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

[Chewy]

I think tovarisch made an interesting point about it being young people. Every once in a while I consider this scenario and realize how quickly the paradigm changes when it's shifted to a "teen or 22 year old aged person"

Then suddenly the ransom note takes on a whole different meaning. It doesn't sound "fake" any more, instead it sounds "immature" and "ignorant." Especially all the rambling "Ransom" details in the beginning.


Here's an observation from another site that I found intriguing

And it was also someone who came from Atlanta. It was finally revealed -- as the result of a false confession by a child molester who came from there, and knew the Ramseys, although casually -- that "SBTC" stands for "Should Be The Conqueror," an expression which had caught on among teenage boys in the Atlanta area, but not elsewhere. In fact, the letter invited John Ramsey to "use your good old Southern common sense," another expression that indicated that the writer came from the South.

That plus VICTORY really sounds very different if you picture in your mind, not just a "random intruder" but a group of frat boys that put this together.

At least in my mind anyway. It would also answer a lot of the questions about access to the house, two people working together, why $118,000 was chosen. To a group of young boys, that's a lot of money. And they knew it could be easily gained.

The sarcastic comments are young, but not out of the range of boys trying to sound "older" and more mature.

 

[tovarisch]

Yeah - the whole thing baffles me. When I read the ransom note it doesn't really call anyone to mind for me. It's all over the place. And I don't know what the strategy behind it was. And apparently investigators were similarly baffled.

I want to ask everybody about one place in the note. " If you want her to see 1997 ' . For me it sounds taken from song or another language. I`ve never heard anything like this. It is strange phrase or what ?

 

[lawstudent]

I want to ask everybody about one place in the note. " If you want her to see 1997 ' . For me it sounds taken from song or another language. I`ve never heard anything like this. It is strange phrase or what ?

That's an English saying - "if you want to see tomorrow, do what I say," meaning if you want to live until tomorrow.

I think tovarisch made an interesting point about it being young people. Every once in a while I consider this scenario and realize how quickly the paradigm changes when it's shifted to a "teen or 22 year old aged person"

Then suddenly the ransom note takes on a whole different meaning. It doesn't sound "fake" any more, instead it sounds "immature" and "ignorant." Especially all the rambling "Ransom" details in the beginning.


Here's an observation from another site that I found intriguing



That plus VICTORY really sounds very different if you picture in your mind, not just a "random intruder" but a group of frat boys that put this together.

At least in my mind anyway. It would also answer a lot of the questions about access to the house, two people working together, why $118,000 was chosen. To a group of young boys, that's a lot of money. And they knew it could be easily gained.

The sarcastic comments are young, but not out of the range of boys trying to sound "older" and more mature.

I agree with this assessment, although most teens I know do not know what "faction" or "attache" means and "fat cat" is an older term. But I think teens would have gotten caught. They can't keep their mouths shut and usually crack pretty quick.

 

[tovarisch]

The old neighbor saw a young man he thought was Andrew. Andrew partly lived on the campus, if I understood correctly, that he used to visit Ramsey`s only on week-ends. Andrew was gone for the holidays; everybody knew it, what about his coats, or jackets left behind. If one young man put on jacket of another young man, would not he been looking like the first one from the far? Don`t young people look alike, because they are slim and don’t have distinctive features, like fat belly. Of cause, the old man`s story was never checked against possibilities, like this one. Description of the coat, jacket, pants, scarf had never been taken from the neighbor.

 

[Anti-K]

OEJ,
tank your for partly agreeing with my view of the killers. But, could you , please, provide the name of the most ruthless child killer(s) who blanched?
I do not know if I could consider assault of JonBenet`s body with an object could be classified as sexual. They made no biological or even tactile contact with her. They forfully inserted an object, and took a picture. That`s was the main reason- for finial humiliating pictures. For memorabilia, other than picture they took Nothing, neither from Jonbenet, nor from the house. And Jonbenet had several new pieces of gold on her. It tells me they were not cheap deranged drunkards or crack heads, who though that $118,000 somewhere in the range next to $1 million, those deranged cheap criminals would grab couple of gold items from the body, why not? Or something from the house? They took nothing. Instead, killers took pictures. Including with her hands tied up. Object and hands tied up were done for pictures. I do not know if humiliation of a body was for sexual gratification for them. I think for “victory”. I`ve already explained my theory that it was a political act. And it`s just my opinion.

We do not know that the killer took pictures.
...

AK

 

[tovarisch]

That's an English saying - "if you want to see tomorrow, do what I say," meaning if you want to live until tomorrow.



I agree with this assessment, although most teens I know do not know what "faction" or "attache" means and "fat cat" is an older term. But I think teens would have gotten caught. They can't keep their mouths shut and usually crack pretty quick.

