Intruder theories only - RDI theories not allowed! *READ FIRST POST* #2

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I don't know. But I believe the original plan was to take her out of that house, and that something happened to change that plan.

 

[THE BUNK]

I don't know. But I believe the original plan was to take her out of that house, and that something happened to change that plan.

Remember. This "interruption" would have to happen AFTER he has taken Jonbenet from her bed. If the interruption happened before he could simply have aborted and left the house. He could always come back to kidnap her or try some other victim. At worse he gets a B&E charge rather than Murder.

There is only one thing that could have prevented this intruder from just running out the front door with Jon Benet in tow. And namely that he thought he killed her in the process of capturing her. That would have been a massive snafu that would have changed a simple kidnapping to murder 1. This is the only turn of events that would have forced him to have to improv rather than just run like hell out the front door.

 

[THE BUNK]

I believe that someone meant to take her. I think there was one person who assaulted her. We have no idea what anyone drove there

Why assault her? You have a ransom note that could get you a quick 118,000. All you just have to do is keep her for a few days and collect.

If the killer did not drive there, that insinuates that he was planning on walking at night to his hideout with a potentially struggling little girl covered in a blanket. It would also assume that the killer's hideout or home was within walking distance. Which should narrow down the list of suspects.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

You are welcome to your opinion on this case. I have mine. I don't believe the money was ever the goal. Just a way to buy some time.

 

[THE BUNK]

You are welcome to your opinion on this case. I have mine. I don't believe the money was ever the goal. Just a way to buy some time.

Of course money was the goal. It was the first thing on his mind when he wrote the ransom note. He even remembered the amount of $118,000. That amount was swirling in is head before the ransom note was written. He didn't pick that amount out of thin air. And he didn't remember this because he had a photographic memory. It was the amount that was the object of this caper. He knew this was the amount of Ramsey's bonus and hence it would be available for the Ramsey's to withdraw.

The writer said that "you're not the only fat cat". That insinuates that the writer or people behind his actions are also just as rich and powerful as the ramseys. or they think they will be once they get this ransom money. This person has designs on being rich. Maybe one day being as rich as the Ramsey's.

The writer wrote in length about the process of how this money was going to be procured. Why would he waste valuable time and paper on that process unless it was important to him? In fact it's the money procurement process that is the reason why the ransom note is three pages long. Take it out and you only have a page and a half. A reasonable length.

All the talk about businesses and who it serves. Accounts, Attache cases.
Money is on this guy's mind.

 

[lawstudent]

Reposting this from another thread since it kind of goes with IDI. However, I don't really see the head blow as necessarily going with IDI that well either, although if someone entered with a weapon or tool, it would make more sense that they had it readily available, and that they didn't check carefully to see if she had survived the blow. I really have no idea what I think happened in this case - I don't see it as random, but nothing would fully surprise me.

What eats me alive is mostly the initial head blow.

I was discussing this in another thread, but head blows are so unpredictable and a lot of the public knowledge about concussions/hemorrhages etc. is recent.

When someone is murdered by means of head trauma, it is almost always the result of an escalated beating with other injuries. Claims that victims fell and hit their heads or were shoved and hit their heads, resulting in an "accident," are almost always quickly dismissed.

There definitely have been cases where someone punched someone in a fight, the person hit the pavement and cracked his skull, and then died. It's possible. But it's not the way you would plan to intentionally kill someone, because instant death or even incapacitation is very far from certain, and it's unlikely you'd immediately assume the person was dead if there was some sort of accident or impulsive strike.

We know JonBenet wasn't dead, so either her parents thought she was or that she was unrevivable, which is quite an assumption to make without medical training. I would assume they would check her breathing over and over again, just hoping she was alive, assuming it wasn't intentional. Most parents try and argue there was an accident when they beat a child and injure its brain. The severity wasn't obvious, although the sound may have been a clue. Then you have the fact that the weapon has never been conclusively established, and no history of escalating beatings.

It's obviously possible that she was struck by a family member intentionally or in a fit of rage, but it's never rung very true to me. I don't have a good explanation for what happened, though.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Of course money was the goal. It was the first thing on his mind when he wrote the ransom note. He even remembered the amount of $118,000. That amount was swirling in is head before the ransom note was written. He didn't pick that amount out of thin air. And he didn't remember this because he had a photographic memory. It was the amount that was the object of this caper. He knew this was the amount of Ramsey's bonus and hence it would be available for the Ramsey's to withdraw.

