Kidnaping Gone Bad

[tezi]

Now that you mention it, wasn't LHP writing a tell all book, some 6+ years after the fact, the first chapter of which appeared a few months ago. Dealt with Patsy's confessions and sexual adventures. Although the Pughs don't deserve any (more) bad fortune, there is a balance.

I haven't heard anything else about the book, except for the first chapter. IMO, it was nothing compared to what Susan Bennett did to the Pugh's. :furious:

 

[K777angel]

Please explain just what this "gone bad" scenario in the alleged kidnapping of JonBenet might have been. It's a term thrown around constantly by the Ramsey sympathizers - but one that is NEVER demonstrated in any theory.

There is a reason a plausible explanation for just HOW it "went bad" is never given. Because it makes absolutley NO SENSE. Sounds good on the surface,
but upon any kind of scrutiny or serious consideration it must be tossed out.

The things done to JonBenet alone are evidence that this crime was not a "kidnapping" gone bad - but a sexual molestation gone bad.
There was too much time spent with her and at the crime scene to consider some scenario of a 'kidnapping' suddenly interrupted and 'gone bad.'

The evidence and facts show that the perp did a number of things to JonBenet and his/her final act with her body was to WRAP HER UP in her blanket - on top of a blanket that was laid out. This is the direct opposite
of a kidnap scenario.
Now this is so very important to think about. Why would someone intent on entering a home in such a bold and risky fashion, on Christmas night no less -
to kidnap a small child and leave a ransom note - then go down into the farthest and most remote room within a room in the house (thereby TRAPPING HIMSELF with no escape!) - and lay a blanket down on the floor to rest JonBenet on? The blanket WAS there. She WAS lain upon it by the perp.
It makes absolutely NO SENSE that his motivation was kidnapping - no! - it was molestation - no! - now it's murder. Schizo theory this "kidnapping gone bad."

As all the FBI and forensic experts have said: Kidnappers for ransom have money as their motivation.
Sexual perverts have molestation as their motive.
The 2 do not mix.
Neither of those motivation are evident in this crime.
NO money was ever attempted to be collected.
The molestation done to JonBenet compared to what TRUE sexual predators do - was minor and timid. No pervert entered that home with that intention.
The note alone refutes that by it's very existence. And the evidence at the crime scene alone refutes what the NOTE was trying to get everyone to believe.

The Ramsey sympathizers try and roll too many things into this phantom intruder and it does not fit and makes no sense.
There is just no evidence that any attempt was ever made to kidnap JonBenet - let alone evidence of a kidnapping 'gone bad.'

Something went bad alright - but it was the molestation and subsequent head blow that set this crime and staging in motion. Not the bogus and
ridiculous 'kidnapping' angle that in fact opposed the EVIDENCE at the scene so blatantly that it gave the ruse away.

 

[BrotherMoon]

I beg to differ.

Very, very little of the evidence (the condition of the body and the note) has anything to do with sex. Even the damage to the vagina was slight. Researchers of rape speak of the act as having more to do with power than sex.

The garotte was not a sexual device, it's final postion suggests it's purpose was the same as the wrist ligature; holding a body part in a pose. Sex is ancillary to the more fundamental idea of USE, control and manilpulation of one person by another.

Sex IS a factor in the use of JonBenet by her mother as the oversexuallization evident in the pageants illustrates.

BUT! Ultimately, the gratifaction sought by the use of JonBenet has more to do with the establishment and maintenance of identity; psychological survival, life and death of a personal image. Take a look at Patsy's life, sex was not one of the driving forces. She dated late, she dated older males, she married an older man, she was somewhat frigid in her marriage. She developed a competent sexual image for her pageants for the purpose of acceptance and social position only.

None of the so-called staging was done for discovery by police but rather was done for personal reasons by and for the perp, Patsy Ramsey.

