide investigation turned into a train wreck drawing conclusions about a phantom perpetrator based on the microscopic amounts of "touch" DNA what Lacy is talking about is a hazardous business.

As Dan Krane, a nationally known biochemist and DNA expert, told me, "Someone has optimistically concluded that they can have confidence in these results, and that just seems misguided."

 

[andreww]

I don't buy the spider web. Because my husband has knocked down a huge web and then it is back in hours. They are adept at making them. That spider thing is the weakest argument for me. Because that happens to be a perfect way for someone to get in, and now there is an impenetrable web. If the front door was open then it would be something wrong with that entrance/exit.

Except that this was winter. Spiders don't make webs in the winter. Try again.

 

[andreww]

And don't forget it was Christmas. So, how, exactly, does the master criminal know when it's safe to break in the basement and hang out for hours? Christmas is not like any other day of the year. Sure you could observe schedules and maybe take a shot at breaking in on any other day, but not the biggest Holiday of the year. Plus that's the day that your own family and friends would most notice your absence.

I have always felt that the fact that this happened when it did it yet another point in why it had to be someone inside the house. Certainly not evidence that would hold up in court but just one more bread crumb leading right back to the Ramseys.

Exactly. An intruder may have seen the Ramsey's leave, but how would he know when they would be back? Maybe 5 hours? Maybe 15 minutes? But that doesn't seem to occur to our intruder because he plants himself in the living room and starts to write a three page ransom note. Doesn't make any sense.

 

[andreww]

And don't forget it was Christmas. So, how, exactly, does the master criminal know when it's safe to break in the basement and hang out for hours? Christmas is not like any other day of the year. Sure you could observe schedules and maybe take a shot at breaking in on any other day, but not the biggest Holiday of the year. Plus that's the day that your own family and friends would most notice your absence.

I have always felt that the fact that this happened when it did it yet another point in why it had to be someone inside the house. Certainly not evidence that would hold up in court but just one more bread crumb leading right back to the Ramseys.

Exactly. An intruder may have seen the Ramsey's leave, but how would he know when they would be back? Maybe 5 hours? Maybe 15 minutes? But that doesn't seem to occur to our intruder because he plants himself in the living room and starts to write a three page ransom note. Doesn't make any sense.

 

[andreww]

Mane many break ins happen at Christmas. Places are cased and families are watched. It is not hard when people are running around all over visiting to find a window to break in.

Yes people break in sometimes at Christmas, but not for the reasons you state. People break in at Christmas because there is lots of brand new stuff lying about. But this was obviously not a break in for theft purposes. Other times of the year are better because people have patterns. They leave at certain times, they come home at certain times and they go to bed at certain times. The Ramsey house was also equipped with an expensive alarm system that they say they didn't use. However an intruder would not have known if the alarm was activated or not. So many things say this crime was perpetrated by someone already in the house.

 

[Tawny]

I don't buy the spider web. Because my husband has knocked down a huge web and then it is back in hours. They are adept at making them. That spider thing is the weakest argument for me. Because that happens to be a perfect way for someone to get in, and now there is an impenetrable web. If the front door was open then it would be something wrong with that entrance/exit.

1 - It was December. No spiders outside in Colorado in December.
2 - The spider web was dusty. It was an OLD web. Not freshly made outside in Colorado in December.

 

[Anti-K]

As for the paintbrush, it was part of the staging as well, sort of. It was the murder weapon, but it was likely used to cover marks on her neck or simply they couldn't stomach strangling her with their bare hands. So the garrote is their, why would they dispose of the other part of the brush?

As to the point of entry, the suitcase was under that window, where it shouldn't have been and John made a point of saying that he went down and locked that window without telling investigators. Why? Because he was establishing a point of entry.

Sure it would have been easy to unlock a door, but why would it be unlocked? The Ramsey's would have had to have left it unlocked on the very night intruders were coming to kidnap their daughter. To coincidental, they needed forced entry.

The note was simply a tool that bought them time to establish themselves as victims prior to the body being found and to cast doubt in another direction. Think about it. Let's just hypothesize that the Ramsey's did do this. Without the ransom note, how would that morning have gone down? Probably the house would have been searched far more thoroughly as the assumption wouldn't have been that she was abducted, and the body would have been found far more quickly. The Ramsey's would then be the prime suspects and would certainly have been taken immediately in for questioning.