The writer said that "you're not the only fat cat". That insinuates that the writer or people behind his actions are also just as rich and powerful as the ramseys. or they think they will be once they get this ransom money. This person has designs on being rich. Maybe one day being as rich as the Ramsey's.

The writer wrote in length about the process of how this money was going to be procured. Why would he waste valuable time and paper on that process unless it was important to him? In fact it's the money procurement process that is the reason why the ransom note is three pages long. Take it out and you only have a page and a half. A reasonable length.

All the talk about businesses and who it serves. Accounts, Attache cases.
Money is on this guy's mind.

Thanks for sharing your opinion. It is not mine but it is interesting.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Reposting this from another thread since it kind of goes with IDI. However, I don't really see the head blow as necessarily going with IDI that well either, although if someone entered with a weapon or tool, it would make more sense that they had it readily available, and that they didn't check carefully to see if she had survived the blow. I really have no idea what I think happened in this case - I don't see it as random, but nothing would fully surprise me.

What eats me alive is mostly the initial head blow.

I was discussing this in another thread, but head blows are so unpredictable and a lot of the public knowledge about concussions/hemorrhages etc. is recent.

When someone is murdered by means of head trauma, it is almost always the result of an escalated beating with other injuries. Claims that victims fell and hit their heads or were shoved and hit their heads, resulting in an "accident," are almost always quickly dismissed.

There definitely have been cases where someone punched someone in a fight, the person hit the pavement and cracked his skull, and then died. It's possible. But it's not the way you would plan to intentionally kill someone, because instant death or even incapacitation is very far from certain, and it's unlikely you'd immediately assume the person was dead if there was some sort of accident or impulsive strike.

We know JonBenet wasn't dead, so either her parents thought she was or that she was unrevivable, which is quite an assumption to make without medical training. I would assume they would check her breathing over and over again, just hoping she was alive, assuming it wasn't intentional. Most parents try and argue there was an accident when they beat a child and injure its brain. The severity wasn't obvious, although the sound may have been a clue. Then you have the fact that the weapon has never been conclusively established, and no history of escalating beatings.

It's obviously possible that she was struck by a family member intentionally or in a fit of rage, but it's never rung very true to me. I don't have a good explanation for what happened, though.

I really appreciate you reposting this. I agree wholeheartedly. When we see parents who don't mean to kill, and yet injure a child they do go seek help. They cover up the injury and take them for treatment. The severity of this blow, but that it did not look obviously horrible to the normal person, Would not then lead to strangling to cover it up.

It is Christmas night. They just came from a party. I don't see anything leading to this horrible bash.

 

[Mama2JML]

I've only finished answering #1. My opinions are subject to change...

1. What is your impressions of the type of person this intruder is. If you had to paint a profile of this person, what would it be? Do you believe it is one person or a conspiracy of multiple people.

I tend to believe one intelligent, likely educated, young(-ish) man assaulted, tortured, and murdered JonBenét. I think he knew of the Ramseys, but I have doubts he was even on their radar. He had likely been in the house before Christmas day, but definitely had stalked his prey. He probably "blends in" rather easily, he appears normal, he might be considered an introvert or a loner, but those with whom he is/has been "close" find there is something "off" about him. I think he enjoyed the thrill, the fantasizing, & the anticipation, more than the kill. I don't think the experience met his expectations. He assuredly intended to leave evidence that implicated the Ramseys. I also think the RN, the garrote, and the body were left @ the scene to terrorize his victims.

 

[THE BUNK]

Thanks for sharing your opinion. It is not mine but it is interesting.

But your opinion is that the original intention of intruder was to kidnap rather than kill. So we aren't looking for a killer, but a kidnapper.

A huge difference. And if you buy my theory. This person shouldn't be difficult to identify. In ffact his or her's name is probably in the Ramsey's rolodex.

1. He needs to be an aquaintance of the Ramsey's close to the time that Jon Ramsey's bonus was announced. Yet he remained an aquaintance after the murder. That's because if he left or was distant to the Ramsey's he would have incurred suspicion.

2. He must be a person who is white collar and well educated, give the language on the ransom letter. Most likely a secretary, lawyer or accountant.
Most likely a peer of one of either Jon

3. He must be someone who needed $118,000 right away and such money would have made enough of a difference to risk committing a crime against a little girl. Perhaps someone who had a massive gambling debt or who needed money for a startup company.

