I can get my head around that!
Possible NEW Suspects In JonBenet Ramsey Case?
- Thread starter AKWILKS
- Start date
I can get my head around that!
Whaleshark
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2011
- Messages
- 632
- Reaction score
- 7
AK,
Is there any way that anyone can ask Wanda about their possible involvement?
Is there any way that anyone can ask Wanda about their possible involvement?
COMPARISON OF WORDS AND STYLES IN JONBENET RAMSEY RANSOM NOTE AND THE JOURNAL OF CHILD KINDNAPPERS BARZEE AND MITCHELL
Common words and styles in both the ransom note and the Barzee Mitchell Journal include:
"Hence"
"Individual's"
"We Represent"
"At this time/At the time"
Use of an editors caret
"am" without periods
"Possession"
"Instructions"
"Adequate"
"Particularly"
"southern" Not Capitalized
And others as well
Also found this on page 9 of the Barzee Mitchell journal. The ransom note also starts a sentence by using "At this time" and there is also use of an editors caret.
When we speak of the "South" as a distinct region of the country it is proper to capitalize it. "Southern Rock", "Southern cooking", etc. Thus I do find it interesting that both the ransom writer and journal writer do not capitalize "southern".
Both ransom writer and journal writer make the unneeded designation that a group consists of "individuals". Ransom note writer says we are a "group of individuals." Several writers commented on how this was odd - as opposed to a group of what, plants? All that was needed to say was "we are a group representing a small foreign faction". Similarly, the Mitchell Barzee Journal says "On occasion transported by individuals using their truck or trailer." Again, all that was needed was to say "transported by motorists using truck or trailer" or "transported by drivers". Not needed is the designation that the drivers are "individuals", as they are not going to be animals. Also, "persons" or "people" are more common that "individuals". And both ransom note writer and journal writer include an unneeded and improper apostophre so that it appears as "individual's".
In the context of messages from God, people usually speak of "commands", "commandments", "messages" or "orders". The journal writer speaks of "instructions". Similarly, in the context of a kidnapping ransom note, we usually see "demands", or sometimes "orders, but here we see "instructions".
"Hence" is a very old and seldom used term, used by both the ransom note writer and the journal writer.
The ransom note speaks of the wealthy John Ramsey as a "fat cat". The journal writer speaks of their mission to the poor and homeless, how they travel in areas that are "wealthy, upper class" (p. 10) and "high class neighborhood" (p. 24-25), that the rich value money over God, and that they must rescue by force their "sister wives" out of "Babylon".
Common words and styles in both the ransom note and the Barzee Mitchell Journal include:
"Hence"
"Individual's"
"We Represent"
"At this time/At the time"
Use of an editors caret
"am" without periods
"Possession"
"Instructions"
"Adequate"
"Particularly"
"southern" Not Capitalized
And others as well
Also found this on page 9 of the Barzee Mitchell journal. The ransom note also starts a sentence by using "At this time" and there is also use of an editors caret.
When we speak of the "South" as a distinct region of the country it is proper to capitalize it. "Southern Rock", "Southern cooking", etc. Thus I do find it interesting that both the ransom writer and journal writer do not capitalize "southern".
Both ransom writer and journal writer make the unneeded designation that a group consists of "individuals". Ransom note writer says we are a "group of individuals." Several writers commented on how this was odd - as opposed to a group of what, plants? All that was needed to say was "we are a group representing a small foreign faction". Similarly, the Mitchell Barzee Journal says "On occasion transported by individuals using their truck or trailer." Again, all that was needed was to say "transported by motorists using truck or trailer" or "transported by drivers". Not needed is the designation that the drivers are "individuals", as they are not going to be animals. Also, "persons" or "people" are more common that "individuals". And both ransom note writer and journal writer include an unneeded and improper apostophre so that it appears as "individual's".
In the context of messages from God, people usually speak of "commands", "commandments", "messages" or "orders". The journal writer speaks of "instructions". Similarly, in the context of a kidnapping ransom note, we usually see "demands", or sometimes "orders, but here we see "instructions".
"Hence" is a very old and seldom used term, used by both the ransom note writer and the journal writer.
The ransom note speaks of the wealthy John Ramsey as a "fat cat". The journal writer speaks of their mission to the poor and homeless, how they travel in areas that are "wealthy, upper class" (p. 10) and "high class neighborhood" (p. 24-25), that the rich value money over God, and that they must rescue by force their "sister wives" out of "Babylon".
