The ransom note and staging

[Holdontoyourhat]

[/b]

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.

I have as much right to say 'intruder DNA' as you have to say 'packager DNA'.
Fact is, as long as the DNA remains unmatched, you don't know who it belongs to. Lets face it, finding unidentified male DNA at a conspicuous place at the crime scene is bad news for RDI. There has been no decision on the part of investigators to rule out the degraded factory worker's DNA. In fact, they used the DNA to rule out whats-his-name, didn't they?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

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.

The intruder effectively hid JBR in the most remote corner of the house, and placed the ransom note very prominently. This combination diverted attention from the rest of the house.

The odor from the cellar would've been the result, had Arndt not asked JR to search the house again, true? If so, then Arndt and JR only nearly averted this.

In any case, the diversion of placing JBR in a remote corner, while presenting a kidnapping scenario to the parents, provided an hours long period where police on the radio were looking for a 6 year old girl...

No, not a very bright intruder.

 

[tumble]

If the purpose of the RN was to buy time why then write that the money should be delivered between 8.00 and 10.00? This effectively made the police suspicious of the fact that there maybe never were any kidnapping before they even found JB. This resulted in a more thorugh search of the house itself.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

The RN writer would've intended for the note to be read on the morning of Dec 26, correct? Tomorrow would've been December 27, would it not?

Please re-read the RN.

 

[Solace]

I have as much right to say 'intruder DNA' as you have to say 'packager DNA'.
Fact is, as long as the DNA remains unmatched, you don't know who it belongs to. Lets face it, finding unidentified male DNA at a conspicuous place at the crime scene is bad news for RDI. There has been no decision on the part of investigators to rule out the degraded factory worker's DNA. In fact, they used the DNA to rule out whats-his-name, didn't they?

Holdon. Of course you can say it, but it does not have much value, since the DNA is "older" than JonBenet's. It was not placed there that night. This DNA does not exonerate the Ramseys in any way, shape or form. And so what if they used it to rule out Karr; it did not match him at all. He had his facts wrong, said he picked her up from school that day, even though it was Christmas. The non-matching of his DNA was merely a formality to say "it is not eve close".

But here you go again, for your reading pleasure.

"…It is the current understanding of the family that the investigation team considers this male DNA sample to be the key piece of evidence and was, without a doubt, left behind by the killer of their child."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The very same scientist who conducted the DNA testing in the Denver Police Department’s DNA lab contradicts the above statement.

Rocky Mountain News, May 18, 2004, Charlie Brennan
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/dr...2893675,00.html
text version backup

A claim by John Ramsey's campaign that investigators have the DNA of his daughter's killer goes too far, according to the forensic scientist who developed the genetic profile from that sample.

"That's one of the possibilities, but that's not the only possibility," said the scientist, who asked that his name not be used. It's impossible to say whether the DNA belonged to an adult or a child, according to the scientist.

"You have DNA that's male, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's the killer's," the scientist said. "It could be innocent. It could be from the (undergarment's) manufacturer. It could be a lot of things. Of course it's important. But it's not more important than the rest of the investigation."

"It is only a sample," he said. "You need a match, and that will help you get a name. And then that gives you somebody to talk to. But that person might be alibied-out, or there might be some other explanation for why it's there."


Without knowing if a sample was left by blood, saliva, or some other material, it could be "unknown cellular material sloughed off by somebody's hand," the source said. "You're in an area that is very gray, and it can be very confusing, as to the interpretive value of it."

 

[Toltec]

The RN writer would've intended for the note to be read on the morning of Dec 26, correct? Tomorrow would've been December 27, would it not?

Please re-read the RN.

Wrong.

Patsy wrote the ransom letter that night...only thinking about "tomorrow"...as in the next day.

The Ramseys believed JonBenet would be found the next day by police..(who knew?)

The DNA is moot. What kind of intruder leaves degraded DNA? The only chances of degraded DNA on the body is if JonBenet carried the DNA for a couple of days....like in the last time she bathed.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Wrong.

