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

[otg]

Very interesting, A-K. Well thought out (although the "brain" quote might come from the movie Speed -- "Do not attempt to grow a brain."). If the person gave as much thought into writing the RN as you did in tying this all together, I'd guess he/she/they were working on it for quite some time. I'm gonna have to give this all a little more thought.

 

[MyBelle]

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.

He got some records, not ALL that were needed.

 

[Chewy]

AK your line of thinking is very interesting

I think you should get rid of all the stretching of ideas (the 118 is just a coincidence etc) and revisit the core idea

 

[Simply Caustic]

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

Although I'm not of the IDI persuasion, I just wanted to say that I appreciate your well thought out posts on this thread.
Insightful and thought provoking.


Via Kindle, like a true Amazon junkie

 

[Anti-K]

AK your line of thinking is very interesting

I think you should get rid of all the stretching of ideas (the 118 is just a coincidence etc) and revisit the core idea

Thanks, but I’m not really sure what you mean by “stretching of ideas.” And, are you saying that 118 is a coincidence, or...?
...

AK

 

[Chewy]

Yes, I'm saying that when I read through theories(I'm no expert by any means I'm just pretty good at detecting hystrionic thinking) and I see someone trying to shoehorn a coincidence into their theory it always throws off (In my opinion) the very good critical thinking skills that it started off with.

What you wrote was a very valid idea. Well one of them anyway, that is that everything mentioned in the ransom note was designed to get the attention of the FBI.

But when you start grasping at straws like "the number 118 was written ten times on those two pages" you get lost in the dust you are kicking up with your add ons. Your idea doesn't need add ons.

This is just my bias btw but it's been the way I've seen cold cases solved in the past. The new set of eyes goes back to the information and looks at who lied and what assumptions were made that were wrong.

So we need to look at all the assumptions being made. You bring up a very good one, that is the ransom note was fake.

There's a few reasons most of us think this.

A. Jonbenet wasn't kidnapped, she was dead in the house
B. It was a really long ransom note that was written in the house
C. It was filled with melodramatic "movie lines" and seemed to ramble

If we deduct that this means the ransom note was fake we can surmise it is likely that the parents wrote it to throw suspicion off of them. (I'm still thinking this is the case but it is interesting to reexamine the above assumptions.)

A. It could be that Jonbenet was accidentally killed during the kidnapping and then they mutilated her and left her right there because they never intended to kill her. It was a real kidnapping.

B. It could be that the ransom note was written by someone who lingered in the house hours before the Ramseys came home.

C. It could be that the ransom note had another reason for being written the way it was. And you bring up that perhaps the perpetrator wanted the FBI to get involved.

This is an interesting observation because as I've stated before, the perpetrators couldn't possibly have thought that the cops wouldn't find the body until hours later. It wasn't hidden in the basement. There were places the body could have been concealed if they wanted to hide it. It was left out to be found. So why was this?

 

[Mama2JML]

Yes, I'm saying that when I read through theories(I'm no expert by any means I'm just pretty good at detecting hystrionic thinking) and I see someone trying to shoehorn a coincidence into their theory it always throws off (In my opinion) the very good critical thinking skills that it started off with.

What you wrote was a very valid idea. Well one of them anyway, that is that everything mentioned in the ransom note was designed to get the attention of the FBI.

But when you start grasping at straws like "the number 118 was written ten times on those two pages" you get lost in the dust you are kicking up with your add ons. Your idea doesn't need add ons.

This is just my bias btw but it's been the way I've seen cold cases solved in the past. The new set of eyes goes back to the information and looks at who lied and what assumptions were made that were wrong.

So we need to look at all the assumptions being made. You bring up a very good one, that is the ransom note was fake.

There's a few reasons most of us think this.

A. Jonbenet wasn't kidnapped, she was dead in the house
B. It was a really long ransom note that was written in the house
C. It was filled with melodramatic "movie lines" and seemed to ramble

If we deduct that this means the ransom note was fake we can surmise it is likely that the parents wrote it to throw suspicion off of them. (I'm still thinking this is the case but it is interesting to reexamine the above assumptions.)

RS&BBM

Why should one construct a theory on an assumption that is based upon another assumption, especially knowing scientifically-reliable expert analyses indicate it is highly improbable either (or both) assumption(s) is(are) correct?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

My theory is based on putting the facts together. If there is not a fact or evidence behind it I don't consider it. so for me my theory is simple. And DNA is the biggest part of it. I don't stretch and make up stories and scenarios. I just go where the evidence leads.

 

[Linda7NJ]

My theory is based on putting the facts together. If there is not a fact or evidence behind it I don't consider it. so for me my theory is simple. And DNA is the biggest part of it. I don't stretch and make up stories and scenarios. I just go where the evidence leads.