Who was talkative that was Anrew R, it`s known fact from his mates, he weared their ears off. The "others" were good listerners. There were not just teens, the killers, they were faction , and they did not respect the rest , they said so, and they would not share. They knew word faction because they WERE faction ( in their heads). The attache is very-very suspicious, everyday word in other countries,I never heard here. Not one time. Fat cat-- from Andrew?

 

[Chewy]

We do not know that the killer took pictures.
...

AK

Actually this is true, we don't know. But it is worth considering. It would explain why the person went to such effort to stage the body the way they did.

And lawstudent I also agree, that makes sense, I doubt in all this time teens would be able to keep their mouths shut. But one person....hmmm

I also have wondered about someone saying they saw Andrew going into the home. I would imagine if they saw a young man that they assumed was Andrew it would just stick in their memory as Andrew.

 

[2 percent]

OEJ,
tank your for partly agreeing with my view of the killers. But, could you , please, provide the name of the most ruthless child killer(s) who blanched?

I don't know if they blanched but some child killers had no sexual motivation. Lionel Tate comes to mind as well as as Adam Lanza. Serial child murderer Wayne Williams, too. There are several mothers who killed their children were there is no sexual component - Yates, Smith, MacDonald and Downs are a few of the famous.

I do not know if I could consider assault of JonBenet`s body with an object could be classified as sexual.

Well that opens up a whole new crop of child killers who may have blanched.
There is no doubt there was an assault on JB, specifically in three places - head, neck and vagina. If your theory is that the injuries to her vaginal area was not about sex but about hurting her only, we can include three children who killed children: Mary Bell, Eric Smith and Venables and Thompson (killed James Bulger). Their assaults also appear to be for other-than-sexual reasons.

 

[Junebug99]

*
Staging No obvious point of entry, wouldn't that be your first thought?
Why call 911? They could have faked an ilness, cancelled their trip and bought themselves a lot of time.
Ransom note on their note pad with their pen which they handed over to police, even the dumbest criminal would not be that dumb.
Wiping JBR down with JR's shirt and handing it over to LE. *Sounds like a framing *
Corner of book pointed to incest? *Sounds staged to me.
Those that think it was premeditated don't you think Patsy would make sure her house was emmaculate knowing LE, friends and neighbors would be coming over, or even postpone the calls until the house was up to par.
Patsy paint set used, sounds like another set up.
Johns Bonus, why use that amount, that would be another dumb move.
The ransom note - Nuff said

John supposedly read true crime books, did he not learn anything? *They would have to be the dumbest criminals of all time.

Bringing up other mothers who have killed is pointless. I could bring up Lindy Chamberlain and Julie Rhea Harper in defense of the Ramseys.

 

[2 percent]

Why call 911? They could have faked an ilness, cancelled their trip and bought themselves a lot of time.

If you're asking why the Ramseys didn't delay calling 911 when they found a dead child on their hands, they didn't have the internal fortitude to let her sit and decompose while they tried to line up a logical story.

Ransom note on their note pad with their pen which they handed over to police, even the dumbest criminal would not be that dumb.

Yet...they did.
Regardless of who did this, they were dumb enough to write the note with materials in the house.

Wiping JBR down with JR's shirt and handing it over to LE. *Sounds like a framing

Handing it over? I'm not sure that characterization is correct.
Actually the most likely explanation is it was handy. I don't see a conspiracy here.

Corner of book pointed to incest? *Sounds staged to me.

I'm not really understanding the direction you're going here. Staged by who? I seriously doubt Patsy would implicate John if an IDI. And if John or Patsy did it, why point to someone in the house?

Those that think it was premeditated don't you think Patsy would make sure her house was emmaculate knowing LE, friends and neighbors would be coming over, or even postpone the calls until the house was up to par.

No. I think the state of the house was the the very last thing on her mind.
Also, legally premeditation can be a matter of minutes.

Patsy paint set used, sounds like another set up.

Again, by who? Patsy and John wouldn't stage to point at themselves and no intruder would care enough or want to waste time staging.

Johns Bonus, why use that amount, that would be another dumb move.
The ransom note - Nuff said

And again, it may be stupid but here we are! Either way, the ransom note with that very specific amount is a reality and it makes no sense, really, for anyone to write it.

John supposedly read true crime books, did he not learn anything? *They would have to be the dumbest criminals of all time.

Yet no one has been arrested....

Bringing up other mothers who have killed is pointless. I could bring up Lindy Chamberlain and Julie Rhea Harper in defense of the Ramseys.

Not pointless given the context of the conversation.
Another poster questioned whether the sexual assault evidence on JB was sexually motivated and questioned if child killers blanch at sexual assault of their victims. Among the several examples I gave of child killers with no sexual motive, I included parents who have murdered their children with no sexual motive, too, not because of this case but because it was relevant to the discussion. So no defense of the Ramseys are needed since it had nothing to do with them.

