Yes, I tend to think that the ransom note is fake.
...
AK
So, would that, in your opinion, make the crime by an intruder a sexually motivated crime with no intent to kidnap JB?
If no intent to kidnap JB, and her killer was an intruder (perhaps even one with a key), can we wonder if the cord and tape, which could have been brought in, was planned for use during a premeditated murder?
If there was no premeditated murder plan, but rather a sexual assault planned, how would the intruder have made an escape after such an encounter and leave a live JB there to show the results?
IMO, if there was an intruder, and the note was a fake, it almost has to be a premeditated sexually motivated crime, in which death was planned to be the end result. Kind of like a pedophile "snuff". Oh, the horror.
I don’t know if this crime was sexually motivated, but it certainly had a sexual component. If it was sexually motivated, then the killer took steps to hide it. The victim was cleaned up, her clothes put back in place, she was covered with a blanket, there was a ransom note; etc. If not for the autopsy the sexual aspect of this crime would never have been known (BTW, this is one of the reasons that I reject all RDI theories that have the Ramseys trying to blame the crime on a sexual predator of some sort).
I don’t know if this crime was sexually motivated, but it certainly had a sexual component. If it was sexually motivated, then the killer took steps to hide it. The victim was cleaned up, her clothes put back in place, she was covered with a blanket, there was a ransom note; etc. If not for the autopsy the sexual aspect of this crime would never have been known (BTW, this is one of the reasons that I reject all RDI theories that have the Ramseys trying to blame the crime on a sexual predator of some sort).
The note is everything to me. It is the key, I feel.
I think the note must have been very important to the killer because of the considerable and otherwise unnecessary risk involved in writing it in the house. So, why was it important to him? I don’t know. I can hardly imagine. I’m not good at motive.
...
AK
It’s self-explanatory. But, I’ll restate it in another way:You'll have to explain that logic to me, pilgrim. For my money, that's one of the dead giveaways that it was them.
It’s self-explanatory. But, I’ll restate it in another way:
The crime had a sexual component. The killer took steps to hide the sexual component. Therefore, the killer did not want the sexual component known.
If the Ramseys wanted to stage a crime committed by a sexually motivated killer, than they would not have hidden the sexual component.
...
AK
Yes, well this would seem more reasonable. But, not that reasonable. Because there was a sexual component to the crime. In your scenario it seems that they created the sexual component (at or near point of death) and then they hid what they just created.I don't think they wanted to stage a crime of a sexual nature. I think they simply wanted to stage a fake kidnapping with the victim murdered because they disobeyed the RN. The RN was written with the "recipe" for her death built right in. Simply talk to people (police, friends, clergy, victims' advocates) invite them over to the house with all the attending hoopla of cars, including marked patrol cars, and people going in and out and there you have it...."oh, so THAT's why she was killed- the parents disobeyed them"...etc.
The sexual component was hidden (so they thought) because they wished to protect the molester. They hadn't thought about what an autopsy might show. JB's injures, including hymenal erosion and bruising, as well as internal bleeding, was not revealed until the autopsy. The parents removed any VISIBLE signs by wiping the blood from her thighs and pubic area. And I think that since they felt she was not raped (in the traditional sense) in other words- she was still a virgin- there would be nothing to be revealed.
If it was staged “to obliterate evidence of a sa on the 23rd,” or at any other time, than why would they un-stage what they just staged by wiping and straightening her clothes, and covering her in the blanket, etc?
And, no offence, but I sometimes get cranky when the sexual assault is referred to as being staged. It wasn’t staged. It was real. It was real and it happened at or near point of death. And, then it was essentially covered up.
If it was staged to obliterate evidence of a sa on the 23rd, or at any other time, than why would they un-stage what they just staged by wiping and straightening her clothes, and covering her in the blanket, etc?
And, no offence, but I sometimes get cranky when the sexual assault is referred to as being staged. It wasnt staged. It was real. It was real and it happened at or near point of death. And, then it was essentially covered up.
...
AK
So what do you think: do the digital penetration and sexual contact. coincide or are they separate events, you decide?Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that she witnessed the autopsy of JonBenet Ramsey which was conducted by Dr. John Meyer on December 26, 1996. Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that she observed Dr. Meyer examine the vaginal area of the victim and heard him state that the victim had received an injury consistent with digital penetration of her vagina. Detective Arndt told Your Affiant that Dr. Meyer told her that is was his opinion that the victim had been subjected to sexual contact.
To use your words, I get a little cranky whenever someone says that anything was "un-staged."
Well, then I hate to spoil your picnic, friend, but if it had been real, a lot more damage would have been done, among other reasons.
I share your discontent, but as far as I know RDI are pretty much the only ones who propose such things as un-staging.
And, no worries. You haven’t spoiled anything.
But, the sexual assault was real and no one outside of a few forum posters dispute this.
The sexual assault occurred and it occurred at or near point of death; see here: http://tinyurl.com/o9chnrqthe
Someone inserted a foreign object inside JonBenet. That constitutes a sexual assault.
The fact that this occurred disproves your (unfounded and unsupportable) claim that “if it had been real, a lot more damage would have been done.”