When you get a chance, I'd love to read your theory. I've looked on the members theory thread and noticed you haven't yet posted one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I have already made it plain that I believe that someone broke into or had access to the house while the R's were out laid in wait, wrote the note, and then during the night took Jon benet something went awry and they killed her right there instead.

It is not complicated because it follows evidence.

 

[Chewy]

RS&BBM

Why should one construct a theory on an assumption that is based upon another assumption, especially knowing scientifically-reliable expert analyses indicate it is highly improbable either (or both) assumption(s) is(are) correct?

Because we're reconsidering assumptions. We're not cops or detectives on here, in case you haven't noticed. Just people hypothesizing theories.

Sometimes to the best way to deconstruct a previous assumption is to take new assumptions down a line of thought. In most cases those paths will lead to an impossibility or irrational or illogical conclusion. And those conclusions can have us perceive old assumptions in a new light.

It's just plain old critical analysis. :loveyou:

 

[Anti-K]

Yes, I'm saying that when I read through theories(I'm no expert by any means I'm just pretty good at detecting hystrionic thinking) and I see someone trying to shoehorn a coincidence into their theory it always throws off (In my opinion) the very good critical thinking skills that it started off with.

What you wrote was a very valid idea. Well one of them anyway, that is that everything mentioned in the ransom note was designed to get the attention of the FBI.

But when you start grasping at straws like "the number 118 was written ten times on those two pages" you get lost in the dust you are kicking up with your add ons. Your idea doesn't need add ons.

This is just my bias btw but it's been the way I've seen cold cases solved in the past. The new set of eyes goes back to the information and looks at who lied and what assumptions were made that were wrong.

So we need to look at all the assumptions being made. You bring up a very good one, that is the ransom note was fake.

There's a few reasons most of us think this.

A. Jonbenet wasn't kidnapped, she was dead in the house
B. It was a really long ransom note that was written in the house
C. It was filled with melodramatic "movie lines" and seemed to ramble

If we deduct that this means the ransom note was fake we can surmise it is likely that the parents wrote it to throw suspicion off of them. (I'm still thinking this is the case but it is interesting to reexamine the above assumptions.)

A. It could be that Jonbenet was accidentally killed during the kidnapping and then they mutilated her and left her right there because they never intended to kill her. It was a real kidnapping.

B. It could be that the ransom note was written by someone who lingered in the house hours before the Ramseys came home.

C. It could be that the ransom note had another reason for being written the way it was. And you bring up that perhaps the perpetrator wanted the FBI to get involved.

This is an interesting observation because as I've stated before, the perpetrators couldn't possibly have thought that the cops wouldn't find the body until hours later. It wasn't hidden in the basement. There were places the body could have been concealed if they wanted to hide it. It was left out to be found. So why was this?

Well, if that’s your only complaint then things aren’t so bad, eh?
Here’s a little more on what I’ve had to say about the use of 118: http://tinyurl.com/mrr3yue

The bottom line, for me, is that 118 is an unusual number and within the context of this Theory of Intent that is the reason why that particular number was used: it was unusual. Did it have a meaning beyond that? I don’t know.

However, in defence, this Theory of Intent suggests a killer who was, as boasted in the ransom note, “familiar with police tactics and countermeasures.” It further suggests a killer whose familiarity may have been based on Mindhunter, and an interest in the FBI and criminal profiling.

The FBI’s Criminal Profiling Project has been cited in the literature numerous times beginning in the mid-80’s through to the present time. For example: http://tinyurl.com/p9c967o

I think it reasonable that the type of offender suggested would have been familiar with this Project, and they would know that it involved 36 offenders and 118 victims. You read 118 victims ten times in one book, and a couple times in a couple other books and maybe it sticks in your head. Is that a stretch? I don’t know, it doesn’t matter. The bottom line, for me, is that 118 is an unusual number and within the context of this Theory of Intent that is the reason why that particular number was used: it was unusual.
...

On your point that “If we deduct that this means the ransom note was fake we can surmise it is likely that the parents wrote it to throw suspicion off of them.”

The note actually threw suspicion upon them. And, it contradicts what the parents, if RDI, would have been trying to do: explain a body in the house.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

BBM

Yes, I'm saying that when I read through theories(I'm no expert by any means I'm just pretty good at detecting hystrionic thinking) and I see someone trying to shoehorn a coincidence into their theory it always throws off (In my opinion) the very good critical thinking skills that it started off with.

What you wrote was a very valid idea. Well one of them anyway, that is that everything mentioned in the ransom note was designed to get the attention of the FBI.

But when you start grasping at straws like "the number 118 was written ten times on those two pages" you get lost in the dust you are kicking up with your add ons. Your idea doesn't need add ons.