4. He must also be a woman or an extremely effiminate man. Or one of the people that abetted him is a woman. The language of the ransom not indicates a more feminine persuasion. To get an idea of what I mean, compare the Ramsey not to a Zodiac Letter. You'll see the stark differences in language tone.

5. he must be a person who has never committed a crime before and most likely never has. He doesn't know how to properly make a garrotte. He doesn't know how to write a ransom letter. He also doesn't know how to kidnap someone without killing them.

6. He also must be someone who either has a key to the house, knows someone that has the key to the house.....or was invited in. I should point out that it isn't beyond the realm of possibility that Jonbenet or Burke let this person into the house without their parents knowledge. Jonbenet did say she was expecting a visit from Santa Claus.

7. This is a person who apparently never voiced his need of money, or any displeasure to the Ramseys or their close friends. He seems to be the last person anyone would think would do this crime.

There's a limited number of people in the Ramsey Circle of friends, co-workers and hired help. The killer has to be among them.

 

[2 percent]

I've only finished answering #1. My opinions are subject to change...

I tend to believe one intelligent, likely educated, young(-ish) man assaulted, tortured, and murdered JonBenét. I think he knew of the Ramseys, but I have doubts he was even on their radar. He had likely been in the house before Christmas day, but definitely had stalked his prey. He probably "blends in" rather easily, he appears normal, he might be considered an introvert or a loner, but those with whom he is/has been "close" find there is something "off" about him. I think he enjoyed the thrill, the fantasizing, & the anticipation, more than the kill. I don't think the experience met his expectations. He assuredly intended to leave evidence that implicated the Ramseys. I also think the RN, the garrote, and the body were left @ the scene to terrorize his victims.

How did he get in?
I don't agree with the terrorizing at all. That kind of cat and mouse game doesn't usually begin and end at the crime scene. Usually the terror comes in forms of later harassment - news articles articles on the anniversary, BTK used answering machine messages to torment, blood stained trophies mailed or left to the parents, etc. Nothing has been reported of that kind...and the Ramseys would have reported it.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

How did he get in?
I don't agree with the terrorizing at all. That kind of cat and mouse game doesn't usually begin and end at the crime scene. Usually the terror comes in forms of later harassment - news articles articles on the anniversary, BTK used answering machine messages to torment, blood stained trophies mailed or left to the parents, etc. Nothing has been reported of that kind...and the Ramseys would have reported it.

Through any of the doors or windows that were unlocked.
This is not BTK. Not all killers are the same.

 

[Darly314]

Doesn't resemble child abuse to me either; certainly not "bed wetting" punishment, nor part of sexual gratification.

 

[Mama2JML]

Of course money was the goal. It was the first thing on his mind when he wrote the ransom note. He even remembered the amount of $118,000. That amount was swirling in is head before the ransom note was written. He didn't pick that amount out of thin air. And he didn't remember this because he had a photographic memory. It was the amount that was the object of this caper. He knew this was the amount of Ramsey's bonus and hence it would be available for the Ramsey's to withdraw.

The writer said that "you're not the only fat cat". That insinuates that the writer or people behind his actions are also just as rich and powerful as the ramseys. or they think they will be once they get this ransom money. This person has designs on being rich. Maybe one day being as rich as the Ramsey's.

The writer wrote in length about the process of how this money was going to be procured. Why would he waste valuable time and paper on that process unless it was important to him? In fact it's the money procurement process that is the reason why the ransom note is three pages long. Take it out and you only have a page and a half. A reasonable length.

All the talk about businesses and who it serves. Accounts, Attache cases.
Money is on this guy's mind.

I don't think money was the motive. I think he wrote (& wrote & wrote) because he had the time, he was probably chemically dependent (meth, heroine, IDK), OCD, narcissistic, and fascinated by all things crime.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

But your opinion is that the original intention of intruder was to kidnap rather than kill. So we aren't looking for a killer, but a kidnapper.

A huge difference. And if you buy my theory. This person shouldn't be difficult to identify. In ffact his or her's name is probably in the Ramsey's rolodex.

1. He needs to be an aquaintance of the Ramsey's close to the time that Jon Ramsey's bonus was announced. Yet he remained an aquaintance after the murder. That's because if he left or was distant to the Ramsey's he would have incurred suspicion.

