The ransom note and staging

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Tober said:
I don't see the note writer as being ashamed in any way. IMO the primary purpose of the note was the self-preservation of its writer through: 1) Offering an explanation for JonBenet's dead body; and 2) Focusing attention away from the home.
I completely agree. Without the note, there's no real "reason" for JonBenet to be found dead in the home without suspicion falling on the parents, and they needed a boogeyman for the police to believe was the perp and track down. Anyone to make it sound like someone other than a Ramsey had been responsible for JB's death. I don't detect any note of shame whatsoever. I do have to wonder how they actually thought an RN that long would sound convincing. That's part of what LE and FBI saw as red flags. Waaaaaay too much detail.
 
Nuisanceposter said:
There's a lack of clear cut evidence against the Rs? What is fibers from their clothing found in the crime scene and on the body, then? Their multitude of contradicting statements and outright lies? Their refusal to cooperate without ridiculous conditions and hindering investigation, hiring people to keep them out of jail rather than search for the kiler? What evidence do you see as being clear cut of an intruder?
Fibers from JBR's parents would be expected to be "in the crime scene and on the body." Lack of these fibers would be odd.

Lies and contradicting statements, even if true, aren't clear cut evidence they murdered their daughter. Where is the motive, the will, or the ability to kill a small child established here? You're gonna need some of that to convince that an R killed, accidentally or otherwise, their only daughter.

I'd stick with the intruder pedophile acting alone Kazynski-style idea. Its a safer bet.
 
Nuisanceposter said:
There's a lack of clear cut evidence against the Rs? What is fibers from their clothing found in the crime scene and on the body, then? Their multitude of contradicting statements and outright lies? Their refusal to cooperate without ridiculous conditions and hindering investigation, hiring people to keep them out of jail rather than search for the kiler? {QUOTE}--Yep Np--and don't forget the fake ransom note they wrote
 
Holdontoyourhat said:
Fibers from JBR's parents would be expected to be "in the crime scene and on the body." Lack of these fibers would be odd.

Lies and contradicting statements, even if true, aren't clear cut evidence they murdered their daughter. Where is the motive, the will, or the ability to kill a small child established here? You're gonna need some of that to convince that an R killed, accidentally or otherwise, their only daughter.

I'd stick with the intruder pedophile acting alone Kazynski-style idea. Its a safer bet.
---LOL--There was no intruder--Ramsey already admitted to the police that all the doors and windows were secure and the spider web was unbroken at the one window that WAS broken--You are really in denial
 
Nuisanceposter said:
I completely agree. Without the note, there's no real "reason" for JonBenet to be found dead in the home without suspicion falling on the parents, and they needed a boogeyman for the police to believe was the perp and track down. Anyone to make it sound like someone other than a Ramsey had been responsible for JB's death. I don't detect any note of shame whatsoever. I do have to wonder how they actually thought an RN that long would sound convincing. That's part of what LE and FBI saw as red flags. Waaaaaay too much detail.
--Absolutely true--The RN was ludicrous from top to bottom
 
Peter Hamilton said:
---LOL--There was no intruder--Ramsey already admitted to the police that all the doors and windows were secure and the spider web was unbroken at the one window that WAS broken--You are really in denial
Uh, did you know a spider usually spins a web during the night, in a matter of just a few hours? That an intruder could've entered, killed JBR, and exited through your window in question, and a spider built a gigantic web covering the whole thing, that very same night?

BTW, in my opinion the intruder was there in the afternoon, by way of the front door, which is the way he/they left. IMO.

I think they call it 'key access'.

What do you think a 'secured' door is? Locked?
 
An intruder who takes his sweet time..... Takes JonBenet from her bedroom and to the kitchen. He fixes JonBenet some pineapple. Then he takes JonBenet downstairs where he molests her.

A few hours later, he decides he's had enough of JonBenet. He then hits her over the head. He then places a cord around her neck, ties her wrists, then places duct tape over her mouth. He wraps her "papoose style" in her own blanket and places her "favorite nightgown" next to her.

He then goes upstairs and writes a long "ransom note". He writes his "note"...not liking what he wrote, so he tears the pages up. Finally he is satisfied with the note. He even takes the time to replace the pen back in its place.

Then he leaves as he came....through the chimney.
 
Toltec said:
An intruder who takes his sweet time..... Takes JonBenet from her bedroom and to the kitchen. He fixes JonBenet some pineapple. Then he takes JonBenet downstairs where he molests her.