Patsy wrote the ransom letter that night...only thinking about "tomorrow"...as in the next day.

The Ramseys believed JonBenet would be found the next day by police..(who knew?)

The DNA is moot. What kind of intruder leaves degraded DNA? The only chances of degraded DNA on the body is if JonBenet carried the DNA for a couple of days....like in the last time she bathed.

You're fictionalizing all by yourself. Patsy didn't write the note, didn't accidentally hit JBR in the head, didn't stage a fake strangulation device with 2nd ligature (which would've been most effective on an adult, BTW), and wasn't mad about anything JBR was doing. You've made it all up.

 

[Tober]

And if this was a sexual assult to begin with, then why a long ransom note saying nothing sexual. Am I making sense? :waitasec: Maybe because this was originally a sexual assault/molestation that got out of hand... and the sicko thought he could hide that it was sexual by making it look like a kidnapping gone bad? Maybe whoever did this wasn't smart enough to realize evidence of sexual abuse/assult would be found.

IMO JonBenet was actually sexually assaulted while being killed (or killed while being sexually assaulted). I don't think the purpose of the neck and wrist ligature staging was to present a kidnapping gone bad scenario, but rather to account for the sex assault itself by presenting the body as if she'd been in a bondage-type sex scenario. I think the ransom note served the purpose of presenting a kidnapping gone bad scenario. In other words, the body staging and the ransom note served two distinct purposes.

 

[tumble]

The RN writer would've intended for the note to be read on the morning of Dec 26, correct? Tomorrow would've been December 27, would it not?

Please re-read the RN.

LE that were there that day seems not to have thought so. Even then why write a so early time in case of a misunderstanding or why not write the actual date in that case.

In any way the time chosen in the RN did not have the effect of buying the perp time. IMO it is safe to say that the RN was not written for that purpose.

I think it was written because the perp didn't want to be the one who found the body.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

LE that were there that day seems not to have thought so. Even then why write a so early time in case of a misunderstanding or why not write the actual date in that case.

In any way the time chosen in the RN did not have the effect of buying the perp time. IMO it is safe to say that the RN was not written for that purpose.

I think it was written because the perp didn't want to be the one who found the body.

Of course the RN bought the intruder-perp time. Do you remember that the RN went on over and over again on JR and not calling the police? If Arndt hadn't steppd up and asked JR to search the house again, they might have been sitting in front of the phone on the 27th. If the RN writer got his way, literally, it would've only been PR and JR in front of the phone on the 27th.

The RN presented a kidnapping for ransom scenario to LE, on that morning of the 26th. You bring up an interesting point that LE thought tomorrow was today. You'd have to ask LE what they thought the word 'tomorrow' meant on a note that was found 'today'.

JBR was left in the most remote place in the house, being passed over in what, 2 prior searches? She was hidden. The kidnapping-don't call police or she gets beheaded-ransom note was left on the stairs. Thats called a delay tactic, like a tripwire. The stairway 'cant miss-this' ransom note placement, and JBR wrapped and hidden, becomes superfluous in any staged RDI scenario. Yet they have meaning in a buy time scnario.

 

[BlueCrab]

Of course the RN bought the intruder-perp time. Do you remember that the RN went on over and over again on JR and not calling the police? If Arndt hadn't steppd up and asked JR to search the house again, they might have been sitting in front of the phone on the 27th. If the RN writer got his way, literally, it would've only been PR and JR in front of the phone on the 27th.

The RN presented a kidnapping for ransom scenario to LE, on that morning of the 26th. You bring up an interesting point that LE thought tomorrow was today. You'd have to ask LE what they thought 'tomorrow' meant on a note that was found 'today'.

JBR was left in the most remote place in the house, being passed over in what, 2 prior searches? She was hidden. The kidnapping-don't call police or she gets beheaded-ransom note was left on the stairs. Thats called a delay tactic, like a tripwire. The stairway 'cant miss-this' ransom note placement, and JBR wrapped and hidden, becomes superfluous in any staged RDI scenario.

