The “Undoing” of the Ramseys.

[madeleine]

They were VERY careful not to leave a trace so were obviously thinking about the consequences should something go wrong and they were caught. Makes you wonder, if they were familiar with law enforcement techniques as they said in the RN, they might also have been familar with the law and it's application. Perhaps they were jail buddies?

re this scenario

But if they were so careful not to leave any traces why did they risk and remove gloves when wiping off JB?makes NO sense to me.
if IDI /it's either there is more evidence but LE missed it OR this was a sex crime and the intruder removed his gloves because he NEEDED to touch her/but the RN doesn't make sense then(kidnapping for money)!

 

[madeleine]

Interesting theory, since the R's had mindhunter.

SBTC. Saved by the cross, popular chritian expression, early to mid 80's

SBTC. Subic bay training center

SBTC. Southern baptists of Texas convention

SBTC. Small business technology center

SBTC. Shall be the conquerer or conquered depending upon your preference.

.

fat cat

Signed By The Cat?

 

[madeleine]

I always wondered about "you're not the only fat cat around so don't think that killing will be difficult".......it's like the RN writer tells him something like "you know killing it's not difficult,you've been there,done that"
I can't ignore the possibility that this was about revenge and JR keeps his mouth shut because he's hiding something as well.But what can be so horrible in order to let your daughters killer unpunished though?a bit hard to swallow and a mother wouldn't agree but maybe she doesn't even have a clue.
I just can't get over the fact that JR says we wanna know WHY not WHO and he always talks about the killer and using expressions like monster,evil...like this "person" is not real or part of this world so we better let it go and move on.Strange.

 

[MurriFlower]

re this scenario

But if they were so careful not to leave any traces why did they risk and remove gloves when wiping off JB?makes NO sense to me.
if IDI /it's either there is more evidence but LE missed it OR this was a sex crime and the intruder removed his gloves because he NEEDED to touch her/but the RN doesn't make sense then(kidnapping for money)!

I can only suggest that this was such an unexpected outcome by the accomplice that he did it without thinking of the consequenses.

The other possibility you need to think about is that although the sides of the longjohns were tested where someone would have pulled them up, there is nothing to say the touch DNA came from their hands. It could well have come from another part of the body unnoticed (say exposed arm or leg), when she was carried/dragged to the WC.

 

[madeleine]

let's take the RN,there were no foreign prints found on it.means if IDI he wrote it with gloves on.why bother?why handwritten then and not type it?can't be so easy to write a 3 page RN with your gloves on in a house you never been before with 4 people sleeping upstairs.why bother?why so long then?i can't even write a single sentence with my gloves on,i've tried,waste of time and it looks like i wrote it with my legs lol.

 

[MurriFlower]

let's take the RN,there were no foreign prints found on it.means if IDI he wrote it with gloves on.why bother?why handwritten then and not type it?can't be so easy to write a 3 page RN with your gloves on in a house you never been before with 4 people sleeping upstairs.why bother?why so long then?i can't even write a single sentence with my gloves on,i've tried,waste of time and it looks like i wrote it with my legs lol.

Yes, the prints are interesting. Funny that they didn't find any prints, not even the R's who said they handled it. Makes you wonder about how good they are at investigating eh?

So, lets say the IDI did wear gloves to write it, no real problem there, it is kind of shakey. I suppose it depends on the type of gloves. Some fabrics would be difficult, but leather wouldn't be too hard. But why would you assume it was written while 4 people were sleeping upstairs? Wouldn't you think (at least I do) that it was written earlier, when the IDI first entered the house following the family's departure to the Whites? There was a four hour opportunity there. They could have spent all this time snooping through their things, searching the house for valuables. What if the idea to pretend to kidnap JBR was something that just came to them when they didn't find anything to steal??

 

[claudicici]

There's a bank in Boulder called the Colorado State Bank & Trust. Anyone know if it's known locally as the SBTC??

Edited to add: There's a State Bank & Trust Company in IA. http://sbtcompany.com/locations.aspx

There is a thread here about the book you mentioned Murry and I was reading that thread and I found this interessting post.
Then again it's pretty unbelievable so it probably is not true.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85466&highlight=tracy+neef&page=2
post #34

 

[madeleine]

WE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHO( NON RAMSEY) THE LAST PERSON SEEING JB ALIVE WAS.
There are NO witnesses (none I heard of) who can claim at what hour the R's returned home,IF they returned straight home.
So many things we don't know of.
.

ETA
so glad I've found this
so SS can't confirm JB was alive

"While driving home, Patsy stopped at the houses of friends to drop off gifts a gift basket for Susan Stine and perfume for Roxanna Walker. Burke accompanied her to the door of the Stine's residence, but John and JonBenet remained in the car as JonBenet had fallen asleep. Patsy also had brought along a gift basket for John and Barbara Fernie, but because it was getting late and JonBenet was already asleep, Patsy decided to deliver this last gift some other time. The family arrived home at 9:00 p.m."

http://www.acandyrose.com/s-susan-n-glenn-stine.htm

 

[madeleine]

So if we are to believe BR that JB was awake when they arrived home....then it means she was awake when BR and PR dropped the gifts for the Stine'.sWhy didn't she go along?What happened in the car or before they got there?