A few hours later, he decides he's had enough of JonBenet. He then hits her over the head. He then places a cord around her neck, ties her wrists, then places duct tape over her mouth. He wraps her "papoose style" in her own blanket and places her "favorite nightgown" next to her.

He then goes upstairs and writes a long "ransom note". He writes his "note"...not liking what he wrote, so he tears the pages up. Finally he is satisfied with the note. He even takes the time to replace the pen back in its place.

Then he leaves as he came....through the chimney.
No, not quite. Many differences between your intruder and my intruder.

My intruder probably wrote the RN in advance, when nobody was home. Probably never took JBR to the kitchen, but brought her pineapple. Used the garrote and 2nd ligature to move her downstairs, and finally strangle her. Hit her over the head so she couldn't be revived.

My intruder isn't the same intruder as your intruder at all.
 
What could so easily have gone which way? You lost me. Its an unsolved murder, right?

Sorry. I meant that if she had been found outside the house, it would be easier to believe an intruder.

The chances of a pedophile killer acting alone is very high. In fact, its the most likely scenario, given the condition JBR was found in.

But, and this is important, there have been myriad killings like the one you suggest happened here, HOTYH (Danielle Van Dam, Samantha Runnion, etc" and none of them even remotely resemble this one. You still have not answered me:

would you camp out in a stranger's home, all but impossible to navigate in the dark, capable of being spotted at any time, feed your victim pineapple, wait two more hours for it to digest, lead them to the basement, tie up their hands in a way that wouldn't restrain an infant, molest her so it only scratches the interior of the vagina, which you would need three arms to do because you have to pull the cord with one hand and hold her down with the other, using a cord with the wrong knot for your purposes, put tape on her mouth AFTER she's dead when that makes no sense (if you were worried about her screaming, you'd gag her first), sneak into the parents' room, steal their clothing, drip fibers in five areas (not even on the body), go back up, put the clothes back exactly the way you found them, redress the body (when leaving her naked under the tree would be so much better), put her favorite nightgown in the blanket with her, then write a ransom note that really says nothing, knowing you won't get any money, then leave bold as brass, only leaving a speck of DNA that couldn't have been left that night because it was so much older than JB's DNA...
WHEN it would be so much simpler to grab her when she's alone (playing in the yard, coming home from school, etc.,) take her to a place where you feel safe where there's no rush and you have her at leisure (like David Westerfield, Alejandro Avila, Dennis Dechaine et al have done)?

and the lack of any clear cut evidence against the R's, besides whats trumped up media hype, the intruder idea is not only possible, but probable.

Really?

As part of the Boulder police's investigation, they accepted an invitation from the FBI to put on a full presentation of the case to the FBI's Child Abduction and Serial Killer Unit based at Quantico, Va. As Thomas recounts in his book, over 20 CASKU team members, including hair and fiber experts, attended the August 1997 briefing. Police investigators reviewed the autopsy results, and crime scene photos. In turn, CASKU agents reported that of the more than 1,700 murdered children they had studied since the 1960s, there was only one case in which the victim was a female under the age of 12, who had been murdered in her home by strangulation, with sexual assault and a ransom note present: JonBenet Ramsey. The agents told the Boulder investigators that while it might be possible that someone broke into the house that day, it was not very probable. The staging of the crime, the evidence presented to them by the Boulder police, and the totality of the case pointed in one direction: This was not the act of an intruder.

the FBI team said the crime "did not fit an act of sex or revenge or one in which money was the motivation. Taken alone, they said, each piece of evidence might be argued, but together, enough pebbles become a block of evidentiary granite."

"CASKU observed that they had never seen anything like the Ramsey ransom note. Kidnapping demands are usually terse, such as 'We have your kid. A million dollars. Will call you.' From a kidnapper's point of view, the fewer words, the less police have to go on."

The FBI "believed that the note was written in the house, after the murder, and indicated panic. Ransom notes are normally written prior to the crime, usually proofread, and not written by hand, in order to disguise the authorship."

the FBI deemed the entire crime "criminally unsophisticated," citing the child being left on the premises, the oddness of the $118,000 demand in relation to the multi-million dollar net worth of the Ramsey, and the concept of a ransom delivery where one would be "scanned for electronic devices." Kidnappers prefer isolated drops for the ransom delivery, not wanting to chance a face-to-face meeting.