I admit I'm slow sometimes. I've been mulling over this "new suspect" thread and it finally occurred to me that two intruders is twice as unlikely as one - if joined with the "kidnapping gone wrong" theory.
Briefly, the kidnapping gone wrong theory says - the crime started out as a bona fide kidnapping. The perps intended to take JBR out of the house, and collect a ransom. What they intended to do with JBR, later, is another matter. While attempting to carry out a real kidnapping plan something "went wrong" to prevent or discourage the perps from carrying out the kidnapping plan.
One of the things that could have "gone wrong" could have been not being able to get JBR out of the house. To entertain this idea, we have to assume they couldn't or wouldn't leave through a door on the ground floor (possibly they were afraid they'd set off the burglar alarm). So, we are back to the basement window. This at least explains why they went into the basement.
I don't put much stock in the idea that the basement window was an entry/exit point, but lets go with it just to give IDI the benefit of the doubt.
One intruder may have had difficulty getting JBR out the window. Does one push her through the window, then climb out after her? She might try to run away while the intruder is trying to follow her out. Or, if she was incapacitated, it may have been very difficult to push her through the window.
Does one climb out first, then try to pull her out? This would require reaching back in, while sticking head and hands into the window from outside. Perhaps if her hands were tied, the end of the rope could be held while climbing out. Then it's just a matter of puling her up and through the window.
I can see that a single intruder may have had trouble with this. I can't see that it would have been very difficult for two intruders.
It's relatively easy for perp 1 to climb out and pull while perp 2 pushes. Once JBR is out, perp 2 follows.
If you want the suitcase involved (and what IDI theorist doesn't want the suitcase involved?) then IMO the plan was to take JBR outside the house first, then place her in the suitcase -NOT to put her in the suitcase then try to push the loaded suitcase through the window.
The perps could have carried a heavy suitcase down the street w/o arousing suspicion. They would not have been able to carry a girl down the street w/o people thinking something was odd.
The problem of course is that two people should have been able to carry out the kidnapping w/o much trouble. Having two people makes it twice as likely that JBR would be removed from the house. It makes completion of the kidnapping twice as likely, and since the kidnapping didn't happen, 2 intruders is twice as unlikely as 1 intruder.
If there were two (or more) intruders, then not being able to get JBR out the window was not the problem. It was not the thing that "went wrong" and prevented or discouraged the intruders from carrying out their kidnapping plans.
This of course leaves IDIs to explain what else could have "gone wrong" and why bludgeoning/strangling/sexually abusing/wiping down, and redressing JBR was plan B.
Briefly, the kidnapping gone wrong theory says - the crime started out as a bona fide kidnapping. The perps intended to take JBR out of the house, and collect a ransom. What they intended to do with JBR, later, is another matter. While attempting to carry out a real kidnapping plan something "went wrong" to prevent or discourage the perps from carrying out the kidnapping plan.
One of the things that could have "gone wrong" could have been not being able to get JBR out of the house. To entertain this idea, we have to assume they couldn't or wouldn't leave through a door on the ground floor (possibly they were afraid they'd set off the burglar alarm). So, we are back to the basement window. This at least explains why they went into the basement.
I don't put much stock in the idea that the basement window was an entry/exit point, but lets go with it just to give IDI the benefit of the doubt.
One intruder may have had difficulty getting JBR out the window. Does one push her through the window, then climb out after her? She might try to run away while the intruder is trying to follow her out. Or, if she was incapacitated, it may have been very difficult to push her through the window.
Does one climb out first, then try to pull her out? This would require reaching back in, while sticking head and hands into the window from outside. Perhaps if her hands were tied, the end of the rope could be held while climbing out. Then it's just a matter of puling her up and through the window.
I can see that a single intruder may have had trouble with this. I can't see that it would have been very difficult for two intruders.
It's relatively easy for perp 1 to climb out and pull while perp 2 pushes. Once JBR is out, perp 2 follows.
If you want the suitcase involved (and what IDI theorist doesn't want the suitcase involved?) then IMO the plan was to take JBR outside the house first, then place her in the suitcase -NOT to put her in the suitcase then try to push the loaded suitcase through the window.
The perps could have carried a heavy suitcase down the street w/o arousing suspicion. They would not have been able to carry a girl down the street w/o people thinking something was odd.