 

[Barbara]

Please explain just what this "gone bad" scenario in the alleged kidnapping of JonBenet might have been. It's a term thrown around constantly by the Ramsey sympathizers - but one that is NEVER demonstrated in any theory.

There is a reason a plausible explanation for just HOW it "went bad" is never given. Because it makes absolutley NO SENSE. Sounds good on the surface,
but upon any kind of scrutiny or serious consideration it must be tossed out.

The things done to JonBenet alone are evidence that this crime was not a "kidnapping" gone bad - but a sexual molestation gone bad.
There was too much time spent with her and at the crime scene to consider some scenario of a 'kidnapping' suddenly interrupted and 'gone bad.'

The evidence and facts show that the perp did a number of things to JonBenet and his/her final act with her body was to WRAP HER UP in her blanket - on top of a blanket that was laid out. This is the direct opposite
of a kidnap scenario.
Now this is so very important to think about. Why would someone intent on entering a home in such a bold and risky fashion, on Christmas night no less -
to kidnap a small child and leave a ransom note - then go down into the farthest and most remote room within a room in the house (thereby TRAPPING HIMSELF with no escape!) - and lay a blanket down on the floor to rest JonBenet on? The blanket WAS there. She WAS lain upon it by the perp.
It makes absolutely NO SENSE that his motivation was kidnapping - no! - it was molestation - no! - now it's murder. Schizo theory this "kidnapping gone bad."

As all the FBI and forensic experts have said: Kidnappers for ransom have money as their motivation.
Sexual perverts have molestation as their motive.
The 2 do not mix.
Neither of those motivation are evident in this crime.
NO money was ever attempted to be collected.
The molestation done to JonBenet compared to what TRUE sexual predators do - was minor and timid. No pervert entered that home with that intention.
The note alone refutes that by it's very existence. And the evidence at the crime scene alone refutes what the NOTE was trying to get everyone to believe.

The Ramsey sympathizers try and roll too many things into this phantom intruder and it does not fit and makes no sense.
There is just no evidence that any attempt was ever made to kidnap JonBenet - let alone evidence of a kidnapping 'gone bad.'

Something went bad alright - but it was the molestation and subsequent head blow that set this crime and staging in motion. Not the bogus and
ridiculous 'kidnapping' angle that in fact opposed the EVIDENCE at the scene so blatantly that it gave the ruse away.

So nice to see you back and posting Angel. A nice voice of reason and needed as you make a point I hadn't thought to ask.

Perhaps Maikai will be so kind as to come and explain exactly what she means by "gone bad". Perhaps not.

 

[K777angel]

Thank you Barbara dear. Nice to have a day off today!

I'm still waiting to see the 'gone bad' theory laid out as to just how it is thought it could have happened. And, just as importantly - that it FITS the known facts and evidence.

Me thinks the wait will be long....

 

[Shawna]

Risk management companies are starting to offer ransom and kidnapping insurance to their clients. Can you imagine the Ramsey's walking into an insurance place after the murder occured saying "a foreign faction kidnapped our daughter, we need money to buy that nice boat we always wanted"?

http://www.aon.com/us/busi/risk_management/risk_transfer/kidnap_ransom.jsp

 

[tezi]

Risk management companies are starting to offer ransom and kidnapping insurance to their clients. Can you imagine the Ramsey's walking into an insurance place after the murder occured saying "a foreign faction kidnapped our daughter, we need money to buy that nice boat we always wanted"?

http://www.aon.com/us/busi/risk_management/risk_transfer/kidnap_ransom.jsp

Shawna,

I would not put anything past John Ramsey!!!! :angel:

 

[vicktor]

Why? What difference would that make once he'd kidnapped his victim and left the ransom note? It's not like they wouldn't notice there'd been an intruder. And why bother with a chair? Why not just shut the door? If he were trapped in the basement by an awakened Ramsey, how would that chair blocking that door have helped him in the least? And wouldn't an out-of-place chair in itself draw attention?

