The ransom note & Patsy Ramsey, letter by letter.

[madeleine]

wanting to get rid of the body would also explain the presence of the suitcase?

 

[UKGuy]

people bury their pets in boxes,they don't just throw the dead animal in a hole and cover it with dirt (SORRY for being so graphic)
I guess same applies if you are forced by the circumstances (cover your own butt) to bury (get rid of) your dead child which you murdered.
it's the only thing that really makes sense re the presence of the blanket IMO
if you add the presence of the RN note(explains the missing child/body)....this is what it tells me....they wanted to get rid of the body

madeleine,
ITA, but the killer(s) might not have been thinking like that. The killer(s) main concern is to remove evidence and distance themselves from the crime-scene, using boxes or blankets are a luxury that are one more detail needed to account for. Most killers dump bodies outdoors dressed as when killed or naked to make some statement.

Burying a body is a refinement that serial killer(s) take a while to arrive at, consider the Long Island Murders.



.

 

[madeleine]

madeleine,
ITA, but the killer(s) might not have been thinking like that. The killer(s) main concern is to remove evidence and distance themselves from the crime-scene, using boxes or blankets are a luxury that are one more detail needed to account for. Most killers dump bodies outdoors dressed as when killed or naked to make some statement.

Burying a body is a refinement that serial killer(s) take a while to arrive at, consider the Long Island Murders.



.

yep thats what a cold blooded killer might think/act like but we are dealing with the victims parents here,it's different IMO especially if this murder wasn't planned

 

[UKGuy]

maybe this is also the reason why her clothes have been changed....for her to be clean (maybe they didn't even think of covering up the molestation,if they intended to bury her they didn't give a damn about it,they thought she will never be found) ....you don't bury someone you love in dirty clothes or a nightgown....no matter what they did IMO they still were parents and maybe SOME of the things they did were misinterpreted?(like what I said above....)

madeleine,
I agree with what you are saying, but if JonBenet is dead and intended for burial, i.e. not to be found, what does it matter how she looks , dressed or not?


.

 

[madeleine]

madeleine,
I agree with what you are saying, but if JonBenet is dead and intended for burial, i.e. not to be found, what does it matter how she looks , dressed or not?


.

to her parents it would have mattered I am sure....

 

[OpenMind4U]

easier to transport (to a car for ex)....something else....you would wanna have her wrapped in something if you decide to bury her,right?

Question: what if someone saw JR or PR car driving at night (like neighbors, for example)? It's holiday evening...some people had parties...not going to sleep earlier...

So, here would be the huge problem, isn't?:
- we know what time they left FW party;
- we know what time they must fly-out;
- we know John's childrens are waiting for them to meet at their vacation house;
- JB is gone! RN is the proof of kidnapping;
- What explanation would they have for driving OUT OF HOUSE during the night?

Buy milk? Get gas? :banghead:...searching for kidnappers????

...................... I don't think so....................

jmo

 

[madeleine]

Question: what if someone saw JR or PR car driving at night (like neighbors, for example)? It's holiday evening...some people had parties...not going to sleep earlier...

So, here would be the huge problem, isn't?:
- we know what time they left FW party;
- we know what time they must fly-out;
- we know John's childrens are waiting for them to meet at their vacation house;
- JB is gone! RN is the proof of kidnapping;
- What explanation would they have for driving OUT OF HOUSE during the night?

Buy milk? Get gas? :banghead:

...................... I don't think so....................

jmo

well,it's plain stupid to write a fake kidnapping/ransom note if you leave the body in the house.JR wasn't stupid nor was PR.why on earth would they do that.

it would have been easy to explain a drive.....we discovered the note,we went looking....we didn't call police right away because the note said not to.period

 

[wengr]

madeleine,
Not intending to be insensitive, if JonBenet is dead why a blanket? I think the police established that the blanket had never been on JonBenet's bed that night.

So I reckon its part of the staging.



.

I think there is a difference between staging for an intended in home discovery, and staging for an intended out and away discovery. Some things that seem puzzling such as ineffective wrist bindings and tape, would not necessarily be as suspect after a time in the elements. Imo the sloppy staging implies an intended outside discovery. Add in the note instructions, and parents blatantly inoring the note instructions and imo it really adds up to an intended outside discovery. So, in theory if the WC is a temporary storage area, it would seem that the blanket and possibly other items are there to provide comfort. It's impossible to however lend comfort to a dead body. Imo it provides some comfort to the one who placed it there.