The problem of course is that two people should have been able to carry out the kidnapping w/o much trouble. Having two people makes it twice as likely that JBR would be removed from the house. It makes completion of the kidnapping twice as likely, and since the kidnapping didn't happen, 2 intruders is twice as unlikely as 1 intruder.
If there were two (or more) intruders, then not being able to get JBR out the window was not the problem. It was not the thing that "went wrong" and prevented or discouraged the intruders from carrying out their kidnapping plans.
This of course leaves IDIs to explain what else could have "gone wrong" and why bludgeoning/strangling/sexually abusing/wiping down, and redressing JBR was plan B.
Whaleshark
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2011
- Messages
- 632
- Reaction score
- 7
how does this supposed attempt compare to how they/he successfully got Elizabeth Smart out?
In Smart case:
Did he go through a window?
He took her from her bedroom which she shared with her own sister right and she was witness to, so did the sister wait till morning to tell her parents?
Where was Wanda during the kidnapping part of Elizabeth - did she wait outside for them?
Didn't Elizabeth say they traveled on foot for a long time?
Did they take any of her belongings?
Her parents slept through all of it right?
There was no ransom note in the Smart case was there, or any note of any kind?
Were there particular reasons that Elizabeth was chosen other than opportunity after he had worked in that house? Type of parents? Large house?
...just trying to see for comparison...
For JBR case, I don't think the basement window was used either, though, especially if the room was blocked and the ridiculous stories by JR about how the person could have gotten in/out.
However, this new information for consideration and parallels in the writing style and formats really do intrigue me. I'm trying to figure out the scenario with them fitting into what we know though, too.... and risking doing all that activity while there with the Ramseys. Even with him going into the Smart home with all of them there, including her own sister in the same room, didn't he get out as soon as he possibly could?
In Smart case:
Did he go through a window?
He took her from her bedroom which she shared with her own sister right and she was witness to, so did the sister wait till morning to tell her parents?
Where was Wanda during the kidnapping part of Elizabeth - did she wait outside for them?
Didn't Elizabeth say they traveled on foot for a long time?
Did they take any of her belongings?
Her parents slept through all of it right?
There was no ransom note in the Smart case was there, or any note of any kind?
Were there particular reasons that Elizabeth was chosen other than opportunity after he had worked in that house? Type of parents? Large house?
...just trying to see for comparison...
For JBR case, I don't think the basement window was used either, though, especially if the room was blocked and the ridiculous stories by JR about how the person could have gotten in/out.
However, this new information for consideration and parallels in the writing style and formats really do intrigue me. I'm trying to figure out the scenario with them fitting into what we know though, too.... and risking doing all that activity while there with the Ramseys. Even with him going into the Smart home with all of them there, including her own sister in the same room, didn't he get out as soon as he possibly could?
On the Smart kidnapping, Barzee assisted as an accomplice before and after, but Mitchell went alone to do the kidnapping.
Elizabeth's sister was scared and hid for an hour before telling parents, who at first did not believe her.
Mitchell entered into the Smart home through an open kitchen window.
My theory at the moment is that Mitchell MAY be the man who assaulted "Amy" on 9/14/97, and investigators think he entered that home when they were gone, had several hours to wait and prepare, then did the assault after the family went to bed and set the alarm. Thus it may also be the case with the Ramsey's.
Many "Ramseys Did It" people found it suspicuous that the Ramsey's used the old and seldom used word "Hence" as did the ransom note writer.
What do people think of the Barzee Mitchell Journal using "hence", and about a dozen other words and styles like the ransom note?
Elizabeth's sister was scared and hid for an hour before telling parents, who at first did not believe her.
Mitchell entered into the Smart home through an open kitchen window.
My theory at the moment is that Mitchell MAY be the man who assaulted "Amy" on 9/14/97, and investigators think he entered that home when they were gone, had several hours to wait and prepare, then did the assault after the family went to bed and set the alarm. Thus it may also be the case with the Ramsey's.
Many "Ramseys Did It" people found it suspicuous that the Ramsey's used the old and seldom used word "Hence" as did the ransom note writer.
What do people think of the Barzee Mitchell Journal using "hence", and about a dozen other words and styles like the ransom note?
Whaleshark
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2011
- Messages
- 632
- Reaction score
- 7
Using the word hence, and other parallels...i do find it interesting that Wanda and Patsy seemed to both use formal, feminine, lengthy writing styles....educated, good spellers and vocabulary, religious and wordy.... the Hence and the caret are very interesting, and give me pause.