Its one of those things that doesn't add or subtract a lot from what was found. But then the intruder did a lot of unusual things. Could be a situation opposite to what was first suggested. Maybe by placing the chair, but leaving the suitcase and leaving the butlers door open he was tacitly pointing to his entrance and exit.

He had to have borrowed the notepad either before or after the R's got home and took it downstairs. I've always wondered if there was 2 similar pads stacked in the kitchen, so that if one was missing it would never be noticed. The note almost had to be written downstairs, probably as the R's went upstairs and went to sleep. It doesn't make sense for him to bring the note up (maybe he returned the pad) until leaving because if it was discovered it would compromize his escape and might allow him to be identified by JB or a Ramsey if they saw him running away. If that had happened and he was later caught and positively id.ed, he probably could have "retired" in prison.

 

[vicktor]

Risk management companies are starting to offer ransom and kidnapping insurance to their clients. Can you imagine the Ramsey's walking into an insurance place after the murder occured saying "a foreign faction kidnapped our daughter, we need money to buy that nice boat we always wanted"?

]

No, I honestly can't. But perhaps John approached his life insurance agent early in 1996, and asked him if he could take out a large term policy on JB. Seeing as how the rates are good on young people he would have got a super deal.

 

[Islander]

Thank you Barbara dear. Nice to have a day off today!

I'm still waiting to see the 'gone bad' theory laid out as to just how it is thought it could have happened. And, just as importantly - that it FITS the known facts and evidence.

Me thinks the wait will be long....

That’s a good question. What did go bad? The “so called” kidnapper allegedly was able to break into the Ramsey house unnoticed, take the time to scout out the interior of the house and to write a rather lengthy ransom note, and then creep into JB’s bedroom and remove her to the basement without waking any of the Ramseys. So far so good, he’s got his target under his control, and nothing went bad. Are we to believe that this is where his kidnapping plan ended, that he went to all that trouble and risk, only to have no idea how to remove JB from her house to a pre-selected location? Some kidnapping plan.

 

[Shylock]

Are we to believe that this is where his kidnapping plan ended, that he went to all that trouble and risk, only to have no idea how to remove JB from her house to a pre-selected location? Some kidnapping plan.

This is why the whole intruder theory is too stupid to even consider. Yes, that's right, as soon as Mr. Intruder had accomplished everything he had set out to do (except leave the house with her), he changes his mind and decides it will be more beneficial to his "foreign faction" if he slightly molests and murders her....

 

[Barbara]

Thank you Barbara dear. Nice to have a day off today!

I'm still waiting to see the 'gone bad' theory laid out as to just how it is thought it could have happened. And, just as importantly - that it FITS the known facts and evidence.

Me thinks the wait will be long....

You just might be retired by the time you get that theory!

 

[Britt]

Its one of those things that doesn't add or subtract a lot from what was found.

But you can't dismiss something like that if you want to legitimize an intruder theory. 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. Not only did it serve no purpose whatsoever, it would probably make it easier for a house occupant to catch/trap the intruder in the basement.

The alternative is that it was a Ramsey who blocked the door with the chair. But how would you fit that into an intruder theory? Or is John lying about the chair in his discussion with Smit?

Or perhaps a Ramsey left the chair there - maybe Burke, after playing in the train room - and the intruder never used the basement window at all ? I guess if I were an IDI theorist I'd go with this one, since John claims to be the one who broke the window in the first place.

But then the intruder did a lot of unusual things.

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.

Maybe by placing the chair, but leaving the suitcase and leaving the butlers door open he was tacitly pointing to his entrance and exit.

And why oh why would he do this?

 

[Cherokee]

[Kidnapping Gone Bad] ... Why is this motive so hard to believe?

1. Because Patsy wrote the ransom note. Why would Patsy try to kidnap her own child?

2. There are no signs of an intruder, much less one that spent hours in the Ramsey house.

3. The Ramseys didn't follow instructions in the ransom note not to "talk" to anyone, thereby letting us know they didn't believe it was real from the very beginning.

