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

[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.

I made a mistake in an earlier reply to this post. I missed that tovarisch asked for the name of a vicious child killer. The name I gave was not a child killer.

As far as the biological material left behind, my understanding is that there was DNA probably left from saliva on the vaginal swab. I don't know that sexual assault was the motivation but there was a sexual assault, and some of the most bizarre murders happen because there was a sexual fantasy or a paraphilia of some kind in play. It is also easily possible that a retaliatory urge coincided with a sexual urge. Odd, but true.

 

[Anti-K]

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.



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.



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



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?



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?



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 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.

The ransom note makes no sense in any RDI scenario, however it can make sense in several IDI scenarios and I’ve outlined a few of them.

There are several aspects of this crime that do make sense if we consider that the killer intended for suspicion to be cast upon the Ramseys. This doesn’t necessarily mean that he was trying to frame them, just that he wanted suspicion to be cast upon them – maybe because that would mean suspicion would not be cast towards him; maybe for more nefarious reasons.

I’m always amused by these “a killer trying to frame would have done more” arguments. These arguments are almost always made by RDI. It seems to me that if this was the killer’s intent, than he did enough, hence RDI.
...

AK

 

[lawstudent]

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.

This is how I see it too. I'm just not sure what that means. I don't know if I can say this in that thread, but I lean RDI because I can sort of see Patsy writing it.

It does sound like someone is just throwing things down to sound intelligent - someone confident but superficial, trying to sound how the or she thinks a kidnapper would sound. I do not believe the note was planned out, so it is rushed, but has enough consistency to it that I think it's more in line with how an adult would write versus the teens I work with.

Perhaps a very intelligent teen or young person, but I just don't think a young man could have kept it quiet and not have drawn suspicion. It just makes no sense to me that an intruder sits in there and writes that note out only to so boldly go upstairs, take the child, assault her within the house, and leave her there. If that note wasn't written in the house, I might have some more profiles in mind - but spending all that time in the house while committing such a crime is just bizarre to me. Anyone comfortable or unstable enough to that seems like they would have gotten caught quickly.

But parts of RDI make no sense to me either, so I am interested in IDI theories. I just can't come up with a good profile or even quite figure out the motive or what was meant to throw people off the trail in this case.

 

[tovarisch]

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

How credible the reports of 100 % matched fibers on JonBenet`s body to Mr. Ramsey`s WOOL black shirt? Could be that those fibers come from Jonbenet`s own pants, which were black, had it been compared ? JonBenet dressed herself for the White`s party to her own taste, after winning battle with Patsy. Would it be logical to assume that she put on also fresh underwear, the set had been won by JonBenet from Patsy in yet another battle (according to Patsy). Even they were big for her, she had been fascinated with them and bagged for them on and on and got it, she loved it, possibly because she could identify the lettering, and I`m pretty sure she knew the alphabet. W- for Wednesday. The underwear were several sizes bigger, fibers from black pants could got in the crotch area.
I think that focusing only on black fibers, that we even don`t know were sourced to wool shirt100% , and ignoring dark blue cotton and tan cotton fibers, whitch never been sourced to any items , would be limited view on the fiber`s evidence.

 

[Mama2JML]

This is how I see it too. I'm just not sure what that means. I don't know if I can say this in that thread, but I lean RDI because I can sort of see Patsy writing it.

On what basis?

It does sound like someone is just throwing things down to sound intelligent - someone confident but superficial, trying to sound how the or she thinks a kidnapper would sound. I do not believe the note was planned out, so it is rushed, but has enough consistency to it that I think it's more in line with how an adult would write versus the teens I work with.

Perhaps a very intelligent teen or young person, but I just don't think a young man could have kept it quiet and not have drawn suspicion. It just makes no sense to me that an intruder sits in there and writes that note out only to so boldly go upstairs, take the child, assault her within the house, and leave her there. If that note wasn't written in the house, I might have some more profiles in mind - but spending all that time in the house while committing such a crime is just bizarre to me. Anyone comfortable or unstable enough to that seems like they would have gotten caught quickly.

But parts of RDI make no sense to me either, so I am interested in IDI theories. I just can't come up with a good profile or even quite figure out the motive or what was meant to throw people off the trail in this case.

I know what you mean...

 

[2 percent]

The ransom note makes no sense in any RDI scenario, however it can make sense in several IDI scenarios and I’ve outlined a few of them.

No. Once JB was a corpse and the intruder decided to alter evidence (no other explanation for wiping her down. Fact!), the ransom note had to be gone for the frame to fit.

There are several aspects of this crime that do make sense if we consider that the killer intended for suspicion to be cast upon the Ramseys. This doesn’t necessarily mean that he was trying to frame them, just that he wanted suspicion to be cast upon them – maybe because that would mean suspicion would not be cast towards him; maybe for more nefarious reasons.

Not a purposeful frame but nefarious in nature? Oy

I’m always amused by these “a killer trying to frame would have done more” arguments. These arguments are almost always made by RDI. It seems to me that if this was the killer’s intent, than he did enough, hence RDI.