This is just my bias btw but it's been the way I've seen cold cases solved in the past. The new set of eyes goes back to the information and looks at who lied and what assumptions were made that were wrong.

So we need to look at all the assumptions being made. You bring up a very good one, that is the ransom note was fake.

There's a few reasons most of us think this.

A. Jonbenet wasn't kidnapped, she was dead in the house
B. It was a really long ransom note that was written in the house
C. It was filled with melodramatic "movie lines" and seemed to ramble

If we deduct that this means the ransom note was fake we can surmise it is likely that the parents wrote it to throw suspicion off of them. (I'm still thinking this is the case but it is interesting to reexamine the above assumptions.)

A. It could be that Jonbenet was accidentally killed during the kidnapping and then they mutilated her and left her right there because they never intended to kill her. It was a real kidnapping.

B. It could be that the ransom note was written by someone who lingered in the house hours before the Ramseys came home.

C. It could be that the ransom note had another reason for being written the way it was. And you bring up that perhaps the perpetrator wanted the FBI to get involved.

This is an interesting observation because as I've stated before, the perpetrators couldn't possibly have thought that the cops wouldn't find the body until hours later. It wasn't hidden in the basement. There were places the body could have been concealed if they wanted to hide it. It was left out to be found. So why was this?

People who report (fake) kidnappings only do so after a body has been disposed of. People report (fake) kidnappings to explain why someone is missing. The Ramseys, if RDI, needed to explain a dead child in the house and reporting a kidnapping doesn’t do that – it contradicts it. So, how do you make the leap from deducing that the ransom note was fake, to, it is likely that the parents wrote it?

And, if the note was written by the Ramseys, then it is unnecessarily self-incriminating (think of the note, the notepad, the so-called practice note and the sharpie pen as a single package), which makes me wonder why you might think that the parents wrote it to “throw suspicion off them?” The evidence unpacked disproves, or at least makes extremely unlikely, the possibility of such motivation.
...

AK

 

[Mama2JML]

Because we're reconsidering assumptions. We're not cops or detectives on here, in case you haven't noticed. Just people hypothesizing theories.

Sometimes to the best way to deconstruct a previous assumption is to take new assumptions down a line of thought. In most cases those paths will lead to an impossibility or irrational or illogical conclusion. And those conclusions can have us perceive old assumptions in a new light.

It's just plain old critical analysis. :loveyou:

I'm confused. Have at it... :blushing:

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

For the record, I've never called you those things.
I'm simply curious as to what evidence exactly you are following, besides the tDNA. I just wanted an opportunity to discuss the evidence you've attributed to your theory.
I try to always be reasonably respectful and answer all your questions about my theory.
Just doesn't seem fair ....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I appreciate that and have no trouble with a one on one with you. I just don't want to open it up to an onslaught.

I will give you a little here, if you want to chat in pm about it more that works for me too..

There is no history of abuse in this family.
It is Christmas night when this occurs.
The R note is written on their pad and paper but they make no attempt to destroy these things or remove them, There is a practice note in the trash, also ridiculous if they are trying to hide a crime.
The actual weapon that caused the head injury is gone. There is no tape in the house that matches the tape used on JBR.

Which means they were removed. The Tdna and the DNA in her panties match and it is not an R or anyone else that was tested, and I think it is 200 people known???
That leads to an intruder who did not care that the pad and paper were from the house because it would not lead out the door, But they did take the weapon that was used to bash in her head and the tape used on her mouth. Those things would have lead to them.

That is the simplest direct line to a theory following the evidence. Anything else leads to making up or assuming facts. And that does not work for me.

 

[Chewy]

BBM


People who report (fake) kidnappings only do so after a body has been disposed of. People report (fake) kidnappings to explain why someone is missing. The Ramseys, if RDI, needed to explain a dead child in the house and reporting a kidnapping doesn’t do that – it contradicts it. So, how do you make the leap from deducing that the ransom note was fake, to, it is likely that the parents wrote it?

And, if the note was written by the Ramseys, then it is unnecessarily self-incriminating (think of the note, the notepad, the so-called practice note and the sharpie pen as a single package), which makes me wonder why you might think that the parents wrote it to “throw suspicion off them?” The evidence unpacked disproves, or at least makes extremely unlikely, the possibility of such motivation.
...

AK

Only if you suggest that they attempted to "Frame" someone else. If the ransom note was simply designed to create "reasonable doubt" and confusion about what happened, then it's worked beautifully.

As far as the kidnapping goes, we still are confronted by the reality that the Intruder didn't hide the body. They didn't even hide it in a box or behind something. She was left flat out in the middle of the floor. Why would a person trying to elicit a ransom leave her in such an easily found place? That's what makes the note seem fake to me.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Because we're reconsidering assumptions. We're not cops or detectives on here, in case you haven't noticed. Just people hypothesizing theories.