I'd have to see how it could be done with knowing what we know about their MO. I seriously got off the fence a few months ago, but am willing to 'look at the fence' for this possibility at least...but it would have to fit....
questions i would have:
why a long note left in Ramseys and not Smart's house? every item seemed to be from Ramsey house, though...including pen to write the note - they were that comfortable?
Did Wanda write the note while they were rummaging (including practice note), and keep it with her, or give to Brian to leave on the stairs later right before they were going to leave with JBR? Note is left on supposedly odd place even after JBR is left behind. When was it neatly placed on those steps? If that was accomplished, what was the problem with getting her out the door? Why leave her there?
I guess it also comes back to the some of the same questions with any IDI, I suppose....
But I'm curious about other 'failed attempts' that Wanda supposedly spoke of...and they did seem to travel a lot, with tents, etc.
there was also some redressing of JBR and placing of dolls and such in the basement...all with family still there... peculiar things to explain indeed.
one other question on the ransom note: was there not a symbol thingy on the original note that I've seen show up from time to time... trying to verify for accuracy... just asking because Brian Mitchell seemed to make decorative metal objects which could include using stamps/symbols....
I'd have to see how it could be done with knowing what we know about their MO. I seriously got off the fence a few months ago, but am willing to 'look at the fence' for this possibility at least...but it would have to fit....
questions i would have:
why a long note left in Ramseys and not Smart's house? every item seemed to be from Ramsey house, though...including pen to write the note - they were that comfortable?
Did Wanda write the note while they were rummaging (including practice note), and keep it with her, or give to Brian to leave on the stairs later right before they were going to leave with JBR? Note is left on supposedly odd place even after JBR is left behind. When was it neatly placed on those steps? If that was accomplished, what was the problem with getting her out the door? Why leave her there?
I guess it also comes back to the some of the same questions with any IDI, I suppose....
But I'm curious about other 'failed attempts' that Wanda supposedly spoke of...and they did seem to travel a lot, with tents, etc.
there was also some redressing of JBR and placing of dolls and such in the basement...all with family still there... peculiar things to explain indeed.
one other question on the ransom note: was there not a symbol thingy on the original note that I've seen show up from time to time... trying to verify for accuracy... just asking because Brian Mitchell seemed to make decorative metal objects which could include using stamps/symbols....
Good comments.
Not aware of any symbol on the ransom note, just a small circled "9" that appears on some versions, I thought that it did NOT appear on the original. Maybe somebody can clarify or confirm.
Can you, or anyone, elaborate on the redressing of JonBenet and any dolls in the basement? Thank you.
Not aware of any symbol on the ransom note, just a small circled "9" that appears on some versions, I thought that it did NOT appear on the original. Maybe somebody can clarify or confirm.
Can you, or anyone, elaborate on the redressing of JonBenet and any dolls in the basement? Thank you.
Whaleshark
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2011
- Messages
- 632
- Reaction score
- 7
oh man..where to start on the redressing and the dolls...
I'll start you off with some threads/photos below, but you can search the forum(s) and google for more discussions/threads on this....
Here's a thread on it:
http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=115766&page=10
Here's another:
'What's in the cellar room photo':
[ame="http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=116359"]http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=116359[/ame]
Pic of blanket used on her bed, but was not pulled from there supposedly, but was figured to have been in downstairs dryer, of which an intruder would most likely not know, due to it being washed/dried all the time due to bedwetting..other threads discuss this as well. Also seen in this photo is believed a pink barbie nightgown:
More discussion on other thread:
'A Doll Was Placed Next To JonBenet's Body In The Cellar!'
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=9958&page=11
You can see a pic of a doll/dolls in below photos...it has been discussed and proposed that one of the dolls is a Holiday Barbie '96..with discussion on her possibly being surrounded with some of her favorite things in the cellar....
Under the photo of the pineapple is another photo, the doll:
Close up, but no detail....but the threads discuss this at length....it circles the doll(s) and discusses it in the above threads...
ALso, UKguy talks a lot about the redressing, and several redressings and restaging scenarios he talks about it....might want to look up some of his thread responses as well...
I'll start you off with some threads/photos below, but you can search the forum(s) and google for more discussions/threads on this....