CASKU profilers also observed that placing JonBenet's body in the basement indicated the involvement of a parent, rather than an intruder. A parent would not want to place the body outside in the frigid night. They also stated, according to Thomas, that the ligatures "indicated staging rather than control, and the garrote was used from behind so the killer could avoid eye contact, typical of someone who cares for the victim." Thomas said the profilers had the gut feeling that "no one intended to kill the child." This would mean that the severe blow to the head was done in a thoughtless rage and that all the subsequent assault on JonBenet and the writing of the ransom note was staged to cover up the unintentional murder.

Whoever killed JonBenet didn't fear getting caught. Thomas said that FBI profilers conjectured that the crime "was committed by someone who had a high degree of comfort inside the home. The murderer spent a good deal of time with the victim, bashing in her head, dragging her down two stories to the basement, wiping down her vaginal area, taping her mouth, tying up her wrists, garroting her, carefully, even lovingly, placing a white blanket over her, calmly writing what the Boulder police called the War And Peace of ransom notes, and then placing that ransom note just where Patsy Ramsey would be most likely to find it when she came down the backstairs in the morning.

And as for a lack of evidence, I'd be more than happy to provide you a list of what is now approaching triple digits.

Fibers from JBR's parents would be expected to be "in the crime scene and on the body." Lack of these fibers would be odd.

That's just it, HOTYH: they weren't on the body; they were only in places connected with the crime where the Rs claimed they never went near. Not to mention that the stories concerning how they got there are contradicted by their own accounts! Don't take my word for it. I'll be more than happy to furnish the actual quotes.

Lies and contradicting statements, even if true, aren't clear cut evidence they murdered their daughter. Where is the motive, the will, or the ability to kill a small child established here? You're gonna need some of that to convince that an R killed, accidentally or otherwise, their only daughter.

I've got a few ideas.

I completely agree.
Without the note, there's no real "reason" for JonBenet to be found dead in the home without suspicion falling on the parents, and they needed a boogeyman for the police to believe was the perp and track down.

Put it this way: they needed a criminal to go with the crime.

Anyone to make it sound like someone other than a Ramsey had been responsible for JB's death. I don't detect any note of shame whatsoever. I do have to wonder how they actually thought an RN that long would sound convincing. That's part of what LE and FBI saw as red flags. Waaaaaay too much detail.

That's the point we're trying to make here: if the staging hadn't been so overdone, it would have been a lot easier to spot.
 
Holdontoyourhat said:
Fibers from JBR's parents would be expected to be "in the crime scene and on the body."
When attempting to excuse the fiber evidence on the basis of secondary transfer, some issues arise: 1) The fibers in question are from the very clothing John and Patsy were wearing when they say they last saw JonBenet alive; 2) Patsy's sweater-jacket was a seasonal piece of clothing, not something she'd wear very often; 3) Patsy said she never wore that sweater-jacket while painting or while in the basement; 4) Fibers from Patsy's sweater-jacket were found in the body room on the sticky side of the duct tape that once covered JonBenet's mouth and on the blanket her body was wrapped in (arguably, secondary transfer might account for these fibers); 5) Fibers from Patsy's sweater-jacket were found outside the body room in the paint tote; 6) Patsy said there were no broken paint brushes in the paint tote prior to JonBenet's death; 7) Fibers from Patsy's sweater-jacket were found with JonBenet's body, "tied into" the ligature around her neck; 8) Fibers from John's shirt were found in JonBenet's panties and crotch area. Though John carried her to bed (allegedly), that wouldn't account for those fibers being found there because he didn't undress her for bed, Patsy did (allegedly). Further, she had been wiped down and was found wearing brand new, unwashed Bloomies from a brand new, previously unopened package; 9) Both John and Patsy were given opportunity to provide an innocent explanation for those particular fibers being found in those particular places. Neither did, nor did they at any time after.
 
Holdontoyourhat said:
No, not quite. Many differences between your intruder and my intruder.

My intruder probably wrote the RN in advance, when nobody was home. Probably never took JBR to the kitchen, but brought her pineapple. Used the garrote and 2nd ligature to move her downstairs, and finally strangle her. Hit her over the head so she couldn't be revived.

My intruder isn't the same intruder as your intruder at all.

Holdontoyourhat,

My intruder isn't the same intruder as your intruder at all.

This is because your intruder is a figment of your imagination. Like Lou Smit and many others you just magick up an intruder and fit him into the crime-scene.

