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

[Chewy]

A search warrant won't work because the phone company has to retrieve the data from a massive data base and turn it over. They don't just turn over their servers to law enforcement and say, here, you find it.

We all know this. What does this have to with this thread and IDI?

 

[MyBelle]

We all know this. What does this have to with this thread and IDI?

Whether an IDI did it or not, LE obtaining phone records is usually part of a murder investigation.

 

[Chewy]

Why are you talking about the Ramsey's phone records in an IDI THREAD?

Back on topic


Another assumption that people just blindly accept is the way her body wasn't found for hours

Who would assume that the police wouldn't properly contain the crime scene?

So this means that plan was supposed to go down differently. If an IDI we need to ask ourselves what they intended to happen.

Some ideas

A. The Ramseys don't call the police and go get the money and then being told to go to the basement after the money was dropped off. Or nothing said until the smell leads them there.

B. They expected the cops to find her within an hour of showing up on the scene and to frame the Ramseys

C. They intended to kidnap her but something went wrong and they mutilated her instead as a way of punishing John

 

[MyBelle]

Why are you talking about the Ramsey's phone records in an IDI THREAD?

Back on topic


Another assumption that people just blindly accept is the way her body wasn't found for hours

Who would assume that the police wouldn't properly contain the crime scene?

So this means that plan was supposed to go down differently. If an IDI we need to ask ourselves what they intended to happen.

Some ideas

A. The Ramseys don't call the police and go get the money and then being told to go to the basement after the money was dropped off. Or nothing said until the smell leads them there.

B. They expected the cops to find her within an hour of showing up on the scene and to frame the Ramseys

C. They intended to kidnap her but something went wrong and they mutilated her instead as a way of punishing John

We're talking about the phone records because there was a ransom note that said the kidnappers would call.

 

[Chewy]

You are aware that they didn't call right?

So it is irrelevant and ridiculous to assert that asking for phone records months after the fact has anything to do with a nonexistent phone call.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

BBM. I'm not following your logic. The failure of the DA's office to grant a subpoena for the phone records is the fault of police?

If you are going to cite something as fact, please cite a link. Where are you getting that long distance phone records are available 18 months later?

Police investigate crimes, not the Grand Jury.

JMO

This bone that you are chewing on is not relevant to me. I think it has been shown over and over that the police did not need the DA to get records. For all we know that GJ got the records on their own.

We know that he had a friend come over that morning who happened to be a lawyer and then another friend suggest he get lawyer for him and his family and he did.

This whole obsession with phone records is beyond me.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

You can disagree all you like but it remains a fact that it is unknown when Ramseys contacted their attorneys whether it be Bynum or anybody else.

It is not unknown. It is right there in testimony and in accounts.
A good search will help you find it.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

A search warrant is used to inspect property. There was no probable cause to search the property of the phone company.


JMO

No a search warrant is to find evidence.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Another assumption that people just blindly accept is the way her body wasn't found for hours

Who would assume that the police wouldn't properly contain the crime scene?

So this means that plan was supposed to go down differently. If an IDI we need to ask ourselves what they intended to happen.

Some ideas

A. The Ramseys don't call the police and go get the money and then being told to go to the basement after the money was dropped off. Or nothing said until the smell leads them there.

B. They expected the cops to find her within an hour of showing up on the scene and to frame the Ramseys

C. They intended to kidnap her but something went wrong and they mutilated her instead as a way of punishing John

For me at this point, I believe it was closer to number 3. Their intent was to take her and get money out of it, But I don't know if I think that they ever intended to give her back.

 

[MyBelle]

No a search warrant is to find evidence.

So is a subpeona. Phone companies require a subpoena.

 

[MyBelle]

It is not unknown. It is right there in testimony and in accounts.
A good search will help you find it.

What testimony? There has been no trial.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

What testimony? There has been no trial.

In depositions. Please go look and search.

 

[MyBelle]

In depositions. Please go look and search.

Depositions in a civil case are useless because they are self-serving and are for a different purpose than solving a murder.

JMO

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

JonBenet: Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation
By Steve Thomas, Donald A. Davis

AS you can see in ST book, That you quote, He states that he got the records.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Depositions in a civil case are useless because they are self-serving and are for a different purpose than solving a murder.

JMO

Sworn depositions are legal documents used everyday.

Even things said in civil depositions have been used to go after people criminally.

 

[Anti-K]

AK, will you please post some of your Mindhunter/John Douglas "trivia"? ...and your invitation theory?

BBM

Okay, here it is. Or, at least a good piece of it. And, “piece” is how I used to refer to it: My Speculative Piece. I never liked the term “theory” when it comes to these things. Anyway, this is something that I came up with way back in the year 2000. I admit to being influenced by the book “Anatomy of Motive” by Douglas/Olshaker. Some of this material is new, but a lot of it isn’t so apologies to those who’ve been through this before.
...

What I offer here is not a theory of motive; it is a theory of intent.

Let’s consider for a moment the ransom note as an Invitation to an Event. In this instance, the Event is a Murder Mystery. Those invited are the authorities, specifically, even if only vicariously, the FBI and, hence, FBI Profilers. The parents are the Mailman.