 

[tovarisch]

That's an English saying - "if you want to see tomorrow, do what I say," meaning if you want to live until tomorrow.

Lawstudent,
Another “English saying”, instead of “if you want to see your daughter alive”. The Note started looking to me, with the help of websleuthers, more and more artificial. The Note consists of numerous common sayings, quotes form movies and text from some studies, like this “…familiar with law enforcement countermeasures and tactics.” “deviation of my instructions”, “follow our instructions”, “ to instruct on delivery”, “...under constant scrutiny as well as the authorities” ” “ to alert bank authorities”, .That’s` a student, answering text exam- the more the words, the better chance to pass the exam. Constant repetition of the same, so called buttery butter. The Note started looking like primitive Frankenstein, all this fat cat and stray dog and movy quotes, all together- primitive, naïve and stupid, though scary and brutal.

 

[tovarisch]

Wiping JBR down with JR's shirt and handing it over to LE. *Sounds like a framing


Is it my imagination that many years ago I`ve read , don`t remember where, but it was FBI lab report that tissues were, actually, dark blue in color,? Over the years they`ve become darker, down to John`s black Israili shirt that he wore That night ..... )))))))))

 

[Junebug99]

I think the intruder set the Ramsey's up to make it appear like an inside job. I don't think the Ramseys are involved at all. Moo

 

[Anti-K]

I believe the evidence in support of Mr Ramsey’s shirt fibers being found in the victim’s genital area or be spurious, indeed.
...

AK

 

[2 percent]

I think the intruder set the Ramsey's up to make it appear like an inside job. I don't think the Ramseys are involved at all. Moo

Moving on...
I've seen several scenarios where people who murder those nearest and dearest try to alter evidence and the crime scene to make it look like an outsider/intruder committed the crime but never the other way around. Have you? Please cite the case.

Also, why would an intruder not linked to the family bother to take extra, very dangerous, time to alter a scene? And if they did, why not make clear, direct line evidence that points to the Ramseys? Specifically the ransom note...are you saying the purpose there was to expertly mimic Patsy's handwriting just enough? There's too much risk in trying to frame the Ramseys in such a minimal way.

No. If an IDI the evidence pointing at the Ramseys is weak at best and not worth the risk

 

[OEJ]

OEJ,
tank your for partly agreeing with my view of the killers. But, could you , please, provide the name of the most ruthless child killer(s) who blanched?
I do not know if I could consider assault of JonBenet`s body with an object could be classified as sexual. They made no biological or even tactile contact with her. They forfully inserted an object, and took a picture. That`s was the main reason- for finial humiliating pictures. For memorabilia, other than picture they took Nothing, neither from Jonbenet, nor from the house. And Jonbenet had several new pieces of gold on her. It tells me they were not cheap deranged drunkards or crack heads, who though that $118,000 somewhere in the range next to $1 million, those deranged cheap criminals would grab couple of gold items from the body, why not? Or something from the house? They took nothing. Instead, killers took pictures. Including with her hands tied up. Object and hands tied up were done for pictures. I do not know if humiliation of a body was for sexual gratification for them. I think for “victory”. I`ve already explained my theory that it was a political act. And it`s just my opinion.

Richard Kuklinski

 

[Chewy]

If you're asking why the Ramseys didn't delay calling 911 when they found a dead child on their hands, they didn't have the internal fortitude to let her sit and decompose while they tried to line up a logical story.

Seriously? They had the "internal fortitute to garotte and sexually mutilate their daughters body but didn't have the "internal fortitute" to let her rot? Meanwhile that's exactly what they did all day long while the cops were there.

This reasoning makes no sense at all.

Yet...they did.
Regardless of who did this, they were dumb enough to write the note with materials in the house.

It would only be dumb if they lived in the house. Smart actually if they didn't live in the house since there would be no way of tracing it to the culprit.

Handing it over? I'm not sure that characterization is correct.
Actually the most likely explanation is it was handy. I don't see a conspiracy here.

Why not wash it and throw it in the dryer after they used it that night? All evidence would be gone.

I'm not really understanding the direction you're going here. Staged by who? I seriously doubt Patsy would implicate John if an IDI. And if John or Patsy did it, why point to someone in the house?

She's saying that if you look at how each of the items used point specifically to the parents it demonstrates a staging. Using a kitchen butter knife to make the garotte or a screwdriver wouldn't personalize it the way using Patsy's paintbrush would.

Again, by who? Patsy and John wouldn't stage to point at themselves and no intruder would care enough or want to waste time staging.

Exactly so if Patsy and John wouldn't stage to point at themselves then why was the house staged to point at them?

And again, it may be stupid but here we are! Either way, the ransom note with that very specific amount is a reality and it makes no sense, really, for anyone to write it.

Yes it does, there are many reasons that amount could have been chosen.

