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

[THE BUNK]

Things to keep in mind when analyzing this ransom note.

1. A ransom note does not have to be written. It can be phoned in. The killer does not have to leave evidence with his handwritten. He can use a public phone and call it in and make sure his threat is made clear to the ramseys!

Unless of course he knows the Ramsey's will recognize his voice...which should narrow down the suspect list.

2. The most important things to the writer will always occur in the first lines.
The first lines establish his identity (foreign faction), his motive (political reasons), what has been done (kidnapped daughter) what he wants ($118,000).
The letter could have stopped there. No salutation or anything. Yet the writer had to spend paragraphs explaining the procurement of the money, the consequences of actions and then spends just one paragraph talking about how John Ramsey lacks a clue. Yet in the same paragraph encouraging him that he can rescue his daughter.

 

[2 percent]

Diarrhea of the hand is more like it!

I was going to say that until the ewwww mental picture popped into my head :floorlaugh::floorlaugh:

 

[THE BUNK]

IMO the Ransom note points far away from an R writing it. It makes sense to me that it was someone who felt they were important but not recognized as such.
If being important was so....important to him..why did he not mention that explicitly in the first paragraph?

I agree. John Ramsey did not WRITE this note. He may have assisted in dictating sections of it, but he did not pen it.

If you are writing a note and don't want it to lead to you, You write as little as possible, unless you are not anyone known to the family, and don't care. Then you can say what you want for the attention you want, and try and scare people.

You write what you need to write. The writer wrote what was necessary. What was necessary to him was the

Besides the writer attempted to disguise his handwriting and his intelligence. So he obviously was concerned that the Ramsey's or the police were going to recognize his handwriting. Why an intruder would think the police would recognize his handwriting is beyond me.

Keep in mind also that this letter may never have been intended to be the last draft. The killer may have used this as a rough draft with the intention to change it later on.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I don't think any of the R's wrote it. IT is simple to me and when I read I see a picture of the kind of person that would write it. It ain't them in my book.

To me this is someone just trying to be more important than they are. To have a voice without being known.. Kind of like todays online persona. People can say what they want and feel free about it because it is not their real name.

 

[THE BUNK]

The other problem with a short ransom note is that there has to be a phone call occurring later or another letter sent to give the rest of the instructions. The ransom note provides all the instructions up to the delivery and return of Jonbenet. That insinuates that the writer wants the money collected and the ramsey's to be waiting by the phone for the call...but he is less concerned about a phone call that will never occur.

 

[THE BUNK]

I don't think any of the R's wrote it. IT is simple to me and when I read I see a picture of the kind of person that would write it. It ain't them in my book.

Yet you admitted to me that people can have a side to them that they don't show to the rest of the world.

So your picture of the type of person who writes the Ransom note probably isn't what the killer acts or looks like in real life.

So someone who's an upstanding citizen, father, wife and son could easily be that person.

To me this is someone just trying to be more important than they are. To have a voice without being known.. Kind of like todays online persona. People can say what they want and feel free about it because it is not their real name.

But yet, he wants a group of people to be blamed for the murder. He wants two gentlemen to be the ones that dislike John very much.

The writer never says --"I" am the one who has kidnapped your daughter. "I" am the one who will steal money from you. "I" am the one who will kill your daughter and rape her. "I" am the one who is smarter!! "I" will prove to be a rich powerful man like you!

But no...everything he writes is passive. Alludes to another person doing the acts. Hell, he isn't even a part of the foreign faction. He just REPRESENTS them.

This guy does everything to take himself away from the action!! This person doesn't want to be important...all he wants to do is deliver the message and be blameless for what occurs.

This is not the letter of a megalomaniac. It's the letter of a person trying to distance himself from the crime of murder.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

That is your opinion..

I have mine. I believe it is one person attempting to be "bigger" than they are.

 

[THE BUNK]

I also find it interesting that this note follows a lot of the rules of writing a formal letter.

Introduction. Salutations. Paragraphs. I don't think there are any run on sentences. Why would you care about such things in a threatening letter?

Whoever wrote this has written a lot of letters before and seems to enjoy doing so. But yet...he has no concept of how to write a threatening letter. So this was their first foray.

 

[THE BUNK]

That is your opinion..

I have mine. I believe it is one person attempting to be "bigger" than they are.