You know whats wrong with this, apart from insulting the intelligence of many posters, is that there is NO forensic evidence linking an intruder to the death of JonBenet.


Also after your fictional intruder pens his Magnum Opus of a Ransom Note, he then:
Used the garrote and 2nd ligature to move her downstairs, and finally strangle her. Hit her over the head so she couldn't be revived.
Why does he wipe JonBenet down, why does he redress her in size-12 underwear and where did he get them from, why does he restyle her hair with two ponytails, why did he wrap JonBenet in blankets, why did he take her Barbie-Gown into the wine-cellar and leave it there, did he sexually assault JonBenet, she also has far more injuries than a hit over the head, these are itemised in the autopsy, why did he not take the flashlight with him, and after luxuriating in the time taken to author the ransom note, her killer walks out the front door using key access, so why did he not take JonBenet with him, why waste all that time constructing a ransom note, why kill JonBenet when you could abduct her and do all the same things elsewhere?

Unless you put some forensic evidence on the table to back up your imagination, your claims and beliefs are no different from Lou Smit's, in fact in this case it has become a feature e.g. the Lou Smit Intruder Syndrome!
 
Tober said:
When attempting to excuse the fiber evidence on the basis of secondary transfer, some issues arise: 1) The fibers in question are from the very clothing John and Patsy were wearing when they say they last saw JonBenet alive; 2) Patsy's sweater-jacket was a seasonal piece of clothing, not something she'd wear very often; 3) Patsy said she never wore that sweater-jacket while painting or while in the basement; 4) Fibers from Patsy's sweater-jacket were found in the body room on the sticky side of the duct tape that once covered JonBenet's mouth and on the blanket her body was wrapped in (arguably, secondary transfer might account for these fibers); 5) Fibers from Patsy's sweater-jacket were found outside the body room in the paint tote; 6) Patsy said there were no broken paint brushes in the paint tote prior to JonBenet's death; 7) Fibers from Patsy's sweater-jacket were found with JonBenet's body, "tied into" the ligature around her neck; 8) Fibers from John's shirt were found in JonBenet's panties and crotch area. Though John carried her to bed (allegedly), that wouldn't account for those fibers being found there because he didn't undress her for bed, Patsy did (allegedly). Further, she had been wiped down and was found wearing brand new, unwashed Bloomies from a brand new, previously unopened package; 9) Both John and Patsy were given opportunity to provide an innocent explanation for those particular fibers being found in those particular places. Neither did, nor did they at any time after.
Going on and on about R fibers at the crime scene is odd, because R fibers are going to be prevelant inside their own house. Its one thing to find fibers from a neighbor or coworker inside the house, its another thing to find fibers from someone who has close contact with JBR, like a household member.

R fibers found anywhere in the R's house just isn't very remarkable, sorry.

BTW, DNA from an unknown male intruder "found in JonBenet's panties and crotch area" is WAY more significant than some random household fibers.
 
Toltec said:
He even takes the time to replace the pen back in its place.

Is it true the pen was put back in place after the RN writer was done? Wouldn't an intruder writing the RN in the afternoon want to put things back in place so they would not be noticed by the parents later on?


Hmmmmm
 
Holdontoyourhat said:
BTW, DNA from an unknown male intruder "found in JonBenet's panties and crotch area" is WAY more significant than some random household fibers.
It has yet to be proven that the foreign DNA was deposited by an intruder. Unknown male, yes...intruder, no. It's very possible that DNA was on the underwear before they were even taken out of the package.

I consider finding the R's fibers in elements of the crime scene that they shouldn't have been found in, especially since the Rs claimed to have not even been in the basement in their dress clothes, more pertinent that some DNA no one can prove wasn't there before the underwear were even put on JonBenet.

John's shirt fibers in JonBenet's underwear, AFTER she had been redressed *and* wiped down by the redresser or killer, found in brand-new, unwashed underwear JonBenet had never worn before that night...

The paint tray, that Patsy said she was never around while in her dress clothes...

The sticky side of the piece of duct tape, that never came up from the basement (and Patsy wasn't in the basement in her dress clothes)...

Tied into the ligature knot and caught in the cord strangling JonBenet (again, she was never in the basement in her jacket - how are her fibers trapped in the cord and knot then?) How would fibers from Patsy's jacket transfer into those locations, and from John's shirt, but there be NO fibers from this intruder, no prints, no DNA, anywhere?
 