In this scenario, not only does the note invite the authorities, but it tells them what sort of event they’re being invited to: something “hinky,” something “not right,” something that is “not as it appears.” Open your eyes.

If the note and the body (hidden) in the house were intended for the FBI (or, insert any branch of LE), then perhaps other aspects of the crime were also intended for the FBI: the use of materials from the home; the so-called practice note; the paintbrush handle broken (one piece attached to the murder weapon, one piece in the paint tote); the body wrapped; the hands above the head; the useless bonds; the tape on the mouth...

I’ll start here:
In 1996, leading up to the murder of Jonbenet Ramsey, the book Mindhunter was on the bestseller list. In Mindhunter, Chapter 14 is titled, “Hurting the Ones We Love.”

This chapter’s opening case is a mother that murdered her son and buried him, wrapping the body in a blanket and covering it with a thick plastic bag to protect it. She reported a kidnapping. In this chapter the authors write, “The key to many murders of and by loved ones or family members is staging. Anyone that close to the victim has to do something to draw suspicion away from himself or herself.”

Another case is described as “[o]ne of the earliest examples” of staging by a family member/loved one encountered by (FBI profiler John) Douglas: the murder of Linda Dover. Dover was murdered Dec. 26, the day after Christmas; blunt force trauma, stab wounds, wrapped in a comforter and stuffed in a crawlspace.

Another case: a husband claims he was assaulted from behind (blunt force to head and attempted strangulationwith some kind of cord or ligature) by an intruder and rendered unconscious. The intruder flees, and the wife found upstairs in a bedroom, dead from strangulation.

The authors (Douglas/Olshaker) discuss strangulation as a sign of personal cause, and, about the need to make victims comfortable and the need to prevent discovery by other family members by hiding the body. They discuss “fake” kidnappings, etc. A couple more cases are presented.

Many aspects of the Jonbenet Ramsey Murder Mystery read as if they came straight out of this chapter. Of course, for the Ramseys (if RDI), Mindhunter is a Do Not Do This Manual. However, a killer inviting profilers to a murder mystery could have used that chapter as a template of sorts.

On page 144 of Mindhunter (paperback ed.) the authors mention data collected from 118 victims as part of an FBI study that was used to help form the book Sexual Homicides: Patterns and Motives (pub. 1992). In Sexual Homicides: Patterns and Motives this study and the number 118 is mentioned ten times: once on page 11, once on page 86, and again on page 103; it is mentioned three times on page 121, once on page 122, and twice more on page 124, and once more on page 333.


Between pages 137 -166 of Mindhunter (paperback ed.) four killers are discussed in this order: S on of Sam; B tk; T railside Killer; C armine Calabro. S.B.T.C
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

So, once again, let’s consider for a moment the ransom note as an Invitation to an Event. In this instance, the Event is a Murder Mystery. Those invited are the authorities, specifically, even if only vicariously, the FBI and, hence, FBI Profilers. The parents are the Mailman.

The note discourages the parents from searching the house, except perhaps in a most cursory fashion thereby preserving the body and the immediate crime scene (wine cellar) for discovery by the authorities. At least, this is what should have happened, and the note’s suspicious nature should have ensured that this did happen. No one could have foreseen that it would not.

The note makes extreme threats – do not call the authorities; wait for a call. A two hour call window is given. Two hours. It’s maddening. And, when no call comes and with threats so severe... Eventually, the call to the authorities will be made. The Invitation will be delivered.

Once notified the local authorities would have been obligated to alert the FBI because of the following triggers as mentioned in the first page of the ransom note: National Security (a small foreign faction; We respect your bussiness but not the country); Kidnapping (we have your daughter); and, Extortion over x amount (You will withdraw $118,000).

National Security, Kidnapping, and, Extortion ensured the FBI’s initial involvement, but other aspects of the note may have been designed to ensure their suspicion: the odd amount demanded for ransom, the small foreign faction, the unusual and unnecessary length, and SBTC.

Not only was the amount demanded odd, but it is also the number of victims in the aforementioned FBI study. The phrases “a group of individuals” and “a small foreign faction” as well as the SBTC signature bear similarity to the phrase, "We are an anarchist group calling ourselves FC.” FC was an “anarchist group” invented by a guy named Ted Kaczynski - the Unabomber. The Unabomber (FC) was a major case for the FBI, and one of the first to bring profilers and profiling to the general public’s attention.

The ransom note’s length may have also been intended as a red flag for the FBI. In this scenario, the so-called movie references become a means of adding length without giving away too much of self. Although skeptical about almost all of the references many have cited, I do see some reason to accept the use of Dirty Harry to some degree.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Dirty Harry
There is a ransom note featured in Dirty Harry, but, the Ramsey ransom note does not reference that; instead, those parts of the Ramsey ransom note generally accepted as having been borrowed from Dirty Harry are all (in the movie) spoken parts; they’re dialogue (the Ramsey ransom note was written as if it were spoken).

In Dirty Harry the color (yellow) of the bag for the money was also instructed. The Ramsey note demanded a brown bag.

RN: “The delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be rested.”