HOTYH,

Yes, the ransom note did buy some time before the investigation was finally able to focus and get on track later in the day; but that was inadvertent. It wasn't the main plan. The obvious main purpose of the naive ransom note was an attempt to hide the sexual aspects of the crime and make it appear to be the work of a murderous sadist kidnapper, thus diverting suspicion away from family members.

BlueCrab

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

HOTYH,

Yes, the ransom note did buy some time before the investigation was finally able to focus and get on track later in the day; but that was inadvertent. It wasn't the main plan. The obvious main purpose of the naive ransom note was an attempt to hide the sexual aspects of the crime and make it appear to be the work of a murderous sadist kidnapper, thus diverting suspicion away from family members.

BlueCrab

The 'main plan' that you refer to, often isn't even known in high profile crime cases until after the killer and their motives have been identified. To claim to know the 'main plan' seems a bit 'out on a limb' to me. If the RN seems naive to you, then maybe the RN author is naive person.

I agree the RN hid the sexual motivations of the killer, and you're also right, it does appear to be the work of a murderous sadist kidnapper. Only nobody 'made' it to look that way. It does a good job of appearing to be the work of a murderous sadistic kidnapper all on its own, and I'm sure that would have been the appearance from JBR's point of view.

 

[BlueCrab]

If the RN seems naive to you, then maybe the RN author is naive person.

HOTYH,

I agree the author was naive. IMO, with an open dictionary at his side, he was trying to write as he perceived an adult kidnapper would write. Hardly anyone believed the note.

BlueCrab

 

[tumble]

Of course the RN bought the intruder-perp time.

I think you are missing the point in what I am trying to say.
Why specify a time at all if you want to buy time. "Tomorrow" would be fine alone woudn't it.

Unless you wan't to buy time just to about 10.00. And who in this scenario wants to postpone JB to be found to about this time? Maybe someone who cares for her and does not want her lying on the cold concrete floor longer than necessary, but at the same time does not want to be the one who found her in the first place.

 

[BBB167893]

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.

Well, that's just it, HOTYH. They WEREN'T prevalent. In fact, they were only in and on stuff that the Ramseys claimed they didn't own, had never seen before and never went near. PLUS, they can't even come up with a convincing story.

Don't take my word for it. Let's hear it from the Rs themselves. Patsy claimed two full years after she was first questioned about it, that it happened because she was lying on top of the body. But John, in DOI claims, and this is confirmed by police reports, that Patsy never even came in physical contact with the body because he'd already covered it with another blanket.

Wendy Murphy said, quote:

Patsy's story requires flat-out magic because those items were not even brought upstairs until after they were removed by investigators

Which, you'll remember, was after the Rs had left the house.

There has been no decision on the part of investigators to rule out the degraded factory worker's DNA.

Oh, yeah?

Here's what one of the investigators had to say about the DNA "evidence": "We certainly don't think it is attributable to an assailant. That's our belief. When you take everything else in total, it doesn't make sense. I've always said this is not a DNA case. It's not hinging on DNA evidence."

That was Michael Kane, for the record.

In fact, they used the DNA to rule out whats-his-name, didn't they?

A common misconception not supported by the facts. Solace's contention that

This DNA does not exonerate the Ramseys in any way, shape or form. And so what if they used it to rule out Karr; it did not match him at all. He had his facts wrong, said he picked her up from school that day, even though it was Christmas. The non-matching of his DNA was merely a formality to say "it is not eve close".

is even confirmed by the IDI DA.

didn't stage a fake strangulation device with 2nd ligature (which would've been most effective on an adult, BTW)

Number one, it's highly doubtful that this ligature would have been effective on a conscious child, much less an adult. (Ames, where are you?)