A. To scare the Ramseys by sending the message that these people knew their personal finances and could attack their other child. (Apparently this threat is something that eludes the average RDI)

B. Because they wanted the money and wanted it fast. They knew they had immediate access to this amount of money in cash without having to take too many steps to get it.

C. Because they resented John Ramsey for getting this bonus because they don't think he deserved it.

D. Because they knew he had gotten this amount of money.

Yet no one has been arrested....

I guess the Long Island Serial killer is also the Ramseys.

 

[2 percent]

Seriously? They had the "internal fortitute to garotte and sexually mutilate their daughters body but didn't have the "internal fortitute" to let her rot? Meanwhile that's exactly what they did all day long while the cops were there.

This reasoning makes no sense at all.

Sure it does. Purposely going straight to the body the second time around means the internal fortitude wasn't there, that he or they couldn't let the decomp go any longer. He "found" her body quickly.

And the garrotte is only a problem of internal fortitude if it was staging. If it was a sexual game the desire would be stronger than the worry over what was happening to her.

It would only be dumb if they lived in the house. Smart actually if they didn't live in the house since there would be no way of tracing it to the culprit.

No...it was dumb, period. You don't leave a ransom note when there is no kidnapping. The ransom note makes no sense in any scenario. Even if a kidnapper was suddenly overcome with sexual feelings for JB, why wipe her down but not pick up the only thing that would probably link the murder to you.

Why not wash it and throw it in the dryer after they used it that night? All evidence would be gone.

That's at least an hour of noise.
In the middle of the night.

She's saying that if you look at how each of the items used point specifically to the parents it demonstrates a staging. Using a kitchen butter knife to make the garotte or a screwdriver wouldn't personalize it the way using Patsy's paintbrush would.

Yes, I know. But, to me, this makes no sense.
If you believe the evidence points to the Ramseys, why do you believe an IDI? That makes no sense.
If an IDI and they wanted to frame the Ramseys, the frame would be better...tighter...more obvious. I'm sure there was better evidence to implicate Patsy, yet this intruder goes to obscure things that may not be out in the open?

Exactly so if Patsy and John wouldn't stage to point at themselves then why was the house staged to point at them?

Not exactly. Why would an intruder, who is taking time to stage after failing to kidnap but succeeded in murdering, take time to stage? And if they did, why not frame them better?

Yes it does, there are many reasons that amount could have been chosen.

A. To scare the Ramseys by sending the message that these people knew their personal finances and could attack their other child. (Apparently this threat is something that eludes the average RDI)

B. Because they wanted the money and wanted it fast. They knew they had immediate access to this amount of money in cash without having to take too many steps to get it.

C. Because they resented John Ramsey for getting this bonus because they don't think he deserved it.

D. Because they knew he had gotten this amount of money.

A. I doubt the personal finances thing would resonate as much of a threat next to the actual absence of JB where they expected her to be.
I don't see this as much as a scare tactic. I see this as a signal of knowledge to bolster their credibility. But within itself, not scary. Please, no commentary on people who believe differently. It doesn't further the point.

B. Did they know that? Unless they worked at the Ramsey bank, they couldn't know.

C. There was no threat to John in the ransom note, only JB. As a matter of fact, the only comment about John was admiration, no resentment of him at all.

D. So did John and Patsy.

I guess the Long Island Serial killer is also the Ramseys.

I don't understand. I specifically said that portion of my post had nothing to do with the Ramseys, but was a comment on child killers in general.
But even if it was, I think this is not a serious remark but a mock at me. I don't appreciate it.

 

[Chewy]

No it doesn't. They called 911 instead of delaying but then sat there for hours?

 

[MaryNo]

https://www.duedil.com/company/07435683/sun-behind-the-cloud-publications-limited

********want to point out that this wasn't founded until November 10, 2010 and the semantics/linguistics don't correlate to those of the mid 90's. The SBTC commonality can't be the killer's reference.

Also, noting that they don't refer to themselves as a "group of individuals belonging to a small foreign faction" that promotes Islamic literature here in the western world.

It would be helpful to find pre-Christmas 1996 usage of groups labeling themselves as "members of a small foreign faction", ie foreign "anything" when referring to themselves, (seeing as they're not foreign to themselves) that would be relevant to this case; this time period.

"We are a group of individuals," has received quite a bit if scrutiny over the years, as well. This just isn't a commonly applied definition, but there is at least one other self-described "group of individuals" known as SBTC:

"Friends of Sun Behind The Cloud Publications
Supporting SBTC's aims and guiding its future...

The Friends of SBTC are a group of individuals and organisations who support SBTV aims and provide help and guidance on religious issues as well as issues of importance in publishing. They read the books prior to publication and are regularly consulted for advice."​

Bizarre. Eh, to each their own...

Source:
http://www.sunbehindthecloud.com/about.html