I have to say, I've been on these forums a long time and have never seen the argument an intruder would do more to frame the Ramseys.

But if the intent was to frame the Ramseys, it most certainly was not enough. The Ramseys weren't arrested. The intruder, so far, is safe from prosecution. As a matter of fact this intruder was so unsuccessful at the frame they, with no direct evidence to link them to the crime, are still a suspect to many. Several of them on this very site...:floorlaugh:

 

[lawstudent]

On what basis?

I know what you mean...

Keeping it general for this thread, one profile I can kind of see fitting it is an adult who is rather superficial and fantastical. Writing it as though it is a movie scene and using language he or she thinks a kidnapper "would" use, because he or she is trying to cover for something and isn't actually writing a ransom note. It's not written by someone particularly intelligent, nor is it written by someone particularly young or unstable, IMO. But it indicates someone who is reasonably educated and articulate as well. And someone with a degree of familiarity with the family and house.

 

[Anti-K]

No. Once JB was a corpse and the intruder decided to alter evidence (no other explanation for wiping her down. Fact!), the ransom note had to be gone for the frame to fit.



Not a purposeful frame but nefarious in nature? Oy



I have to say, I've been on these forums a long time and have never seen the argument an intruder would do more to frame the Ramseys.

But if the intent was to frame the Ramseys, it most certainly was not enough. The Ramseys weren't arrested. The intruder, so far, is safe from prosecution. As a matter of fact this intruder was so unsuccessful at the frame they, with no direct evidence to link them to the crime, are still a suspect to many. Several of them on this very site...:floorlaugh:

Well, you’re essentially arguing that an intruder who wanted to frame the Ramseys would have done more when you write, “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?” http://tinyurl.com/mnhsr58

And, this is what you’re arguing when you write, “But if the intent was to frame the Ramseys, it most certainly was not enough.”

I have no idea what this sentence means: “As a matter of fact this intruder was so unsuccessful at the frame they, with no direct evidence to link them to the crime, are still a suspect to many. Several of them on this very site...”

Regardless of whether the killer intended it to happen, suspicion was directed towards the Ramseys and much of that suspicion is a result of actions taken by the killer: for example, using materials from the house for the note and for the murder weapon, etc.
...

AK

 

[Chewy]

One thing I don't understand in the RDI theory is why the RAMSEYS would specifically mention $118,000. Obviously this is "inside information" that only they and certain close friends of theirs would know.

Also considering how "show offy" the Ramseys were supposed to be, you'd think they'd go for 1 million dollars, or some huge amount of money.

It is conceivable that one of them might have just accidentally written it but when the other read the note, don't you think they'd say "We can't write that, that's the BONUS for crying out loud!"

The problem I have with the RDI arguments is the way they jump back and forth in ridiculous assertions about the Ramseys state of mind, one minute they are devious clever stagers and the other....they don't have the wherewithall to simply kick in the back door to make it look like a break in.

Or rewrite the ransom note and then take the old one, tear it into strips, drop each strip into the toilet and let it soak up the water and then flush it away.

 

[Tawny]

Hindsight's 20/20. It's super easy for us to say what SHOULD have been done, all these years later with all the time in the world to dissect the crime and the scene and their behavior after the fact.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Hindsight's 20/20. It's super easy for us to say what SHOULD have been done, all these years later with all the time in the world to dissect the crime and the scene and their behavior after the fact.

No, It is different than hindsight. If you are covering up a crime you clean up. You get rid of paper and pens, you make the writing short and sweet to push away from you. You are reasonable in your cover up. They had all the time they wanted to call 911 if you are rdi..

You can not have it both ways. If they covered it up, Show the cover up. There is no cover up here. It is all laid bare. It is a mess of police work and insanity starting from the beginning..

IMO

 

[Chewy]

That's it in a nutshell. They want to have it both ways. So the Ramseys garotted and mutilated their child but then didn't have the ability to leave her out of sight in the basement while they cleaned up the crime scene. THEN they also sat for hours knowing her body was in the basement without saying anything.

The cops asked if the Ramseys heard an intruder. If they were so squeamish that they couldn't wait an hour to perfect the crime scene then why not just say I heard something downstairs late at night. Then the cops would check it out and find the body.

Why would John Ramsey be the one to go to the body when he had a house full of police officers who could have done the same thing? It just makes NO sense.

 

[Mama2JML]

The author of the RN has not been identified, but we can be quite confident it wasn't a Ramsey. The BPD worked diligently, thoroughly, with great conviction, & in a most unified effort to gather evidence proving Patsy Ramsey authored the RN, but it couldn't be done. Science proved the BPD wrong.

 

[Tawny]

No, it's no different. In the heat of the moment, things get forgotten or done sloppily that "should have" been done easily.

The same goes for an intruder. There was plenty an intruder "could have" done that would have been better, more efficient, or more clean.

 

[Junebug99]

The intruder did enough that they were indicted by a grand jury, pretty damn successful if you ask me. Also a lot of people are convinced of their guilt, the intruder succeeded. Cops were not even looking at the possibility of an intruder very seriously.