4. Kidnappers don't molest, and molesters don't write fake ransom notes.

5. The Ramseys refused to cooperate with the investigation, and were more concerned with their "image" ... choosing to go on national TV rather than answers pertinent LE questions.

6. When asked investigative questions, Patsy lied, claimed she forgot, didn't know, and used every evasive tactic in the book.

7. The Ramseys said they wanted to know "why" JonBenet had to die, not "who" killed her ... because they already knew the "who."

8. The Ramseys didn't spend the rest of their lives trying to find JonBenet's killer as they said they would, or helping other victims of crime. They couldn't even keep up a website in honor of JonBenet, or keep the fraudulent SHOES foundation going. Why? Because they know it's all for nothing. They know there was no intruder and no killer loose, therefore, they have no motivation to spend the time, money and effort it takes to continue "the search" or be involved in crime victim issues.

These are just reasons off the top of my head that show JonBenet's death was no "kidnapping gone bad." There are many more.

What happened in the Ramsey household was "family dynamics gone bad." The Ramseys, contrary to what they'd have us believe, were not the perfect family. Dysfunction was at the core.

As I've said before, both Patsy and John were more concerned with "image" than "substance." Their big house, their planes and boats, their country club connections, their self-centered use of Christianity, their pageant winning daughter ... EVERYTHING in their lives was window dressing. It covered an ugly secret. Nothing in the Ramsey's life was what it seemed. The image they created for themselves became their god. What happened to JonBenet was sacrificed to that god. The image HAD to remain reality.


IMO

 

[Britt]

4. Kidnappers don't molest, and molesters don't write fake ransom notes.

Cherokee, excellent post.

Question for kidnapping-gone-wrong theorists: Did the intruder(s) intend to kidnap JB and collect the $118,000?

 

[K777angel]

I'm still waiting to hear at what point in this kidnapping did it "go wrong"?

If this is what you believe - that it was a 'kidnapping gone wrong' - then you are forced to admit that the crime scene left was exactly where he LEFT OFF
when it "went wrong." And is precisely why it makes absolutely no sense.
There is nothing at that crime scene and NO facts or evidence that indicate that any went wrong at all. In fact - it went perfectly well. Just exactly as the stager in her/his/their panic set it up.

A scene that had 'gone bad' might be one where they made it half way across the living room floor heading for the EXIT door (like any true kidnapper would be doing) and JonBenet was able to let out a big scream and in his panic he dropped her and grabbed a nearby object and whacked her in the head to shut her up. Then either picked her up and high-tailed it out the door - or left her where she was in fear of now getting caught.

But this is NOT what some intruder left in his 'gone bad' panic.
Instead - we are to believe that this kidnapper went upstairs and took JonBenet from her bed, walked down the stairs with her, set her down on the floor so he could lay out the 3 pages of letter he wrote, picked her back up, and .... ran out the door? No! He stayed IN THE HOUSE - goes down to the dark basement and found his way into a dark room where he trapped himself with her and no way to escape should someone happen upon him - and then proceeded to do all that was done to her leaving her on a blanket he spread out on the dirty floor to lay her on and wrapped her up in another blanket with her Barbie nightie laid close next to her! This is NOT the work of someone who came to that home to kidnap a child for R-A-N-S-O-M!!

The only thing "gone bad" in this whole sad crime is that justice was never served. That poor little girl death has never been avenged.
The Ramseys know who killed her.
The police know who killed her.
The DA's office know who killed her.
Why the double H toothpicks (as my dear mom used to say) isn't there someone with enough guts to come up against the whimps of Boulder and PROSECUTE????
Where is Vincent Bugliosi when we need him????? :boohoo:

 

[Maikai]

So nice to see you back and posting Angel. A nice voice of reason and needed as you make a point I hadn't thought to ask.