But more importantly, the ferocity of it (or seeming ferocity I should say) does not automatically negate the idea of staging. In fact, it can reinforce it. Don't take my word for it. Here's Norm Early, former Denver DA on the subject:

When you're strangling someone who's already been hit and there's no outward manifestation that the person is dying, you don't want the coroner to come back and say that this strangulation couldn't have killed someone. So you pull it deeper and deeper.

It does a good job of appearing to be the work of a murderous sadistic kidnapper all on its own

Tel that to the people who actually studied it:

"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 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." 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. 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.

Here's a good site to explain staging as well:

http://misty.angelcities.com/article1.html

Not only that, but the whole IDI scenario contains a fatal flaw in regard to the RN. Everyone follow me on this.

The Rs didn't write it, right? Thus, they have no idea that it's phony, right? They have every reason to believe that the person threatening to kill their kid is serious, right?

Well, if that's the case, why did they so flagrantly violate the instructions by inviting everyone and their nephew to the house in plain view?

HOTYH, you've made it very clear that you don't buy the "rage-accident" idea. Fine by me. But that interests me. Would you be interested in a possible motive? And I'm just spitballing, mind you. I've played your game up to now. Care to return the favor?

 

[UKGuy]

Well, that's just it, HOTYH. They WEREN'T prevalent. In fact, they were only in and on stuff that the Ramseys claimed they didn't own, had never seen before and never went near. PLUS, they can't even come up with a convincing story.

Don't take my word for it. Let's hear it from the Rs themselves. Patsy claimed two full years after she was first questioned about it, that it happened because she was lying on top of the body. But John, in DOI claims, and this is confirmed by police reports, that Patsy never even came in physical contact with the body because he'd already covered it with another blanket.

Wendy Murphy said, quote:



Which, you'll remember, was after the Rs had left the house.



Oh, yeah?

Here's what one of the investigators had to say about the DNA "evidence": "We certainly don't think it is attributable to an assailant. That's our belief. When you take everything else in total, it doesn't make sense. I've always said this is not a DNA case. It's not hinging on DNA evidence."

That was Michael Kane, for the record.



A common misconception not supported by the facts. Solace's contention that



is even confirmed by the IDI DA.



Number one, it's highly doubtful that this ligature would have been effective on a conscious child, much less an adult. (Ames, where are you?)

But more importantly, the ferocity of it (or seeming ferocity I should say) does not automatically negate the idea of staging. In fact, it can reinforce it. Don't take my word for it. Here's Norm Early, former Denver DA on the subject:





Tel that to the people who actually studied it:


Here's a good site to explain staging as well:

http://misty.angelcities.com/article1.html

Not only that, but the whole IDI scenario contains a fatal flaw in regard to the RN. Everyone follow me on this.

The Rs didn't write it, right? Thus, they have no idea that it's phony, right? They have every reason to believe that the person threatening to kill their kid is serious, right?

Well, if that's the case, why did they so flagrantly violate the instructions by inviting everyone and their nephew to the house in plain view?

HOTYH, you've made it very clear that you don't buy the "rage-accident" idea. Fine by me. But that interests me. Would you be interested in a possible motive? And I'm just spitballing, mind you. I've played your game up to now. Care to return the favor?

SuperDave,

Thats a good link you posted, although some of it I do not agree with, e.g. accidental death of JonBenet, again laid at Patsy's door!

Like Lou Smit's fabricated intruder Patsy's accident seems to be a feature of the case.

Curiously both theories originate or are promoted by ex-detectives.


However inconsistent the Ramsey's behaviour was with respect to the Ransom Note, it can always be defended, even normalised in some manner.

For me it is the staged aspects of the wine-cellar crime scene which demonstrate that no intruder was involved, without itemising all those elements which can be shown to have been staged, common sense suggests no intruder needs to construct a crime scene such as the wine-cellar, there is no percentage in it.