There was nothing preventing him from saying he is bigger and better and more important than John Ramsey in the letter. Why be shy? Why be so vague? He already wrote three pages. Why not a fourth? Or even better...why not send him another letter!


Also, why do people assume that the letter writer hated John Ramsey? Who else was the letter supposed to be written to? The only other person was Patsy. Old school thinking would assume that the Breadwinner was the one that would take action on the demands of the letter. Unless of course the writer wanted to explicitly state that John Ramsey was the one who's account was going to produce the ransmom. How would the intruder have known that John Ramsey had $118,000 liquid in his PERSONAL account?

 

[DeDee]

I think the RN is a fake.
It's too long-winded, too threatening (6 times saying JB will die, be executed or beheaded) and too specific for any kind of professional experience as they claim (watching them without being spotted?! SNORT :floorlaugh

But mostly I think it's crap because of the claim that they will scan John for electronic devices...there was going to be face to face contact? There was only the mention of delivery and pickup, why not mention face to face electronic scanning there? Remember, we're assuming this was planned out...they couldn't work harder on a legible and understandable RN without over doing the death threats and going on and on and on and on...

Hiya, 2percent. Respectfully, I strongly disagree. Other than JonBenét and her body, the RN is the most important piece of evidence. Be sure to study a copy of the original [linked below] so you can catch clues in the handwriting of each word.

The RN was a lengthy revelation of what occurred and the author deeply needed to explain what happened as well as reveal where the body was located.

There was no reason to electronically scan John when Patsy was the one who was scanned for cancer and, according to the RN, their "kidnapped" baby girl was dead from a head injury [in the basement] as a result of something John did that made the kidnapper kill the child.

http://www.documentingreality.com/forum/attachments/f227/18219d1213072569-jonben-t-ramsey-

The RN begins and ends with John:

Mr. Ramsey,
Listen carefully! and never once mentions or appeals to the mother, Patsy.

Another point is when the author writes that JonBenét is safe and un harmed. The word unharmed is written with a space between un and harmed indicating the child was indeed harmed.

The $118,000.00 points directly to John's bonus representing envy over his fat cat success. The Bible in John's study is open to the Book of Psalms, verse 118.

Changing the bills could reference the change from the bank account to an upper-class attaché to a plain paper bag. Something major has changed in the Ramsey household.

Attaché rhymes with JonBenét.

Attaché's are thought of to be a container that holds secrets information that are chained to the wrists of the agent in charge. JonBenét was bound by her wrists [secrets].

Where the word delivery is scribbled out to represent a chaotic dark mark [in the events leading to the death], it is replaced with the word pick-up. Now, consider what the phrase "pick-up" implies.

"You will be denied her remains" tells us [the police] there is a dead body. Look for her. Look for her where a stray dog might be alone and in the basement.

Immediate execution and beheaded tell us that JonBenet has suffered head injuries and will likely be discovered laying down. Immediately look for her!

"Don't think that killing will be difficult" tells us that the author is surprised with how easy killing was to do when provoked.

"It's up to you now, John!" tells us that John should be the primary focus for the reasons why the crime was committed.

The RN ends with the letter C as in the very dreadful "Big C" = cancer.

On and on and on and on...

OMO

 

[THE BUNK]

the RN is the most important piece of evidence. B

It was the only evidence the Ramsey's had at the time of the murder that proved there was an intruder. It was the only piece of evidence that the Ramsey's could hand to the police and say "There it's a kidnapping by and intruder."

In fact it was the ONLY evidence they could ever produce at the time to show that there was an intruder.

Without the Ramsey's have no proof of anything that happened that night. Just a dead little girl in their basement that was both strangle and bashed in the head.

 

[THE BUNK]

"You will be denied her remains" tells us [the police] there is a dead body. Look for her. Look for her where a stray dog might be alone and in the basement.

Leaving a dead body in the home isn't denying them the remains.
Not contacting the Ramseys ever again and burying her in an undisclosed location is.

Mr. Ramsey,
Listen carefully! and never once mentions or appeals to the mother, Patsy.

That's because the ransom note doesn't concern her. She's not the one with the money in her account. And more than likely she is not the one that's going to do the money drop.

Attaché rhymes with JonBenét.