Clearly, the motivation for the sexual assault is up for debate, but the fact of the sexual assault should not be, disputing this is like disputing that her body was found in the WC.
In reference to the sexual assault, I wrote, “It wasn’t staged. It was real. It was real and it happened at or near point of death.” post 231I guess it depends on which RDI you mean. I'm telling you how I see things. Moreover, I've only ever seen IDIs use the phrase "un-staging."
.
Oh, damn.
Well, let's be careful, Anti-K. I don't know anyone who says that it didn't happen. That's not what I mean when I say it was staged.
Right.
If it was done with the intent of gratifying the offender. I don't think it was, for a couple of reasons.
It's neither unfounded nor unsupportable, pilgrim. Indeed, I based it on the findings of the pathologists and FBI experts. Whoever did it seemed to have a problem with what they had done, as if they were repulsed by it. Also, using an object allowed them to do it without having to touch JB. It's as if the person took a blind shot and said, "ugh, there, it's done."
Like I said, I don't claim it didn't happen.
Anti-K,
Here is what Coroner Meyer thinks:January 30, 1997 Search Warrant, excerpt
So what do you think: do the digital penetration and sexual contact. coincide or are they separate events, you decide?
.
In reference to the sexual assault, I wrote, “It wasn’t staged. It was real. It was real and it happened at or near point of death.” post 231
To which you replied, “if it had been real, a lot more damage would have been done...” post 232
So, you did indeed say that the sexual assault was not real, and you even offered a reason in support of it not being real: a lot more damage would have been done...
Your claim that “if it had been real, a lot more damage would have been done...” is indeed unfounded and not supportable. Of course, there could have been more damage. But, there could have been less. There is nothing that says damage below x amount means an assault didn’t happen. And, saying “if it had been real, a lot more damage would have been done” is saying that it wasn’t real and saying it wasn’t real is saying that it didn’t happen. You said it: post 232
And, claiming that “Whoever did it seemed to have a problem with what they had done” does not negate the fact that it was done. Claiming this actually contradicts your position as stated in post 232 – that the sexual assault was not real.
Anyway, I see that you now are posting as if you do accept that the sexual assault was real. Good for you.
.
You didn’t actually say anything about the sexual assault being staged (it wasn’t, it was real. And, it was “hidden”. You simply said, “if it was real, a lot more damage would have been done.”
.
I’ve seen all sides use the phrase un-staging. But, as far as I know IDI use it to describe certain aspects of some RDI theories. Docg and UKGuy are good examples of this sort of thinking. Any theory wherein one Ramsey stages one thing and then another Ramsey comes along and changes what the first Ramsey did involves some form of un-staging. Etc
...
AK
Any theory wherein one Ramsey stages one thing and then another Ramsey comes along and changes what the first Ramsey did involves some form of un-staging.
In reference to the sexual assault, I wrote, It wasnt staged. It was real. It was real and it happened at or near point of death. post 231
To which you replied, if it had been real, a lot more damage would have been done... post 232
So, you did indeed say that the sexual assault was not real, and you even offered a reason in support of it not being real: a lot more damage would have been done...
Your claim that if it had been real, a lot more damage would have been done... is indeed unfounded and not supportable. Of course, there could have been more damage. But, there could have been less. There is nothing that says damage below x amount means an assault didnt happen. And, saying if it had been real, a lot more damage would have been done is saying that it wasnt real and saying it wasnt real is saying that it didnt happen. You said it: post 232
And, claiming that Whoever did it seemed to have a problem with what they had done does not negate the fact that it was done. Claiming this actually contradicts your position as stated in post 232 that the sexual assault was not real.
Anyway, I see that you now are posting as if you do accept that the sexual assault was real. Good for you.
.
You didnt actually say anything about the sexual assault being staged (it wasnt, it was real. And, it was hidden). You simply said, if it was real, a lot more damage would have been done.
.
Ive seen all sides use the phrase un-staging. But, as far as I know IDI use it to describe certain aspects of some RDI theories. Docg and UKGuy are good examples of this sort of thinking. Any theory wherein one Ramsey stages one thing and then another Ramsey comes along and changes what the first Ramsey did involves some form of un-staging. Etc
...
AK
Not a phrase I remember using. Re-staging would be more apt. Since prior injuries are masked, particularly through the use of the paintbrush handle. So its not that one scenario was undone and a new one started, more that prior crime-scene objects were incorporated into a revised staging, e.g. pink nightgown and bedroom swapped for the basement?Ive seen all sides use the phrase un-staging. But, as far as I know IDI use it to describe certain aspects of some RDI theories. Docg and UKGuy are good examples of this sort of thinking. Any theory wherein one Ramsey stages one thing and then another Ramsey comes along and changes what the first Ramsey did involves some form of un-staging. Etc
It seems obvious form the context given that the digital penetration and sexual contact are the one and the same. Dr Meyers opinion, as stated in the quoted piece, that the victim had been subjected to sexual contact was based on his observation that the victim had received an injury consistent with digital penetration of her vagina.
...
AK