Here's a thread on it:
http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=115766&page=10
Here's another:
'What's in the cellar room photo':
[ame="http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=116359"]http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=116359[/ame]
Pic of blanket used on her bed, but was not pulled from there supposedly, but was figured to have been in downstairs dryer, of which an intruder would most likely not know, due to it being washed/dried all the time due to bedwetting..other threads discuss this as well. Also seen in this photo is believed a pink barbie nightgown:
More discussion on other thread:
'A Doll Was Placed Next To JonBenet's Body In The Cellar!'
http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=9958&page=11
You can see a pic of a doll/dolls in below photos...it has been discussed and proposed that one of the dolls is a Holiday Barbie '96..with discussion on her possibly being surrounded with some of her favorite things in the cellar....
Under the photo of the pineapple is another photo, the doll:
Close up, but no detail....but the threads discuss this at length....it circles the doll(s) and discusses it in the above threads...
ALso, UKguy talks a lot about the redressing, and several redressings and restaging scenarios he talks about it....might want to look up some of his thread responses as well...
AKWILKS,
There are many posts discussing the redressing. My theory is that there was more than one redressing event, this is why the barbie gown is present, since it is clearly inconsistent either with an intruder theory or the wine-cellar being the primary crime-scene. The doll matches with the barbie-nightgown, since the nightgown was bloodstained, we cannot decide whether JonBenet had just been undressed from the nightgown. Presumably the doll was not bloodstained since it was never listed as being DNA tested.
JonBenet was wearing size-12 underwear underneath the white, urine-stained, longjohns. Any intruder theory has to explain why an intruder would wish to redress JonBenet in over-sized underwear, never mind know where to find it?
.
The doll in question is a 1996 Holiday Barbie in a cellophane window box. The doll is readily seen on eBay and sometimes shows up in antique or thrift shops. If you could see the doll, it is easier to see that it is the one in the photo, which is still in its box on the floor. The doll wears a burgundy gown, open in the front, with piping trim down the opening and hem. The doll has long yellow-blonde hair. If you Google it you should be able to pull up a pic.
There was an enlargement of that photo posted above on here as well, where it is a bit easier to see the outline of the doll's head and hair and the dress.
It would have been the perfect Christmas gift for a little girl that year (1996).
There was an enlargement of that photo posted above on here as well, where it is a bit easier to see the outline of the doll's head and hair and the dress.
It would have been the perfect Christmas gift for a little girl that year (1996).
Whaleshark
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2011
- Messages
- 632
- Reaction score
- 7
DeeDee,
Weird timing too - just last weekend I went into a small neighborhood ice cream shop and they had for sale on a dusty shelf some collectibles and misc. trinkets, and on the top shelf several collectible barbies and dolls, and one of them, still in the box, was the Holiday Barbie 1996, with exact outfit, trim, etc. I caught my breath and looked at it for a long time - first time I had seen one myself not on a photo, and studied the detail, the way the hands, etc. were tied to the box, and remembered the pics and discussion about this doll that JBR got and it being in the photo, in the cellar with her too. Seeing it up close, no doubt it's the holiday barbie 1996.
Weird timing too - just last weekend I went into a small neighborhood ice cream shop and they had for sale on a dusty shelf some collectibles and misc. trinkets, and on the top shelf several collectible barbies and dolls, and one of them, still in the box, was the Holiday Barbie 1996, with exact outfit, trim, etc. I caught my breath and looked at it for a long time - first time I had seen one myself not on a photo, and studied the detail, the way the hands, etc. were tied to the box, and remembered the pics and discussion about this doll that JBR got and it being in the photo, in the cellar with her too. Seeing it up close, no doubt it's the holiday barbie 1996.
DeeDee249,
What we do not know is, was it an intended xmas gift opened by someone searching for the underwear, or is it fake evidence just planted to confuse?
Another take is if the basement is not the primary crime-scene and the barbie-nightgown was removed from JonBenet, then its possible that the doll was given to JonBenet after returning from the White's which along with the gown may form some kind of fetish for whomever assaulted JonBenet? This might fit in with an abuse gone wrong theory?
Also why no questions about this barbie-doll, its origin or intended destination from interviewers, very strange.
Whaleshark,
A staged crime-scene with two barbie products present. When neither should be there might suggest accident or planned positioning?
.
I don't feel either was put there as staging. I agree with your suggestion that the Barbie DOLL in the box may have been unwrapped while looking for the panties intended for Jenny. The doll may have been intended for Jenny too- even though she was 12, plenty of girls get dolls like that. The Holiday Barbie line is intended for collectors or to build a collection for a child. They are not usually "played with" (taken out of the box and redressed in other clothes, hair brushed out, etc. ) They are usually kept as display dolls. I'd be interested to know if there was another 1996 Holiday Barbie under the tree for JB. I can't imagine Patsy getting one for her niece and not for JB. If there was a second doll like that, it would lend more weight to the one in the wineceller having been unwrapped in the search for the panties.