Holdontoyourhat said:
Is it true the pen was put back in place after the RN writer was done? Wouldn't an intruder writing the RN in the afternoon want to put things back in place so they would not be noticed by the parents later on?


Hmmmmm
Well, this intruder wants them to find JonBenet dead in the cellar, but he does not want them to find the pen? And if you reply to that that the intruder had hid the body, so no-one would find it, do you not think there would eventually be an odor from the cellar. According to you, this is not a very bright intruder.
 
Holdontoyourhat said:
Going on and on about R fibers at the crime scene is odd, because R fibers are going to be prevelant inside their own house. Its one thing to find fibers from a neighbor or coworker inside the house, its another thing to find fibers from someone who has close contact with JBR, like a household member.

R fibers found anywhere in the R's house just isn't very remarkable, sorry.

BTW, DNA from an unknown male intruder "found in JonBenet's panties and crotch area" is WAY more significant than some random household fibers.


Holdon. Saying the unsourced DNA is from an "intruder" does not make it so. This is basic stuff that has been discussed on the news on the forums, all over the place. Again, it is older than JB's DNA, making it more than likely that it is from a packager, there are only 10 markers. This DNA was left in the underwear some time before the murder.
 
Holdontoyourhat said:
Is it true the pen was put back in place after the RN writer was done? Wouldn't an intruder writing the RN in the afternoon want to put things back in place so they would not be noticed by the parents later on?


Hmmmmm
On the other hand, Patsy could have written the note after the crime (no broken hands or sudden onset of dysgraphia) and placed the pen back in its place out of force of habit.


-Tea
 
Holdontoyourhat said:
Uh, did you know a spider usually spins a web during the night, in a matter of just a few hours? That an intruder could've entered, killed JBR, and exited through your window in question, and a spider built a gigantic web covering the whole thing, that very same night?
Yeah, and just exactly WHAT are the chances of THAT happening? A spider spins a web the NIGHT that JB is killed, and on the SAME window sill that the "intruder" supposedly used to gain access to the house. A snowballs chance in hell....
 
Toltec said:
An intruder who takes his sweet time..... Takes JonBenet from her bedroom and to the kitchen. He fixes JonBenet some pineapple. Then he takes JonBenet downstairs where he molests her.

A few hours later, he decides he's had enough of JonBenet. He then hits her over the head. He then places a cord around her neck, ties her wrists, then places duct tape over her mouth. He wraps her "papoose style" in her own blanket and places her "favorite nightgown" next to her.

He then goes upstairs and writes a long "ransom note". He writes his "note"...not liking what he wrote, so he tears the pages up. Finally he is satisfied with the note. He even takes the time to replace the pen back in its place.

Then he leaves as he came....through the chimney.

LOL...you crack me up....through the chimney....thats too funny! He probably laid his finger beside of his nose...before up the chimney he rose...

Oh...you forgot ONE thing...after he went upstairs and writes the long "ransom note", and then tears it up, because he is not satisfied with the wording...so, he writes another one....and then puts the top back on the sharpie (thats before they had the ones that click like an ink pen...they have REALLY advanced those SHARPIE pens...geesh), and then replaces the Sharpie into its place...he THEN takes that flashlight that he used, and he WIPES IT DOWN, and leaves it on the counter! Now, wasn't that so sweet of him, to do that...when you know that he just HAD to be in a "hurry" at that point...and wanted to get the heck outta there....I mean...someone MIGHT JUST wake up.....he takes his time to find something to wipe the prints off the flashlight AND the batteries with...and then takes his time to actually wipe the prints off the flashlight and the batteries...when ALL he had to do, to save time...was to take that darn flashlight with him. I am just STILL amazed at how he was able to see in the dark!! He must have had some special powers or something....because he used those same powers to arrive at the home....he was magic...he just APPEARED. Did he drive? Did he walk? Did someone else drive him? Did he take a taxi? Did he ride his bike? Did he skateboard? Just how the heck did he get to the Ramsey's house that night...and WHERE were the tracks??? HMMM..since he was such a nice intruder...he probably covered up the tracks, so he wouldn't mess up the Ramsey's pretty snow covered yard. Toltec....by george....I think that we have figured this out.
 

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
148
Guests online
1,692
Total visitors
1,840

Forum statistics

Threads
605,642
Messages
18,190,348
Members
233,481
Latest member
megan_peterson253
Back
Top