2. He must be a person who is white collar and well educated, give the language on the ransom letter. Most likely a secretary, lawyer or accountant.
Most likely a peer of one of either Jon

3. He must be someone who needed $118,000 right away and such money would have made enough of a difference to risk committing a crime against a little girl. Perhaps someone who had a massive gambling debt or who needed money for a startup company.

4. He must also be a woman or an extremely effiminate man. Or one of the people that abetted him is a woman. The language of the ransom not indicates a more feminine persuasion. To get an idea of what I mean, compare the Ramsey not to a Zodiac Letter. You'll see the stark differences in language tone.

5. he must be a person who has never committed a crime before and most likely never has. He doesn't know how to properly make a garrotte. He doesn't know how to write a ransom letter. He also doesn't know how to kidnap someone without killing them.

6. He also must be someone who either has a key to the house, knows someone that has the key to the house.....or was invited in. I should point out that it isn't beyond the realm of possibility that Jonbenet or Burke let this person into the house without their parents knowledge. Jonbenet did say she was expecting a visit from Santa Claus.

7. This is a person who apparently never voiced his need of money, or any displeasure to the Ramseys or their close friends. He seems to be the last person anyone would think would do this crime.

There's a limited number of people in the Ramsey Circle of friends, co-workers and hired help. The killer has to be among them.

I think he was looking to take JBR but not for profit. Just because he wanted her. Just like any other killer decides to commit a crime. Not because he thought he was getting rich off Ramsey. I agree with Mama about the note.

 

[2 percent]

Through any of the doors or windows that were unlocked.
This is not BTK. Not all killers are the same.

Sadists who torment survivors are one of the most predictable predictable patterns. They aren't satisfied with tormenting just once.

I don't play the edges (meaning edges of possibility) because I believe in patterns of behavior and occams razor has had a huge influence on me my whole life...and generally been proven invaluable.

 

[lawstudent]

I believe that there are more people who commit violent/sex crimes as young people and don't reoffend than we are aware of. Sex offenders obviously are likely to reoffend, but not at the levels people believe. I don't think they suddenly lose all interest, but some are shocked out of their fantasy world and don't want to get in trouble again. Depends on the personality.

There's a detachment that accompanies youth that can recede and make a big difference. I'd say the same about young women who give birth to unplanned infants and kill them - I don't think most of them would do that again - not the same situation, but I do think people who end up reacting badly to a situation as a teen may never make the mistake again. Particularly with regard to a crime of rage or panic.

Is it possible that some boy who knew the family only planned to molest her, and things got out of control? Yes. Is it possible whoever did it it died? Yes. But it's a really weird crime to do in isolation. It does look like staging to me. I just don't know.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Sadists who torment survivors are one of the most predictable predictable patterns. They aren't satisfied with tormenting just once.

I don't play the edges (meaning edges of possibility) because I believe in patterns of behavior and occams razor has had a huge influence on me my whole life...and generally been proven invaluable.

Im not sure how this applies to my post.. You asked how they got in.

There is just not one kind of killer, or one kind of abuser.

Just because someone was not caught for the crime does not mean they did not commit any other crime. There are a ton of unsolved cases all over the country.

 

[lawstudent]

Sadists who torment survivors are one of the most predictable predictable patterns. They aren't satisfied with tormenting just once.

I don't play the edges (meaning edges of possibility) because I believe in patterns of behavior and occams razor has had a huge influence on me my whole life...and generally been proven invaluable.

I wouldn't say this crime was particularly sadistic - it was pretty neat and clean, and she was knocked out quickly.

I feel like I'd be convinced someone close to me did this if I were John Ramsey, and live in constant paranoia. That's one of the things that makes me somewhat suspicious of the IDI theory. The ransom note is just so weird.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I wouldn't say this crime was particularly sadistic - it was pretty neat and clean, and she was knocked out quickly.

I feel like I'd be convinced someone close to me did this if I were John Ramsey, and live in constant paranoia. That's one of the things that makes me somewhat suspicious of the IDI theory. The ransom note is just so weird.

I think they were and are still suspicious of those close to them. I think there is a clear point where it seems to me that they just did not know who to trust anymore. And then started pointing fingers at friends. I know I would be. I would not care, I would just want my baby's killer caught no matter who it was.

I still have a feeling this person had some fringe connection to them. Some odd place that got them close to the family.

I am amazed at the ruthlessness that child killers have. That they have no problem at all being so brutal to young children.