Kidnaping Gone Bad

[Britt]

By "gone bad"......it means something went wrong, because this was an amateur who hadn't really thought things out.

Thought what things out? Again I ask: Did the intruder(s) intend to kidnap JB and collect the $118,000?

If the window was the only exit the perp could be sure was unarmed, he would have to figure out how to get her out that window, along with himself.

Then why did he block the door to that room with the chair from the hall side, thereby eliminating that window as an escape route? Even Lou Smit couldn't make sense of that.

Barbara and K777angel covered the rest. Ditto what they said/asked.

 

[Shylock]

However, it is not always correct to say that if a window is unalarmed, the entire house is unalarmed.

I agree. Any intruder that saw a security system on the doors or windows would run like hell. He would have no way of knowing if he had tripped a motion detector and a silent alarm had already been called into the police.

Furthermore, someone already in the house would have no way of knowing if the alarm would be set when the family arrived home and went to bed.

 

[Barbara]

Thanks Islander and Shylock,

I stand corrected on that issue of alarms.

As Islander pointed out, you could have options with alarms, but I also, given her point would wonder what salesman would recommend motion detectors with small children AND a dog? Good point Islander

Shylock, you bring up an excellent point that didn't occur to me until you mentioned it. Serendipity! How would this intruder know that he hadn't tripped a "silent" alarm, given the theory that he entered the house and waited around? Pretty risky, no?

And the point about setting the alarm before going to bed is another excellent point I hadn't thought of.

What a smart imaginary intruder we have!

 

[Britt]

What a smart imaginary intruder we have!

And telepathic, too

 

[Maikai]

Maikai - please re-read what you wrote and really THINK about what you are proposing. Think about it with the known facts and evidence in this case.

I

Only the intruder can fill in the lines between the dots. The known facts are there was a ransom note, and JBR was found brutally assaulted in a room in the basement, and there is evidence it was an intruder. There could have been more than one---which might explain the open butler door,and the bat found on the north side of the house. Something happened in the basement that changed the plan to murder. It could be panic.....rage.....or a combination. Entering the house, and taking JBR from her bed seems somewhat organized....the basement crime scene seems disorganized.

 

[Maikai]

Thanks Islander and Shylock,

I stand corrected on that issue of alarms.

Shylock, you bring up an excellent point that didn't occur to me until you mentioned it. Serendipity! How would this intruder know that he hadn't tripped a "silent" alarm, given the theory that he entered the house and waited around? Pretty risky, no?

And the point about setting the alarm before going to bed is another excellent point I hadn't thought of.

What a smart imaginary intruder we have!

Not so smart---he saw the stickers and knew there "might" be an alarm. He knew enough about alarms to know a broken window isn't armed. Many security systems are set up so there's a call back first---so--if the phone didn't ring, he may have thought he didn't trip an alarm. I don't think he was really sure about the windows and doors--which is why he went out the same way he came in.

 

[Shylock]

Not so smart---he saw the stickers and knew there "might" be an alarm. He knew enough about alarms to know a broken window isn't armed.

I don't know what decade you're living in Maikai, but all modern alarm systems have a "fault" mode. An open or broken window will show up as a "fault" and you can tell the system to ignore it and arm itself normally.

And that still wouldn't tell him if he had tripped a motion detector and activated a silent alarm, OR if the Ramseys would turn the alarm on when they arrived home.

And why don't you explain to us how the world's greatest intruder also knew the Ramseys were not going to stop at the airport and arrive home with a half-dozen other family members they picked up for the holidays.

It's the little things that prove there was no intruder...

 

[Maikai]

I don't know what decade you're living in Maikai, but all modern alarm systems have a "fault" mode. An open or broken window will show up as a "fault" and you can tell the system to ignore it and arm itself normally.

And that still wouldn't tell him if he had tripped a motion detector and activated a silent alarm, OR if the Ramseys would turn the alarm on when they arrived home.

And why don't you explain to us how the world's greatest intruder also knew the Ramseys were not going to stop at the airport and arrive home with a half-dozen other family members they picked up for the holidays.

It's the little things that prove there was no intruder...

If the dog had been home.....if the Ramseys had left a day early.....if there would have been a houseful of guests....if they did have a motion detector...and on and on. A lot of things could have occurred and the crime wouldn't have happened. The little things don't prove there was no intruder, because none of what you posted occurred. The alarm wasn't set, and there was not a houseful of guests. If he did gain access earlier, after the Ramseys left for the White's, he could have sat back and waited for the phone to ring---if there was an answering machine, he would have heard the alarm company calling. Sure the rest of the house could have been armed, but he knew the broken basement window was not armed. He might not have known if the alarm was set after they went to bed--which is why he planned on going back through the basement.

 

[Barbara]

If the dog had been home.....if the Ramseys had left a day early.....if there would have been a houseful of guests....if they did have a motion detector...and on and on. A lot of things could have occurred and the crime wouldn't have happened. The little things don't prove there was no intruder, because none of what you posted occurred. The alarm wasn't set, and there was not a houseful of guests. If he did gain access earlier, after the Ramseys left for the White's, he could have sat back and waited for the phone to ring---if there was an answering machine, he would have heard the alarm company calling. Sure the rest of the house could have been armed, but he knew the broken basement window was not armed. He might not have known if the alarm was set after they went to bed--which is why he planned on going back through the basement.