The note did exactly what it was meant to do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Holy cow! It’ so simple. They get rid of the cord so it can’t be traced back to the house. If this is the reason of getting rid of the cord then it becomes absurd to tie the paintbrush to it, because the paintbrush can be traced back to the house. It’s absurd, nonsensical; contradictory.
However, an intruder may have only brought the amount of cord that was used – nothing to dispose of; and, used the paintbrush because it could NOT be traced back to him. same evidence/facts and I very simple explanation.
.

The Ramseys told the police that the doors were locked, and Mr Ramsey claimed to have broken the basement window himself and that the window was often left ajar. He/they gave investigators no intruder entry/exit point. This is absurd if we are to believe that they wanted investigators to believe an intruder came into their home. Absurd, nonsensical; contradictory.
.

Without the ransom note: the Ramseys could have done anything that they wanted. Faked an accident and called an ambulance – no police. No unnecessarily created self-incriminating evidence; no absurdities, no nonsense, no contradictions.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Not sure if the Ramsey's are master criminals or that they are any sort of genius's. I think it was a perfect storm of bad police work and timing with a whole lot of confusion thrown in by the Ramseys. LE should have seen this for what it probably was right from the beginning. The Ramseys should have been confined to one room and no guests should have been allowed access. Dogs should have been brought in early and the Ramseys should have been taken in for questioning the moment the body was found. The biggest problem was that the cops bought in to that convoluted ransom note despite being advised by the FBI that it was likely fake. If they had treated the scene as a possible kidnapping/possible foul play scene from the beginning, John and Patsy would probably still be locked up in a jail somewhere.

They only bought into it up until 1) the body was discovered in the house, and 2) the note was discovered to have been written in the house. After, that the note, etc became evidence against them and investigators – virtually immediately – believed that they were involved.
The ransom note could only serve the function that RDI believe if the body had been disposed of.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

It's WAY more reasonable to believe the R's forgot to consider that one detail over believing an intruder actually perpetrated this crime, without leaving a single trace upon entry/exit.

DNA blah blah aside, how did he get into the home?

I think it’s unfortunate that one finds it so easy to believe absurdities, contradictions, and nonsense simply because they believe that there is no trace of entry/exit.

What about an intruder who didn’t want to leave such a trace? Someone with forensic concern (as indicated by items missing from home and the use of materials from the home).
.

BTW, the butler door was found ajar by Fernie. This is indicative of an entry/exit. I think, iirc, it was Beckner who claimed that this door was left open by crime techs, but if we look at the timeline I think we find that Fernie arrived BEFORE the crime techs.

If an intruder opened the garage door (electronic devices can do this) he could simply walk into the house through the door adjoining it to the garage, and, there would be no trace. Did this happen? I don’t know. Maybe he bumped a lock; maybe he had a key; maybe there really was an unlocked door; he was in the house on an earlier occasion (recent disturbance at basement window) and left himself a means of entering, undetected, for his return on the night of the crime. We don’t know.
...

AK

 

[Tawny]

Again, way more reasonable to believe the R's made a mistake in their panic while trying to stage the crime scene than it is to believe the intruder happened to bring precisely enough cord to tie her up. I mean, wow, did he measure it? Did he do mathematics to determine exactly how much he'd need? That's what's absurd, ideas like... he brought the perfect amount of cord but didn't bother to write the ransom note before entering the home.

 

[andreww]

They only bought into it up until 1) the body was discovered in the house, and 2) the note was discovered to have been written in the house. After, that the note, etc became evidence against them and investigators – virtually immediately – believed that they were involved.
The ransom note could only serve the function that RDI believe if the body had been disposed of.
...

AK

I'd still like to hear your theory of events if there were no ransom note.

Even after the body was found the Rs continued to be treated as victims. The note was still working its magic and the avoided interrogation for four months.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dogperson]

The cord wasn't even used to bind her wrists. JR was able to slip it off one wrist. I think it was the medical examiner who noticed he could easily slide a finger underneath the cord on the other wrist. There was also a wide length of cord between her wrists allowing movement. The purpose of the wrist cord was not to restrain her. It was either staging or part of the sexual assault scenario (bondage?). If you tied a person's wrists you would tie it tightly, with hands very close together, in order to restrain them.