As far as the Barbie NIGHTGOWN, I still feel it came out of the dryer accidentally, stuck to the white blanket by static cling. It seems to be a very pale pink, and didn't even show up in many photos of the blanket. It was dark, and whoever put JB in there may have been using a flashlight rather than turning the light on in the room.
On another note, we don't know everything that was found in the basement or near JonBenets body. How much of the evidence has been released to the public? How many pictures were taken? How many things were touched, moved, bagged, taken into evidence during the series of pictures. How many pictures were introduced during the questioning of the R's, that we have never seen.
Suffice to say, that we only know the tip of the ice berg.
Suffice to say, that we only know the tip of the ice berg.
twinkiesmom
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2004
- Messages
- 1,660
- Reaction score
- 41
COMPARISON OF WORDS AND STYLES IN JONBENET RAMSEY RANSOM NOTE AND THE JOURNAL OF CHILD KINDNAPPERS BARZEE AND MITCHELL
Common words and styles in both the ransom note and the Barzee Mitchell Journal include:
"Hence"
"Individual's"
"We Represent"
"At this time/At the time"
Use of an editors caret
"am" without periods
"Possession"
"Instructions"
"Adequate"
"Particularly"
"southern" Not Capitalized
And others as well
Also found this on page 9 of the Barzee Mitchell journal. The ransom note also starts a sentence by using "At this time" and there is also use of an editors caret.
".[/size]
The ransom note has an unusual use of "and hence" that is much less common than the Barzee usage.
I don't know how you get around the fact that Barzee's personality is completely different than the ransom note writer (who is used to being in charge and giving orders).
Sabrina2011
Inactive
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2011
- Messages
- 305
- Reaction score
- 0
ok wowee.. it will take me days to read all the threads and catch up on this case. I never (until now) read all the stuff that they belong to satanic cults, sex rings, ritual child killings...
I don't know if we can say with confidence that the ransom note writer is "used to being in charge and giving orders."
Also, as I mentioned, it may be a case were large parts of the ransom note were dictated by Brian Mitchell, or the ideas and general nature were dictated by Brian Mitchell (who is used to being in charge and giving orders) with Wanda left to write it and choose the actual words and sentences.
Who is saying anything about satanic cults and ritual murder?
Brian David Mitchell was a pedophile, last known location in 1995 was Colorado, and he made daring night time entries into occupied large homes in wealthy areas to kidnap beuatiful blond girls to use as his "wife", i.e., sex slave. The journal makes clear that before the successful kidnapping of Elizabeth Smart, there were prior "failed attempts", but that they have learned from them.
Mitchell came equipped with duct tape to cover the mouths of his victims and rope cords to bind them.
Elizabeth awoke with a knife against her throat. Had she jumped up or resisted, she most likely would have died in her room.
All I am trying to do is gather evidence, information and ideas to see if Mitchell should be considered a suspect.
Thanks to all who gave information on the redressing and the doll!
Very interesting. I don't yet know what, if anything, it may mean.
FWIW Wanda Barzee loved dolls, and even while homeless, would buy and keep dolls.
Also, as I mentioned, it may be a case were large parts of the ransom note were dictated by Brian Mitchell, or the ideas and general nature were dictated by Brian Mitchell (who is used to being in charge and giving orders) with Wanda left to write it and choose the actual words and sentences.
Who is saying anything about satanic cults and ritual murder?
Brian David Mitchell was a pedophile, last known location in 1995 was Colorado, and he made daring night time entries into occupied large homes in wealthy areas to kidnap beuatiful blond girls to use as his "wife", i.e., sex slave. The journal makes clear that before the successful kidnapping of Elizabeth Smart, there were prior "failed attempts", but that they have learned from them.
Mitchell came equipped with duct tape to cover the mouths of his victims and rope cords to bind them.
Elizabeth awoke with a knife against her throat. Had she jumped up or resisted, she most likely would have died in her room.
All I am trying to do is gather evidence, information and ideas to see if Mitchell should be considered a suspect.
Thanks to all who gave information on the redressing and the doll!
Very interesting. I don't yet know what, if anything, it may mean.
FWIW Wanda Barzee loved dolls, and even while homeless, would buy and keep dolls.