Sometimes to the best way to deconstruct a previous assumption is to take new assumptions down a line of thought. In most cases those paths will lead to an impossibility or irrational or illogical conclusion. And those conclusions can have us perceive old assumptions in a new light.

It's just plain old critical analysis. :loveyou:

Not if we are looking for the truth. It can not be based on assumptions nor can it be based on bias. It has to be based alone on the KNOWN ESTABLISHED FACTS.

 

[Chewy]

Well, if that’s your only complaint then things aren’t so bad, eh?
Here’s a little more on what I’ve had to say about the use of 118: http://tinyurl.com/mrr3yue

The bottom line, for me, is that 118 is an unusual number and within the context of this Theory of Intent that is the reason why that particular number was used: it was unusual. Did it have a meaning beyond that? I don’t know.

However, in defence, this Theory of Intent suggests a killer who was, as boasted in the ransom note, “familiar with police tactics and countermeasures.” It further suggests a killer whose familiarity may have been based on Mindhunter, and an interest in the FBI and criminal profiling.

The FBI’s Criminal Profiling Project has been cited in the literature numerous times beginning in the mid-80’s through to the present time. For example: http://tinyurl.com/p9c967o

I think it reasonable that the type of offender suggested would have been familiar with this Project, and they would know that it involved 36 offenders and 118 victims. You read 118 victims ten times in one book, and a couple times in a couple other books and maybe it sticks in your head. Is that a stretch? I don’t know, it doesn’t matter. The bottom line, for me, is that 118 is an unusual number and within the context of this Theory of Intent that is the reason why that particular number was used: it was unusual.
...

On your point that “If we deduct that this means the ransom note was fake we can surmise it is likely that the parents wrote it to throw suspicion off of them.”

The note actually threw suspicion upon them. And, it contradicts what the parents, if RDI, would have been trying to do: explain a body in the house.
...

AK

The note threw suspicion elsewhere. Without the ransom note you'd have parents with a murdered mutiliated body in the house and no reason to think a stranger did it. At least the ransom note created the possibility that it was an intruder.

As far as the 118, those types of coincidences happen all the time. But as for the writer subconsciously choosing the ransom amount in that number, it's too much of a stretch for me. It's too much of a coincidence that John had just received that bonus and it's an anomoly of a number to ask for.

I do think that there is a possibility that this person wanted the attention of the FBI but for what? What's the motive. Once you find that one thing in the ransom note is a flat out lie, then you can't take the rest of it the same way.

For example, they offered to return her body. And that "correction"

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.

indicates to me that the writer may have already known she was dead. But again the body wasn't concealed in the basement. Anyone who has watched any crime shows at all would assume that the body would have been found by the police within the first hour of showing up at the house.

So if an Intruder did it. What's the reason?

 

[Chewy]

Not if we are looking for the truth. It can not be based on assumptions nor can it be based on bias. It has to be based alone on the KNOWN ESTABLISHED FACTS.

I disagree a little. What we consider KNOWN ESTABLISHED FACTS can very well turn out to be assumptions. Certain things don't change. But statements by people are not facts. Someone saying something happened a certain way is not the same as it actually happened a certain way.

A simple example being "The Ransom note was faked" That seems to be accepted by many people. But it IS possible that some completely deranged person wrote the note and really intended to kidnap her. But something went wrong. If that's the case, the interpretation of the information doesn't add up because of an assumption that was made.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I disagree a little. What we consider KNOWN ESTABLISHED FACTS can very well turn out to be assumptions. Certain things don't change. But statements by people are not facts. Someone saying something happened a certain way is not the same as it actually happened a certain way.

A simple example being "The Ransom note was faked" That seems to be accepted by many people. But it IS possible that some completely deranged person wrote the note and really intended to kidnap her. But something went wrong. If that's the case, the interpretation of the information doesn't add up because of an assumption that was made.

Exactly. That is why no one should take information in this case for granted and as fact. Start fact finding for yourself and go back and hunt down what is fact and what is not. Look for the real answers.
There is a ton of stuff that is just not real evidence. It is not fact nor it is part of the case. It is just someone else's game of telephone.

The ransom note is a prime example. It is there, it it written on paper from the home and then left there with no attempt to hide the practice note or the paper and pen. That is a note written by someone that has no fear of having it linked to them.
That is what the evidence shows. That the handwriting did not match anyone tested, Also scores a point for an intruder writing the note.

So the ransom note, until proven otherwise is indeed a real ransom note.

I go with what I KNOW to be true. It took a long time for me to find out some things were just not true.

I think if people took the time to search out answers for themselves. And did not get their info from books or other people who just tell them what happened, it would be more clear what happened here.