 

[twinkiesmom]

The pineapple she ate was sourced to the Ramsey home, not the White's party...I think she had to have made it home from the party.

 

[madeleine]

btw,first time I hear of this

http://www.acandyrose.com/1999-BonitaPapers.htm

Fleet diagramed the position of the body in the wine cellar. This positioning was inconsistent with John’s description when he found JonBenet.


----

does anyone know what FW said about it?

 

[Sophie]

Top-notch criminal profilers, he said, "always put more weight on behavior than on words. The behavior of the offender is much more telling than what he says later," McCrary said. And the behavior of JonBenet's killer speaks very, very loudly.

For instance, McCrary said evidence at the scene strongly disputes any theory that the killer may have been a disgruntled employee of Ramsey. "This crime was not about getting back at the father," said McCrary, who couldn't recall a case of "someone killing a kid to get back at a parent." He said the sexual assault of JonBenet "was a deviant, psychopathic sexual behavior, not an expression of anger at the father."

If revenge on the father had been a motive, McCrary said, "the killer would have displayed the body; he wouldn't have hidden it in the basement."
The profiler said the body would have been placed in a manner "to shock and offend" John Ramsey if anger or hate or revenge had been the motive.

Additionally, he said that by assaulting JonBenet, killing her, taking her from an upper-floor bedroom to a far corner of the basement and writing a lengthy ransom note - all negated a revenge killing.

"If that had been the reason for a killer being in the house that night," McCrary said, "they would have killed the little girl and gotten out as fast as possible."

It's that behavior that a profiler puts most credence in, rather than in someone's words, according to McCrary. And McCrary comes with unusually good credentials. Douglas himself considers McCrary to be among "the top criminal profilers and investigative analysts in the world."
http://www.corpus-delicti.com/mccrary_jbr.html

Hi Cynic,

Just cherrypicking here but it's interesting that McCrary eliminated disgruntled employees from the mix becuase no one would kill a child to gain revenge on the parents. I agree with this but - of course - the reverse is true of parents who kill: statistically, revenge on a spouse is a major reason for one parent murdering a child.

 

[joeskidbeck]

Hi Cynic,

Just cherrypicking here but it's interesting that McCrary eliminated disgruntled employees from the mix becuase no one would kill a child to gain revenge on the parents. I agree with this but - of course - the reverse is true of parents who kill: statistically, revenge on a spouse is a major reason for one parent murdering a child.

You bring up a very interesting point Sophie. I have never believed that JonBenet was killed on purpose BUT I do believe that Patsy was highly pizzed at John all day that Christmas! I don't think she bought his excuse of spending all those hours at his plane any more than I do. Any woman who has ever believed that her husband was cheating knows just how bad the feelings of rage build until she feels like exploding. Patsy had so much on her "plate" that night that there numerous scenarious that may have played out.

 

[MCDRAW]

But why? Why hide her IN the house? Like I have stated a million times before, the front door sure was alot closer. So they are trying to extort money from JR....but they are too sweet to remove her from the house??? If you are an intruder, and this was your motive....wouldn't you just take her right out the front door, instead of going down to the basement, where you might be discovered???

Unless the possibility of dicovery added to the thrill.

 

[MurriFlower]

There is a thread here about the book you mentioned Murry and I was reading that thread and I found this interessting post.
Then again it's pretty unbelievable so it probably is not true.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85466&highlight=tracy+neef&page=2
post #34

Interesting story. It's pretty coincidental, but I'd not dismiss it out of hand. The thing is if he was a 'love rat' I'm sure ST would have found out about it, although it probably wouldn't have fitted in with his PDI theory, so he might have just dismissed it too.

If JR was someone who had brief affairs like that with women he had just met, then it fits somewhat with my anger theory, but I'd be thinking of something a bit more serious than a one night stand. Lets say its someone in love with JR and expecting to become the next Mrs JR after PR succumbs to the cancer, step-mother to his two adorable children, and mistress of the 'big house'. Then PR recovers!! JR makes it clear he's not leaving her and the affair is off. If she was an employee, perhaps she is even 'let go' and reckoned she was owed money. That would result in the anger, humiliation, desire for revenge, knowledge of the house (taken there, maybe even a key). She would know about the loss of Beth and his fondness for JBR. It doesn't explain JBRs murder, but is perhaps a motive for her 'kidnapping'. If there was an accomplice who was coincidentally a crazy kid killer......... It's a bit of a stretch, but as they say, truth is stranger than fiction sometimes.