Perhaps Maikai will be so kind as to come and explain exactly what she means by "gone bad". Perhaps not.

I've been gone a few days......haven't had time to read all the posts.....

By "gone bad"......it means something went wrong, because this was an amateur who hadn't really thought things out. Perhaps JBR was struggling too much---much more than anticipated, and the garotte was constructed as a means of control...me may have gotten angry and reacted in anger, and killed her. I don't think he was cool, calm and collected, but operating on adrenalin, and fearful of detection. 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.

 

[Barbara]

I've been gone a few days......haven't had time to read all the posts.....

By "gone bad"......it means something went wrong, because this was an amateur who hadn't really thought things out. Perhaps JBR was struggling too much---much more than anticipated, and the garotte was constructed as a means of control...me may have gotten angry and reacted in anger, and killed her. I don't think he was cool, calm and collected, but operating on adrenalin, and fearful of detection. 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.

While I admire your stamina in this "gone bad" theory, let's take it apart and see if it makes sense.

JBR struggling......................so in a PANIC he finds a paintbrush, finds a rope, and CONSTRUCTS a garrotte?????? This takes time if you have a victim struggling AND you are fearful of detection. If you are a male perp struggling with a SIX YEAR OLD GIRL, would it take that much time and effort to control her? In your theory as well, you swear he had a stun gun, so why take the time to construct something when you can just stun her again?

Now you say he was not cool, calm and collected, and in this semi sense of panic and fear of detection. Yet he took the time to wipe her down and wrap her up in a "papoose-like" manner. Who would do that in a time of panic and fearing detection?

Fear of detection: Yet he laid in wait for hours in the Ramsey house. With a fear of detection, he would have to wait a lot longer than he did to know the family was asleep.

When a house is alarmed, and you go IN through a window and no alarm sounds, any person with a brain will then know that there is no alarm set. If a window is already open, then you also know there is no alarm. Alarms are set to ANY and ALL points of entry. When the window is unalarmed, the rest of the house is also unalarmed. He spent all those "hours" in the Ramsey house, getting familiar with the layout (if it is a stranger) so he would already know there was no alarm and no need for that window (a red herring BTW). If it was someone more familiar with the Ramseys, then they would already know there was no alarm, no dog, no need to enter or exit through a window. In either scenario, the "perp" would not need to take a child out of a window, when there were so many doors, UNalarmed

We spend a lot of time explaining why the intruder theories don't make sense and I give you a lot of credit for coming back time and time again to answer questions and clarify your theories, but I really hope that when things are explained via a different viewpoint, that of the intruder DID NOT do this, that it is not just wasted time to argue with some of us, but you really take it in and think about it. Not that we are determined to change your mind, but I do hope you at least have some question marks in your mind when things are explained from a different stance.

If you are just providing arguments so that you can go back to Webbsleuths and criticize us, where of course, we cannot respond, or just to add material to the juvenile BORG threads that are a way of life over there, then that is not being very nice. If you are really trying to expand your knowledge, then we are happy to help.

 

[K777angel]

I've been gone a few days......haven't had time to read all the posts.....

By "gone bad"......it means something went wrong, because this was an amateur who hadn't really thought things out. Perhaps JBR was struggling too much---much more than anticipated, and the garotte was constructed as a means of control...me may have gotten angry and reacted in anger, and killed her. I don't think he was cool, calm and collected, but operating on adrenalin, and fearful of detection. 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.