Interestingly the author never writes JonBenet once. Which would have been a dead giveaway since how many people know how to properly spell her name or know how to pronounce it? You could know John Ramsey all you want, but it is not a given that you would know his children as well.

"Don't think that killing will be difficult" tells us that the author is surprised with how easy killing was to do when provoked.---

A very awkward phrase. Almost like the writer is uncomfortable writing it. Normally one would write. "Killing is easy for me. Don't think that I won't kill this brat if I don't get what I want!!" That's the type of phrase an experience criminal would use.

Changing the bills could reference the change from the bank account to an upper-class attaché to a plain paper bag. Something major has changed in the Ramsey household.

Another point that shows that the killer is inexperienced with crime.
It occurs to me that the killer probably was making sure that the money would fit inside a certain attache or suitcase. Perhaps signalling that the suitcase would need to be brought during the money drop for some other purpose. Like perhaps, to fit JonBenet's body in?

"It's up to you now, John!" tells us that John should be the primary focus for the reasons why the crime was committed.

Possibly. Or it could be a subconscious slip on the writer's part. A lot of odd and personal things come out in the last parts of the letter. The part were the writer would be tired and winding down with his thoughts. It almost seems like the letter writer is pinning their hopes on John Ramsey making this situation right. Cheerleading your victim? Cheerleading the guy you hate? Odd. Very odd.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

There was nothing preventing him from saying he is bigger and better and more important than John Ramsey in the letter. Why be shy? Why be so vague? He already wrote three pages. Why not a fourth? Or even better...why not send him another letter!


Also, why do people assume that the letter writer hated John Ramsey? Who else was the letter supposed to be written to? The only other person was Patsy. Old school thinking would assume that the Breadwinner was the one that would take action on the demands of the letter. Unless of course the writer wanted to explicitly state that John Ramsey was the one who's account was going to produce the ransmom. How would the intruder have known that John Ramsey had $118,000 liquid in his PERSONAL account?

Because the note was a game. It was a way to say I'm holding all the cards now.

How do you know what was in JRs bank account? I'd like a link on that.


Forgive the autocorrect. Tapatalk has a mind of its own.

 

[Anti-K]

1. Throwing her down the stairs would not provide a murder weapon, which the garrotte does.

2. By saying they found her down the stairs, there would be no intruder. So it would be a question of whether this was an accident. They would have no evidence to show that an intruder arrived-something that the ransom note provides. It's evidence that they can show a police officer to prove an intruder.

3. The Ramsey's would have to explain what Jon Benet was doing up...which would also lead to the question of was anyone up the same time as Jonbenet was. The question whether Burke was up with Jonbenet would make it a necessity that Burke be interviewed.

4. The Ramsey's would be putting themselves at the mercy of the autopsy. If the autopsy shows that Jonbenet couldn't have died from falling down the stairs. That's it. The Ramsey's are lying and there is no intruder to fall back on.

5. A fall downs the stairs would not explain the past molestation which a sexual attack from an intruder would have explained.

6. In that scenario, the Ramsey's know nothing. They aren't supposed to know how Jonbenet wound up on the floor. That's a mystery. Being that this is a death of a child, there will be a full investigation to make sure it is not a homicide. This would mean the Ramsey's would have to come up with a cover story AFTER the fact.

7. I'm pretty sure if giving enough time, the Ramsey's could have made several improvements on this theme. Problem is they didn't have time. A decision had to be made and action had to be taken right away.

8. More importantly...if Jonbenet survived and woke up...what prevents her from saying "Mommy and Daddy hurt me!" to the doctors and the investigators.

1. Throwing her down the stairs is to fake an accident. No murder and therefore no murder weapon required.

2. Faking an accident means no intruder, no need for intruder evidence and no police.

3. They could simply lie, lie, and lie some more; plus lawyers and get outs dodge. No worries, eh!

4. They would have had no reason to fear autopsy results as they would have not known what the autopsy would reveal, and: lawyers, lawyers, lawyers.

5. A sexual attack by an intruder does not explain prior abuse. Assuming prior abuse as fact, we do not know what form that abuse took (innocent children playing; daddy up to no good; corporal punishment; or other) and we do not know who was involved in it, and we don’t know who knew about it. So, there is no factual basis for the claim that a sexual attack, or any other act, as needed to cover up prior abuse.