 

[wonderllama]

btw,first time I hear of this

http://www.acandyrose.com/1999-BonitaPapers.htm

That entire post was fascinating reading...thanks.

 

[cynic]

Hi Cynic,

Just cherrypicking here but it's interesting that McCrary eliminated disgruntled employees from the mix becuase no one would kill a child to gain revenge on the parents. I agree with this but - of course - the reverse is true of parents who kill: statistically, revenge on a spouse is a major reason for one parent murdering a child.

Hi Sophie,

There is some debate about this, mostly relating to the strict definition of “revenge.”
There is no doubt, however, that “anger with spouse” (and/or marital discord) is a factor and revenge is a subset of that. This could relate to the death of JBR if PR suspected JR was having an incestuous relationship with JBR.

Reasons and Factors for Killing the Child(ren)
Investigators were also asked to check off from a list of factors, derived from an analysis of representative case files, those factors which the investigator determined had an effect on the murder. This analysis was based upon 178 responses. Multiple responses were permitted and the responses were collated and scored by the researcher. The reasons stated were as follows: angry with their spouse or mate (43%); experiencing family discord (38%); and frustration with an extended family situation (28%). The investigators reported that separation and divorce had an effect on the murders in 23% of the incidents. Custody dispute was identified as a factor in 5% of the incidents.
…

Offenders Actions After Committing the Crime
An analysis was made to determine if the offender called the police or requested assistance. In the analysis of 98 responses to a fact-finding question , 40% of the offenders reported the incident to the police or called for assistance; 26% committed suicide; and, 33% did not contact law enforcement or request assistance. Multiple responses were permitted in this analysis. It was interesting to note that in the literature review some researchers pointed out that infanticide mothers tended not to follow the child death with suicide. Additionally, that the killing an infant was taken less serious by the Canadian society than killing a child (Bourget & Bradford, 1990). These observations require further research study.
…

Twenty-five percent (25%) of children were killed using a weapon (shooting 13% and stabbing 12%), physically abused 21%, strangled 21%, Shaken Baby Syndrome 11% and drowned 10%. In multiple killings, the use of a firearm was more prevalent, closely followed by carbon monoxide poisoning. Mothers strangled or asphyxiated children until death. In comparison, fathers were more physically abusive. Fathers chose to use a firearm to kill older children (over 10 years of age). Mothers used a variety of methods to kill older children.
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pubs/omc-ned/kill-tuer-eng.htm

 

[madeleine]

ETA
so glad I've found this
so SS can't confirm JB was alive

"While driving home, Patsy stopped at the houses of friends to drop off gifts a gift basket for Susan Stine and perfume for Roxanna Walker. Burke accompanied her to the door of the Stine's residence, but John and JonBenet remained in the car as JonBenet had fallen asleep. Patsy also had brought along a gift basket for John and Barbara Fernie, but because it was getting late and JonBenet was already asleep, Patsy decided to deliver this last gift some other time. The family arrived home at 9:00 p.m."

http://www.acandyrose.com/s-susan-n-glenn-stine.htm

ETA

4 LOU SMIT: And then you go to the Stines?

5 JOHN RAMSEY: Right.

6 LOU SMIT: How far a drive is the Stines?

7 JOHN RAMSEY: Two minutes, three minutes.

8 Pulled up out the front of their house. Patsy

9 certainly went in, I don't think I did. I don't

10 remember if Burke did or not. I don't think

11 JonBenet did. But I don't remember for sure.

12 It wouldn't have been unusual for Burke to go in

13 because that was his buddy, Doug.

14 LOU SMIT: Did you have a gift for Doug?

15 JOHN RAMSEY: I don't know. I know Patsy

16 probably, but I don't recall. And then we debated,

17 we had a gift for the Fernies and we debated

18 whether we should go over there. But that's

19 probably 15 minutes away and we wanted to get home

20 and to bed. And we didn't know what time we would

21 get back. So we left the Stines and drove home.




he doesn't remember who went in and who stayed in the car.
GMAB
but he remembers that they debated whether they should go to the Fernies or not
yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

if JB being asleep was a lie why did it have to start with "she fall asleep in the car".why not she fell asleep right after we arrived home.
something stinks here.i don't buy their stories re the drive home.

 

[madeleine]

i am starting to wonder what the real motive was for not visiting the Fernies

LOU SMIT: So your concern then was mainly you

23 didn't want to spend that extra time (INAUDIBLE).

24 Why?

25 JOHN RAMSEY: Well, it was 15 minutes over

0110

1 there and both the kids might want to go in and it

2 would have been half an hour, 45 minutes before we

3 went home. And we had to get up early next

4 morning. They were tired. They had been up all

5 day. So we said, well, we'd do that when we got

6 back.




if PR had a gift for someone I am pretty sure she would have wanted it delivered

 

[BBB167893]

We seem to be straying a bit.

I got the gist of this thread right from the beginning: WHY would anyone undo the crime UNLESS they had a strong emotional investment in the victim?