Just for the record and certainly food for thought:

There are a lot more "ifs" and "mights" in the intruder theory than the other theories.

Again, Maikai, this was obviously a very clever and astute intruder to be aware of all that. The "amateur" doesn't really apply when you listen to the intruder theories carefully enough. Also, not every alarm company calls first. My security system at work automatically calls the police.

 

[Shylock]

There are a lot more "ifs" and "mights" in the intruder theory than the other theories.

And don't forget Barbara, this intruder was also a genetic scientist who was able to split his own DNA and leave a partial profile at the crime scene.

 

[Maikai]

Just for the record and certainly food for thought:

There are a lot more "ifs" and "mights" in the intruder theory than the other theories.

Again, Maikai, this was obviously a very clever and astute intruder to be aware of all that. The "amateur" doesn't really apply when you listen to the intruder theories carefully enough. Also, not every alarm company calls first. My security system at work automatically calls the police.

Just think of all the things that don't happen, because of the what ifs. Businesses and residences operate differently. Most residential systems have the company calling the resident first, because of all the false alarms. It doesn't mean someone couldn't be tied directly to the police station----it doesn't mean the intruder wasn't cognizant that an alarm might go off. It wasn't set, so it wasn't even an issue.

 

[Cherokee]

And don't forget Barbara, this intruder was also a genetic scientist who was able to split his own DNA and leave a partial profile at the crime scene.

:doh: Of course! That explains it. Here we've been told the intruder was some alley dwelling bum who thought he was a foreign faction ... but no! He was a genius in genetic engineering.

It's either that, or the intruder was a mutant without the full complement of human DNA.

No wonder the Ramseys don't want to know WHO killed JonBenet.



IMO

 

[Nedthan Johns]

Why is this motive so hard to believe? There's several reasons to think this crime was as it appears to be. An attempted kidnapping that went bad, because the perps were amatuers. We have:

*The note
*Several accessible ways into the home, with the most obvious the broken basement window
*Evidence that JBR was subdued and controlled
*Recent publicity in the newspaper that JR was a billionaire (not true, but that was the impression)
*A trophy-type child, who was touted in early articles as a former Little Miss Colorado. There would have been plenty of evidence of this in the house.

Once the idea was planted, the rest falls in place. The hastily constructed garrote could have been done as a form of control....there could have been more than one, and one bailed out early, leaving one with a struggling child--and in too deep to get out, if the perp was in a state of panic. If one, the same scenario---things had gotten out of hand, and he didn't know how to get out of it. The two-perp scenario makes sense to me because two together may do what one alone wouldn't have the nerve to--they would feed off of each other

Ned: Maikai, what I have gathered from your posts over the years is the urgency of understanding. You really go back and forth regarding this crime, which leads me to believe you are connected to the family in some fashion. Which is great, I am glad you are trying to understand and make sense of it all. It’s hard for me as well to grasp why ANY parent would do this to a child. It’s MUCH EASIER to believe an intruder did it, because NO one wants to believe parents would behave like this. Let’s review your comments above: You say the crime is “As It Appears To Be” wells lets discuss that for a minute. We have a ransom note with no kidnapped body. So it’s not really a kidnapping. We have sexual abuse, but with an object, NOT with penial penetration, so a sort of simulated rape. We have 2 injuries to the child, both of which would have killed her? So why the need to create 2 murder weapons? You state the perps were amatuers. If they were so amaturish how were they able to enter and exit the house without being seen, making noise, or leaving any evidence at all? You also go on to state we have:

*The note ( the note is the one piece of evidence that directly links Patsy Ramsey to this crime. Even experts on the Ramsey’s side could not rule her out and most agree it was most likely written by a woman. No one IMO needs to be an expert to see the simularities between Patsy’s and the ransom note writing. It’s common sense on this one.
*Several accessible ways into the home, with the most obvious the broken basement window. That window was the LEAST accessable and NOT an easy way to enter the house, altough well hidden was certainly the WORST way to exit the house when the intruder could have simply walked out the door.
*Evidence that JBR was subdued and controlled NO evidence at all that JBR was subdued or controlled. The ropes tied on her wrists were not tight enough to subdue a dog let alone a struggling screaming child. There is absolutely NO evidence to suggest a stun gun was used on JB except for Lou Smits loose theory from photographs that one MAY have been used. Even the own manufacturor of the air taser stun gun disagrees with him. This agreeument wouldn’t stand up in a court room. It’s Lou’s soft spokeness that wins him votes in this respect. He knows he cannot prove this theory 100%. There is already 2 cases that we posted about Maikai that shows 2 small children who were stun gunned in the recent months and neither one was subdued or passed out. IN fact just the opposite, they screamed even more.
*Recent publicity in the newspaper that JR was a billionaire (not true, but that was the impression) LOL Well if that was the motive, why didn’t these amatuer kidnappers at least try to collect their ransom?
*A trophy-type child, who was touted in early articles as a former Little Miss Colorado. There would have been plenty of evidence of this in the house. Sure there would have been, so what was the motive then for the intruder Maikai? Money? NO. Pedophile? NO. Just for the fun of it? What did the intruder get out of all the hours he spent in the Ramsey home?