In Dirty Harry the killer says to Harry, “You sound like you had a good rest. You’ll need it.” As the movie demonstrates, Dirty Harry’s delivery is exhausting.

RN: “…denied her remains for a proper burial.…”

In Dirty Harry the killer kidnaps a young girl and claims to have buried her alive. If his instructions are not followed then the girl will die and the location will be withheld – her remains will be denied a proper burial.

RN: “If we catch you talking to a stray dog, she dies. If you alert bank authorities, she dies. If the money is in any way marked or tampered with, she dies.”

In Dirty Harry the killer warns Harry that if he is seen talking to anyone, even if it’s “a Pekinese pissing against a lamp post, she dies.” This conditional threat is spoken several times, “she dies, she dies, she dies.”

RN: “You will be scanned for electronic devices and if any are found, she dies. You can try to deceive us, but be warned we are familiar with law enforcement countermeasures and tactics.”

In Dirty Harry, before embarking on the ransom drop-off Harry and his partner are rigged up with an electronic eavesdropping device and the kidnapper “bounces” Harry all over town to counter whatever tactics law enforcement may try to use.

There are Christian/religious themes or elements/symbols throughout the Dirty Harry movie and some claim that the same can be said of the ransom note: the “gentlemen” who are “watching over” the victim; 118 as a psalm (‘Open the gates of victory…‘ in the New American Bible) and Victory and SBTC interpreted as ‘Saved By The Cross‘ are all examples of this.

The “two gentlemen watching over” phrase in the ransom note is reminiscent of a scene in Dirty Harry wherein Scorpio (the bad-guy) has threatened to kill a priest and as a result Harry and his partner are on stakeout. They’re on a rooftop overlooking a church. There is a huge rotating, neon sign above them and it reads, vertically, “Jesus Saves.” They are “two gentlemen” who are “watching over” the church, the surrounding area, the rooftops, the innocent, searching for a killer. They are guardians, protectors of lives. “Jesus Saves.” SBTC.

In Dirty Harry, the killer warns Harry, “I hope you're not stupid.” The “don’t grow a brain” comment in the ransom note is a variation on this; it is memetic and as such not necessarily, or intentionally, a movie reference, but there it is.

As stated, it could be that Dirty Harry was used simply as a means of minimizing potentially self-incriminating linguistic evidence while simultaneously adding the length needed to arouse suspicion.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

So, the authorities, specifically, even if only vicariously, the FBI and, hence, FBI Profilers are invited to an Event; supposedly, a kidnapping. The police arrive and they see no sign of forced entry. They are told that all the doors were locked. How strange (or, not, if that is what the killer intended).

There is a first floor layout at the following link: http://braveheart.users4.50megs.com/ramsey/crimescn1.htm
Open the page in a new window or tab. See the number 1 and the number 2? The former is the ransom note location and the latter is the location of the notepad. Is it possible that the note and notepad were placed in proximity to increase the possibility that a suspicious, and/or, alert officer might notice the latter?

When the killer removed the pages before and after page 26 - the so-called practice note – he created a bookmark of sorts. This means that the notepad would “naturally” open to page 26, thus making this the first page most likely to be seen by someone looking through the notepad.

If we use the Note as Invitation as a Key to understanding the crime scene, then the so-called practice note becomes an item intentionally created and left by the killer for the invited to discover. It connects the ransom note to the notepad, and if it had been discovered earlier, it would have triggered an immediate search of the house.

Pages were removed from the notepad while the so-called practice note remained behind; a paintbrush was removed from the paint tote, but the broken end remained behind. One connects the ransom note to the home while the other connects the murder weapon (ligature) to the home. If we use the Note as Invitation as a Key to understanding the crime scene, then both become items intentionally “created” and left by the killer for the invited to discover.

The killer may have learned from Mindhunter (or similar source) that asphyxiation is often interpreted as Personal Cause. It’s an intimate form of murder; and, perhaps that is what he hoped investigators would infer. Plus, the use of a ligature allowed the killer to attach the paintbrush to the murder weapon, and, to leave behind the broken end for the police to find.

The ransom note, the wrist ligatures, and the tape on the mouth all form a single picture: a kidnapping. It’s a strange picture; it is a picture of a fake kidnapping. The note is odd, and the wrist ligatures and tape would have been ineffectual had the victim been conscious or capable of movement when they were applied. The tape, the wrist ligatures, the note – all fake. Almost obviously so.

This Theory of Intent suggests that the killer staged what he hoped investigators would interpret as a fake kidnapping. This Theory seemingly infers that the killer may have wanted to “frame” the Ramseys, and/or, that the FBI and/or Profilers were targets but there are scenarios in which neither motive would be true. Motive is so hard to discern, particularly when we have no one to attach it to. Still, if we can understand What the killer did, or What he was trying to do, then we are one step closer to understanding Why, and maybe then, even closer to Who.

There’s so much more, but I better stop while I can. I know this is a bit long so I just want to say thanks to all those who took the time to slog through it.
...

AK

 

[MyBelle]

Sworn depositions are legal documents used everyday.

Even things said in civil depositions have been used to go after people criminally.

people also lie everyday or evade answering questions by saying, "I don't remember."