 

[madeleine]

they didn't just sit there to write such a LONG RN for nothing,they NEEDED the RN,they needed everybody to believe Jb was KIDNAPPED....not sexually assaulted,not strangled....KIDNAPPED....ask yourself why the KIDNAPPING part was the most important to them in the staging....

 

[wengr]

it would have been easy to explain a drive.....we discovered the note,we went looking....we didn't call police right away because the note said not to.period

Fwiw, I think had it played out that way the R's would have been arrested on the spot.

 

[UKGuy]

I think there is a difference between staging for an intended in home discovery, and staging for an intended out and away discovery. Some things that seem puzzling such as ineffective wrist bindings and tape, would not necessarily be as suspect after a time in the elements. Imo the sloppy staging implies an intended outside discovery. Add in the note instructions, and parents blatantly inoring the note instructions and imo it really adds up to an intended outside discovery. So, in theory if the WC is a temporary storage area, it would seem that the blanket and possibly other items are there to provide comfort. It's impossible to however lend comfort to a dead body. Imo it provides some comfort to the one who placed it there.

wengr,
Yes thats the undoing aspect which might be correct, but without additional evidence I'm skeptical given the violence inflicted on JonBenet.

I think the clothing and blanket are simply staging because once investigated, its obvious JonBenet was not taken as dressed from her bed and wrapped in a blanket from the bed.

The clothing and blanket act to mask her internal injury and suggest she was taken from her bed?

.

 

[Nom de plume]

RE: the blanket. I do believe it was "undoing" in the sense that they probably didn't want her lying there on the cold concrete floor. Of course this was for their comfort not hers. It could have had a second purpose as well though. If they did intend to dump her elsewhere, which I do believe, they may have thought that the blanket would prevent evidence from being left in the car/trunk.

This kind of goes back to the RN. There is simply no reason to leave a ransom note, and a dead child in the house. No one has ever heard of this happening before or after this. I think MM is right about JR (and possibly PR IMO) intending to dump her, thus the RN. They in effect said, "Hey she's gone! Go away and look for her somewhere else. Give us a chance to get her out of here." IMO they never intended for her to be found in the house. It all adds up. When JR and/or PR couldn't get her out of the house JR had to resort to plan B.

Dead child in house = parents did it 99% of the time. Dead child found away from the house = SODDI what maybe 75% of the time? Much better odds of getting away with it if she was found elsewhere.

Just my :twocents:

 

[Edmond.DantesIII]

[Edmond.DantesIII,

Oh but it is, if you do not do your own maths and rely on the opinion of a second party and an alleged expert in the field, then that is argumentum ad verecundiam, which is what you have employed in an attempt to demonstrate something which cannot be established, i.e. Ransom Note authorship.

I see... and you know this how?

Also in not publishing any evidence of your own, on this matter, thereby losing all credibility, you then question my intellectual capacity to understand, a subtle form of argumentum ad hominem.

So, in your mind, in order for me to be credible, I need to have been on the scene myself, and have conducted all my own investigation, without ever examining the investigations of others and whatever evidence they may have found? Is this what you're saying?

mmm, so are you are now suggesting there is a causal link between the Ransom Note and the death of JonBenet, would you like to offer evidence to support this claim?

A causal link? In what way?

There is absolutley zero evidence of any intruder being in the Ramsey house.

Actually, the glaring evidence of a ransom note and the body notwithstanding, there is quite a lot of evidence suggesting an intruder:

Specific Evidence of Intruder Entry

"The butler's door to the kitchen was found ajar that morning. (SMF P 137; PSMF P 137.) Defendants note that the butler's door was only a short distance away from the spiral staircase where the Ransom Note was found and within plain view of where the pad of paper used for the Ransom Note was found. (SMF P 138; PSMF P 138.)" (Carnes 2003:89-90)."

"There is likewise undisputed evidence of a disturbance in this window-well area: specifically the leaves and white styrofoam packing peanuts that had pooled in the window-well appeared to have been cleared from, or brushed to either side of, the center window's sill in the well. (SMF P 132; PSMF P 132.)" (Carnes 2003:88)."

"Green foliage was also found tucked under the movable grate over the window well, indicating that the grate had been opened and closed recently. (SMF P 131; PSMF P 131.)" (Carnes 2003:88)."