On such a quiet day/night of the year, any intruder who is successful in gaining access to such a young child as JonBenet, should have no problem in walking out the front door with her in his arms, bound and tied, conscious or gagged, to then accomplish whatever his perverted motives intended, whether this be a sexual or financially motivated crime, and after all that effort put into authoring the ransom note, just to leave JonBenet in-situ, has to have you asking what kind of intruder having achieved his goal, then decides to walk away with nothing?


An after thought on the flashlight is that apart from being the murder weapon, it may have been used to navigate the basement, but at some point the batteries ran out, so fresh ones were put in, hence a motive for them being cleaned?

Else why bother cleaning the batteries if you know your fingerprints are not on the prior set of batteries?



.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

For me it is the staged aspects of the wine-cellar crime scene which demonstrate that no intruder was involved, without itemising all those elements which can be shown to have been staged, common sense suggests no intruder needs to construct a crime scene such as the wine-cellar, there is no percentage in it.

The basement was searched twice (correct me if I'm wrong) before anyone even noticed anything. What kind of 'staged aspects' is that?!? There were no 'staged aspects', JBR was hidden!

On such a quiet day/night of the year, any intruder who is successful in gaining access to such a young child as JonBenet, should have no problem in walking out the front door with her in his arms, bound and tied, conscious or gagged, to then accomplish whatever his perverted motives intended, whether this be a sexual or financially motivated crime, and after all that effort put into authoring the ransom note, just to leave JonBenet in-situ, has to have you asking what kind of intruder having achieved his goal, then decides to walk away with nothing?.

An intruder, representing a foreign faction, returning thereto, can't take a dead girl who was reported missing thru the airport terminal. Hello?

 

[Solace]

The intruder effectively hid JBR in the most remote corner of the house, and placed the ransom note very prominently. This combination diverted attention from the rest of the house.

The odor from the cellar would've been the result, had Arndt not asked JR to search the house again, true? If so, then Arndt and JR only nearly averted this.

In any case, the diversion of placing JBR in a remote corner, while presenting a kidnapping scenario to the parents, provided an hours long period where police on the radio were looking for a 6 year old girl...

No, not a very bright intruder.

You are forgetting that this is still considered a kidnapping as she had not been found yet. The FBI was on the scene that day and passed John and Patsy in the house while they were both "sobbing" over JonBenet. John says the FBI was not there. They were and at that point it turned into a homocide. However, if the body had not been found and the FBI was on the scene "still", TRUST ME, the body would have been found. John nearly averted nothing. The body would have been found by the FBI.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Not only that, but the whole IDI scenario contains a fatal flaw in regard to the RN. Everyone follow me on this.

The Rs didn't write it, right? Thus, they have no idea that it's phony, right? They have every reason to believe that the person threatening to kill their kid is serious, right?

Well, if that's the case, why did they so flagrantly violate the instructions by inviting everyone and their nephew to the house in plain view?

If any parent becomes aware that their 6 year old child is in danger, and fails to report it to police, the parent could be liable. The perp could be psychotic, and failure to act or delaying action on the part of the parent could be harmful in itself to the child.

I think the RN writer, by going so heavy on the violence stuff (beheading, she dies, etc.) shocked them to the phone.

Besides, the RN gave them until the next day, the 27th, to call police. The fact they called early proves they had nothing to do with it.

 

[Solace]

If any parent becomes aware that their 6 year old child is in danger, and fails to report it to police, the parent could be liable. The perp could be psychotic, and failure to act or delaying action on the part of the parent could be harmful in itself to the child.

I think the RN writer, by going so heavy on the violence stuff (beheading, she dies, etc.) shocked them to the phone.

Besides, the RN gave them until the next day, the 27th, to call police. The fact they called early proves they had nothing to do with it.

I guess it did not bother them that if they "called the police", JonBenet would be beheaded. I guess it did not bother them that if there were any suspicious activity, JonBenet "dies". So they call the police, they call their friends and the Reverand, because they believe she is kidnapped, just that the kidnappers were only kidding when they said they would behead her. Although Patsy was crying her head off about JonBenet being beheaded that morning. But not to worry, the kidnappers did not mean it.