 

[Mama2JML]

Lou Smit was eager to prove that he could get in that window easily but he neglected to show how he would get out. I doubt he could have, not without a major effort anyway. The question is, even if an intruder came in that window, why not leave through a door?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not sold on the idea that an intruder entered through the train room window THAT particular night, though I believe there is evidence to support the notion. There is evidence, as well, to support the theory that an intruder exited via the butler's pantry door.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mama2JML]

The cord wasn't even used to bind her wrists. JR was able to slip it off one wrist. I think it was the medical examiner who noticed he could easily slide a finger underneath the cord on the other wrist. There was also a wide length of cord between her wrists allowing movement. The purpose of the wrist cord was not to restrain her. It was either staging or part of the sexual assault scenario (bondage?). If you tied a person's wrists you would tie it tightly, with hands very close together, in order to restrain them.

We have no way of knowing how loose the wrist ligatures were prior to JR's discovery of the body. He reported the bindings to be tightly constraining JB's arms, crossed at the wrists, above her head, before he began to (& was subsequently able to) partially loosen and undo the cord.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Yes people break in sometimes at Christmas, but not for the reasons you state. People break in at Christmas because there is lots of brand new stuff lying about. But this was obviously not a break in for theft purposes. Other times of the year are better because people have patterns. They leave at certain times, they come home at certain times and they go to bed at certain times. The Ramsey house was also equipped with an expensive alarm system that they say they didn't use. However an intruder would not have known if the alarm was activated or not. So many things say this crime was perpetrated by someone already in the house.

Because people don't murder people on Christmas??
Someone that was already waiting in the house. They were not living there because there is NO DNA that connects them to the assault or the murder.

Part of this for me is an escalation. Someone that knew they were going away and did not want to wait anymore. I believe that someone was lying in wait in that house.

 

[DeeDee249]

The cord wasn't even used to bind her wrists. JR was able to slip it off one wrist. I think it was the medical examiner who noticed he could easily slide a finger underneath the cord on the other wrist. There was also a wide length of cord between her wrists allowing movement. The purpose of the wrist cord was not to restrain her. It was either staging or part of the sexual assault scenario (bondage?). If you tied a person's wrists you would tie it tightly, with hands very close together, in order to restrain them.

And of course, as we know, there were NO marks on her wrists to suggest she had been bound, let alone tightly. Another of JR's lies, as he claimed her wrists were tightly bound together. Rigor mortis proved this was a lie, too. If her wrists had been pulled together, that is how they would have remained, and been seen that way when she was brought up, and STILL been that way at the autopsy. Again, I do not recall JR ever being called out on his claims by LE.

 

[inspector rex]

And of course, as we know, there were NO marks on her wrists to suggest she had been bound, let alone tightly. Another of JR's lies, as he claimed her wrists were tightly bound together. Rigor mortis proved this was a lie, too. If her wrists had been pulled together, that is how they would have remained, and been seen that way when she was brought up, and STILL been that way at the autopsy. Again, I do not recall JR ever being called out on his claims by LE.

According to the photographs, the cord was tied over the sleeve of her shirt, so that would account for there being no marks on her wrists.

 

[OliviaG1996]

According to the photographs, the cord was tied over the sleeve of her shirt, so that would account for there being no marks on her wrists.

Even so, there still would've been a mark underneath the sleeve if the cord was tied extremely tight (as JR claimed it was). Especially if the cord was tied tightly for several hours. I would also expect JB's hands to lose circulation and become a purplish color.

 

[icedtea4me]

They only bought into it up until 1) the body was discovered in the house, and 2) the note was discovered to have been written in the house. After, that the note, etc became evidence against them and investigators – virtually immediately – believed that they were involved.
The ransom note could only serve the function that RDI believe if the body had been disposed of.
...

AK

The ransom note could be viewed in another way in that JonBenet paid the ransom for her parents' sins.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ransom?s=t

 

[Anti-K]

BBM

I'd still like to hear your theory of events if there were no ransom note.

Even after the body was found the Rs continued to be treated as victims. The note was still working its magic and the avoided interrogation for four months.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ah, yes, counterfactuals. What if there had been no ransom note?

Well, if we’re going to remove the note than we might as well remove the wrist ligatures and the tape because these IMO are all of a piece: a (fake) kidnapping.

Do we stop there? Why? Why not say: no (fake) kidnapping and no garrote? And, no sexual assault at or near point of death? Why not take it all the way back until we’ve found our way to whatever the initial incident was that RDI thinks brought all this on. A head blow, perhaps? Why not start there and see where your counterfactual takes you...

JBR is struck a massive blow upon the head. Now what? Because this is where your counterfactual needs to begin.
...

AK