 

[Maikai]

to make the DNA eligible for submittal into the national data bank......DNA that was found in a blood spot previously untested. Saying the Ramseys don't want to know who killed their daughter is absolutely untrue.

:doh: Of course! That explains it. Here we've been told the intruder was some alley dwelling bum who thought he was a foreign faction ... but no! He was a genius in genetic engineering.

It's either that, or the intruder was a mutant without the full complement of human DNA.

No wonder the Ramseys don't want to know WHO killed JonBenet.



IMO

 

[Cherokee]

to make the DNA eligible for submittal into the national data bank......DNA that was found in a blood spot previously untested. Saying the Ramseys don't want to know who killed their daughter is absolutely untrue.

Eligible or not, it was still not a full complement of markers. 9 1/2 markers is NOT anywhere near a full set of DNA. 13 markers is the MINIMUM of proof as set by the FBI to use in a court of law. That's the MINIMUM.

Do you know how small and minute that partial DNA sample has to be? To not be a complete set?

Do you know what it would take to split DNA and leave only a partial set of markers? It is almost impossible to do with primary transfer.

Secondary contaminated transfer? Maybe. Lab manipulation. Maybe.

Struggling with a child, hands all over her, bashing her head, putting a make-shift garotte around her neck, molesting her with a paint stick, wiping her down, tying rope around her wrists, puting a piece of duct tape over her mouth, placing her in a blanket and folding her up ... NOT A CHANCE!

There should have been primary transfer of DNA with all the contact between the "intruder" and JonBenet. Not some microscopic partial piece of hardly existant DNA.

Thousand year old mummies give us complete DNA. Partial DNA is not an easy thing to achieve.

Oh, and I left out two small words. I should have said "No wonder the Ramseys don't want THE WORLD to know who killed JonBenet." Thanks for the correction.



IMP

 

[vicktor]

The chair blocking the door is very important because you have to explain: why would an intruder bother to do that? The obvious answer IMO is that he wouldn't.

and the intruder never used the basement window at all ? I guess if I were an IDI theorist I'd go with this one,


Well that's a convenient rationalization for everything intruder theorists can't explain - "who knows why this maniac did what he did?" etc - however, "unusual" or not, what the intruder did has to make sense unless you're only interested in illogical fantasy-based theories.


And why oh why would he do this?

He didn't have to, but apparently did, so the conclusion is that he didn't leave by the basement window, and must have left thru the butlers door.

There are many cases every year of girls and young women abducted, raped sometimes abused, and killed by strangers. The perps do it because they enjoy it. A few will call or write to the police, taunting them. Same thing in the Ramsey case. The intruder decided he would try to take JB and assault her outside of others hearing. The note was written as a prop, where he pretends to be the bad guy out of crime movies, threatening someone. There are lots of burglars and car theives who enjoy the thrill of cops and robbers, the rush of getting away with something.

The "has to make sense" part speaks to motive. In murders police look for motive. Here, the only person to have a motive would have been John, IF HE WAS MOLESTING JB. Yet only 1/29 think John did it (so far). Thus the crime was likely one where there was no motive.

 

[Britt]

The "has to make sense" part speaks to motive. In murders police look for motive. Here, the only person to have a motive would have been John, IF HE WAS MOLESTING JB. Yet only 1/29 think John did it (so far). Thus the crime was likely one where there was no motive.

If you are willing to believe in a motiveless intruder with fantastical reasoning, then the same rationale must apply to a Ramsey-perp. You can't have it both ways. If the intruder requires no motive, then neither does a Ramsey.

However, since this was a staged crime with a "prop" ransom note, the relevant motive is self-preservation.

 

[vicktor]

If you are willing to believe in a motiveless intruder with fantastical reasoning, then the same rationale must apply to a Ramsey-perp. You can't have it both ways. If the intruder requires no motive, then neither does a Ramsey.

However, since this was a staged crime with a "prop" ransom note, the relevant motive is self-preservation.

It appears that that is true. The semantics of motive, is going to come in here somewhere also. In terms of motive, I was referring to committing the murder, rather than covering it up. IF the Ramseys were involved, of course they had motivation to stage and coverup. If an intruder did it, they also would have motivation for staging, if they felt it might deflect attention away from them. But the intruder probably wasn't thinking in terms of casting doubt in the R's direction.

 

[Britt]

If an intruder did it, they also would have motivation for staging, if they felt it might deflect attention away from them.

Why would a perp who was not known to be in the home in the first place need to "explain" the dead body? To deflect attention away from himself, he need only flee the scene leaving nothing behind.

 

[vicktor]

Why would a perp who was not known to be in the home in the first place need to "explain" the dead body? To deflect attention away from himself, he need only flee the scene leaving nothing behind.

O.K. that makes sense.