6. In this scenario, the Ramseys would know nothing. Their cover story is that they were sleeping and when they came downstairs that morning, or whenever for why-ever, they found their child laying on the floor at the bottom of the stairs. End of story. Questions? Lie, lie, lie, lawyer up.

7. Do you mean they didn’t have time in the typical RDI scenario? Nonsense. They had all the time they wanted. Insert a two day time frame into the ransom note, call pilot, family, and whoever necessary and say, something terrible has happened, we can’t leave now, we’ll explain why later. Piece of cake.

8. We’re talking about a dead child.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Diarrhea of the hand is more like it! I agree. This is a person who likes to write and is used to writing long notes in this type of style and voice.

It almost seems like the writer used to be a secretary.

Listen Carefully is an awful lot like ATTENTION. The type of thing you put on a company memo.

In fact the whole Ransom not reads like a company wide memo that a secretary would write on behalf of his or hers boss.

It also sounds like a note your mother would leave for you when you are going away to camp.

The writer of the ransom note writes letters like this all the time, IMHO. All they did was change the subject from a company picnic to a ransom demand.

I‘m not sure about the “secretary,” but I’ve always thought that the note was likely written by someone who was used to doing a fair bit of writing. A secretary? Sure, I don’t know much about what such a job entails. But, it could also be someone like me. I write because I have to, it’s an integral part of who me. Write or die. There a lot of jobs and roles that require a lot of writing. College students, high school students, journalists, police officers...
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

The other problem with a short ransom note is that there has to be a phone call occurring later or another letter sent to give the rest of the instructions. The ransom note provides all the instructions up to the delivery and return of Jonbenet. That insinuates that the writer wants the money collected and the ramsey's to be waiting by the phone for the call...but he is less concerned about a phone call that will never occur.

These are not problems when the note is fake, and there is no real kidnapping and there is no intent to collect a ransom.

However, if RDI, then not only is a short ransom note not a problem but it is advantageous. The less self-incriminating evidence created, the better.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

It was the only evidence the Ramsey's had at the time of the murder that proved there was an intruder. It was the only piece of evidence that the Ramsey's could hand to the police and say "There it's a kidnapping by and intruder."

In fact it was the ONLY evidence they could ever produce at the time to show that there was an intruder.

Without the Ramsey's have no proof of anything that happened that night. Just a dead little girl in their basement that was both strangle and bashed in the head.

If RDI, and if the Ramseys wanted the police to think that there was an intruder then the first thing on their list would have been to provide an entry/exit point.
...

AK

 

[Tawny]

If RDI, and if the Ramseys wanted the police to think that there was an intruder then the first thing on their list would have been to provide an entry/exit point.
...

AK

They did. The basement window that John himself explained was broken and unlocked.

 

[THE BUNK]

I‘m not sure about the “secretary,” but I’ve always thought that the note was likely written by someone who was used to doing a fair bit of writing. A secretary? Sure, I don’t know much about what such a job entails. But, it could also be someone like me. I write because I have to, it’s an integral part of who me. Write or die. There a lot of jobs and roles that require a lot of writing. College students, high school students, journalists, police officers...
...

AK

Also consider the lack of profanity in the letter. Something an office worker would be used to.

A police officer would have done a better job of not leaving evidence. He especially would not have attacked her in the house.

At the very least the letter writer is a white collar worker. Especially considering he knows so much about John Ramsey.

 

[THE BUNK]

These are not problems when the note is fake, and there is no real kidnapping and there is no intent to collect a ransom.

However, if RDI, then not only is a short ransom note not a problem but it is advantageous. The less self-incriminating evidence created, the better.
...

AK

A short note is a problem with RDI, because the money collection is something that has to occur. Your assuming that the body was meant to be found in the home. If the original plan was for the body to be gone and no call has occurred the money collection is a process that will have to occur since it was mentioned in the first paragraph.

You also have to realize that most of the non-criminal world has no idea how long a ransom not is supposed to be. They probably would have thought too short a ransom note would be more suspicious.

Steve Jobs was a brilliant man. That doesn't mean I want him planning a bank robbery.
John Ramsey was a smart man. Doesn't mean he's good at covering up a crime.
Not many people are like us who are versed in true crime stories. Many people have no idea the basics of committing a crime.