 

[lawstudent]

One thing I don't understand in the RDI theory is why the RAMSEYS would specifically mention $118,000. Obviously this is "inside information" that only they and certain close friends of theirs would know.

Also considering how "show offy" the Ramseys were supposed to be, you'd think they'd go for 1 million dollars, or some huge amount of money.

It is conceivable that one of them might have just accidentally written it but when the other read the note, don't you think they'd say "We can't write that, that's the BONUS for crying out loud!"

The problem I have with the RDI arguments is the way they jump back and forth in ridiculous assertions about the Ramseys state of mind, one minute they are devious clever stagers and the other....they don't have the wherewithall to simply kick in the back door to make it look like a break in.

Or rewrite the ransom note and then take the old one, tear it into strips, drop each strip into the toilet and let it soak up the water and then flush it away.

Yes, this is the problem. Sometimes people don't act as we'd expect, but it doesn't add up. That's why I can't just jump on the RDI train, although I tend to lean that way. I also don't think John could have been heavily involved due to the silliness of it - I think it would have had to have been mostly Patsy.

What really throws a wrench into both theories is the chronic and acute molestation. I've always wondered if that truly is accurate. Now, I'm sure there are many children who are sadly victims of sexual abuse both at home and by outsiders, so it is possible, but it creates some doubt for either side, especially for IDI. I definitely do not believe there was some random guy molesting her unknown to anyone who then broke into the house that night - that's just too far-fetched for me, even in this case.

 

[Anti-K]

Yes, this is the problem. Sometimes people don't act as we'd expect, but it doesn't add up. That's why I can't just jump on the RDI train, although I tend to lean that way. I also don't think John could have been heavily involved due to the silliness of it - I think it would have had to have been mostly Patsy.

What really throws a wrench into both theories is the chronic and acute molestation. I've always wondered if that truly is accurate. Now, I'm sure there are many children who are sadly victims of sexual abuse both at home and by outsiders, so it is possible, but it creates some doubt for either side, especially for IDI. I definitely do not believe there was some random guy molesting her unknown to anyone who then broke into the house that night - that's just too far-fetched for me, even in this case.

Prior abuse and the sexual assault that occurred at or near point of death are not necessarily connected, and if IDI than they are probably not connected.
...

AK

 

[tovarisch]

Prior abuse and the sexual assault that occurred at or near point of death are not necessarily connected, and if IDI than they are probably not connected.
...

AK

That’s` exactly my thinking, not connected. Abuse of the children is existing, unfortunately, even known statistics are beyond believe for normal human beings, and how many unknown unregistered cases . And it could be anyone and his brother, yet one more English saying.
There is no official report that John` black wool made in Israel shirt was positive match to the fibers. To match this unusual rare shirt would be like 1-2-3 for FBI Lab. Refer me to official report, sighed and stamped (yes, I trust only signed and stamped paper), please, is anybody aware it exists? And what about so called saliva, one drop, it did not match to John. And who said it was exactly saliva, one drop, not sweat?
The same with the red fibers, 1-2-3 for FBA lab. Where is positive match report? Why investigators focus so havily on Santa, the old professor, and let him go only after touch DNA did not match?
Please, refer me to the official reports. And I`m not challenging anybody, I need it for the sake of truth

 

[lawstudent]

Prior abuse and the sexual assault that occurred at or near point of death are not necessarily connected, and if IDI than they are probably not connected.
...

AK

That is certainly possible, but I just find it hard to believe that the person who had done it repeatedly was never narrowed down. Probably could not prove it, but surely the Ramseys would know who had access to her and think about it in hindsight.

 

[Chewy]

That’s` exactly my thinking, not connected. Abuse of the children is existing, unfortunately, even known statistics are beyond believe for normal human beings, and how many unknown unregistered cases . And it could be anyone and his brother, yet one more English saying.
There is no official report that John` black wool made in Israel shirt was positive match to the fibers. To match this unusual rare shirt would be like 1-2-3 for FBI Lab. Refer me to official report, sighed and stamped (yes, I trust only signed and stamped paper), please, is anybody aware it exists? And what about so called saliva, one drop, it did not match to John. And who said it was exactly saliva, one drop, not sweat?
The same with the red fibers, 1-2-3 for FBA lab. Where is positive match report? Why investigators focus so havily on Santa, the old professor, and let him go only after touch DNA did not match?
Please, refer me to the official reports. And I`m not challenging anybody, I need it for the sake of truth

I've been asking for actual evidence for weeks now and instead of just linking and showing it, no one does so then it's ignored and people are free to make up what they think the information shows.


I also agree that it's possible that she was molested by her father and it has nothing to do with the crime.

We don't have the actual information. I've also asked several times for people to just explain step by step how they arrived at their conclusion based on the evidence and that doesn't seem to happen either. It's either one giant leap in theory to another and holes are skipped over and ignored.

I posted my theory about how I thought Patsy could have done it in the Patsy thread. I still don't know what happened but I think my theory is more plausible that the "DID" theory or the "She peed the bed theory."


[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10419304&postcount=75"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Patsy Ramsey[/ame]