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'll give you a head start. You suggest maybe JonBenet was "struggling too much" so the 'kidnapper' constructed the garrotte to control her.
Now THINK about what you are suggesting. In order for this to have occurred, the kidnapper picked up JonBenet from her bed and carried her down
stairs. (Now please tell me WHEN and HOW he laid those 3 pages of ransom note on those stair steps. Couldn't have been before he went up to get her as he'd step on them on the way down encumbered with the body of JonBenet. Then you must think he set JonBenet down on the ground and went to find the 3 pages of note he wrote and came back to lay them across the stair tread? This question MUST be answered by the intruder theorists.)
Ok, so he carries her down stairs and I guess we neglect the note placement
here - but instead of high-tailing it OUT the door, he heads down to the basement with her? Huh?? WHY? And we KNOW that no one exited out the window down there because John Ramsey found a chair shoved up against the door to that room. Unless this intruder is a ghost - how did he enter into the room with the window and manage to shove a chair up against the door on the other side of the door in the hallway?? This is a FACT that door was there. Along with the undisturbed dirt on the window well and the spider webs across the well - you can forget this exit for the 'kidnapper.'
But we KNOW he was down there. JonBenet was found there.
Why - if he didn't exit from the basement (and remember according to you intruder theorists, he had 'hours' to roam the house and plan where he would escape from) did he choose to go down to the basement at all??
Not to mention into the only room down there where he was TRAPPED while he did all those awful things to JonBenet.
You say he constructed the garrotte as JonBenet was 'struggling' more than he anticipated. Wait - I thought she was stun-gunned? She wouldn't have struggled at all.
Also, the cord & stick mechanism were constructed down in the basement.
So in your 'gone bad' theory, because we KNOW she was taken downstairs instead of out the door - the question of WHY he chose to go downstairs at all must be answered. It wasn't to exit because he DIDN'T exit from down in the basement. The chair, dirt and spiderwebs attest to this.
So why DID he then go down the stairs and not out the door to meet up with his fellow foreign faction to celebrate the retrieval of their ransom victim?
Afterall - this is supposed to be the whole purpose according to the note intruder theorists claim the kidnapper wrote. To kidnap and collect $118K in ransom money from John Ramsey.

To think an intruder theory through with the facts and evidence just does NOT work. On many, many levels.
And there is a very good reason it does not work - because it did not happen.

This was a familial homicide. For whatever reasonthat it took place in the house that night. The staging was obvious. The note makes it even more obvious that Patsy Ramsey was involved in the very least the staging of the crime.

Again, when attempting to show how it was a kidnapping 'gone bad' - it simply makes it more obvious that it was not. That scenario cannot fit the facts of the crime and make it work.

I

 

[Islander]

When a house is alarmed, and you go IN through a window and no alarm sounds, any person with a brain will then know that there is no alarm set. If a window is already open, then you also know there is no alarm. Alarms are set to ANY and ALL points of entry. When the window is unalarmed, the rest of the house is also unalarmed.

Barbara: I agree with your basic premise that an intruder, once in a house, can determine if an alarm system is armed. However, it is not always correct to say that if a window is unalarmed, the entire house is unalarmed. Whether all windows are armed depends, to a large degree, on what the security company recommends.

When we had our security system installed, the security company recommended alarming all of our exterior doors but very few exterior windows. In lieu of window alarms, they recommended motion detectors since we have no young children or pets. Motion detectors, at least in our system, can be armed independently of the doors and windows. Ironically, the security company recommended we not get our basement alarmed. Their position was that there was very little to steal in the basement, and if an intruder could get through the locked interior door leading to the first level of the house a motion detector would detect his presence.

Lou Smit stated that an intruder selected the infamous basement window to enter the house because it did not have a security sign on it. What Smit conveniently ignored is that alarm systems will most likely incorporate motion detectors to ensure adequate coverage when all windows and doors are not armed. In the Ramsey case, an intruder entering through the window would have had to worry about motion detectors not only in the basement, but also in upper levels of the house. If he made it to the first floor without the alarm going off, he could be pretty sure the motion detectors were not armed. By looking at the alarm control box usually mounted on a wall by the front door, he could probably determine if the windows and doors were armed. In other words, there would be no need for him to slither out the window. He could have, as you have suggested, simply walked out the front door.