"In addition, this center window had a broken pane and was found open on the morning of December 26, with a suitcase and a glass shard from the window pane underneath it. (SMF P 135; PSMF P 135.)" (Carnes 2003:88).
"the Boulder Police conducted experiments that showed a person could enter the basement playroom through the center window. (SMF P 133; PSMF P 133.)" (Carnes 2003:88)."

"The suitcase contained a pillow sham, duvet and Dr. Seuss book. These items belonged to defendants, but they have indicated that the items were not normally stored in the suitcase. (SMF P 146; PSMF P 146.) A lab report indicated that fibers from the sham and duvet were found on the shirt that JonBenet was wearing when she was found in the wine cellar. (SMF P 147; PSMF P 147.)" (Carnes 2003:Note 32)."

"Moreover, leaves and debris, consistent with the leaves and debris found in the window well, were found on the floor under the broken window suggesting that someone had actually entered the basement through this window. (SMF P 136; PSMF P 136.)" (Carnes 2003:88)."

"Likewise a leaf and white styro-foam packing peanuts, consistent with the leaves and packing peanuts found pooled in the window-well, were found in the wine-cellar room of the basement where JonBenet's body was discovered. (SMF P 134; PSMF P 134.)" This evidence is consistent with an inference that whoever entered through this window ultimately walked to the wine-cellar room at some point. (Carnes 2003:88-89)."

"The lights were on in the basement, when first searched at approximately 6:15 a.m. that day. (SMF P 129; PSMF P 129.)" (Carnes 2003:89).

What Other Evidence May Have Been Left by an Intruder?

"Black Duct Tape. "The black duct tape used on JonBenet's mouth has also not been sourced to defendants. (SMF P 170; PSMF P 170.) Both ends of the duct tape found on her were torn, indicating that it came from a roll of tape that had been used before. (SMF P 171; PSMF P 171.) No similar duct tape was found in the house, nor is there evidence that defendants ever used or owned such duct tape. (SMF P 172; PSMF P 172.)" (Carnes 2003:18)."

"Cord. "sources for the....cord used in the crime were never located, nor sourced, to defendants' home." (Carnes 2003:10)."

"Animal Hair on Duct Tape. "Animal hair, alleged to be from a beaver, was found on the duct tape. (SMF P 183; PSMF P 183.) Nothing in defendants' home matches the hair. (SMF P 183; PSMF P 183.)" (Carnes 2003:19)."

"Animal Hairs on JBR's Hands. "Dark animal hairs were found on JonBenet's hands that also have not been matched to anything in defendants' home. (SMF P 184; PSMF P 184.)" (Carnes 2003:19)."

"Footprints in Basement. "Several recently-made unidentified shoeprints were found in the basement, imprinted in mold growing on the basement floor. (SMF P 151; PSMF P 151.) In particular, a shoeprint of a "HI-TEC" brand mark on the sole of a shoe was found. (SMF P 152; PSMF P 152.) Defendants do not own any "HI-TEC" brand shoes, and none of the shoes found in their home match the shoeprint marks. (SMF P 153; PSMF P 153.) Another partial shoeprint was found near where JonBenet's body was found. (SMF P 155; PSMF P 155.) This shoeprint left only a partial logo. The owner of the "HI-TEC" shoe that made the shoeprints at the murder scene has never been identified. (SMF P 154, 155; PSMF P 154, 155.)" (Carnes 2003:19)."

Palmprint on Wine-Cellar Door. "In addition, on the wine-cellar door, there is a palmprint that does not match either of defendants' palmprints. (SMF P 156; PSMF P 156.) The individual to whom it belongs had not yet been identified. (SMF P 156; PSMF P 156.)" (Carnes 2003:19-20).

"Baseball Bat. "A baseball bat not owned by the Ramseys found on the north side of the house has fibers consistent with fibers found in the carpet in the basement where JonBenet's body was found. (SMF P 185; PSMF P 185.)" (Carnes 2003:20)."

"Rope and Bag in JAR Bedroom. "a rope was found inside a brown paper sack in the guest bedroom on the second floor; defendants have indicated that neither of these items belonged to them. (SMF P 181; PSMF P 181.) Regardless of its ownership, there is no explanation why a bag containing a rope would be in the guest bedroom."

"Further, small pieces of the material on this brown sack were found in the "vacuuming" of JonBenet's bed and in the body bag that was used to transport her body (SMF P 181; PSMF P 181), thereby suggesting that either the bag had been near JonBenet or that someone who had touched the bag had also touched JonBenet." (Carnes 2003:93-94)."

"Brown Cotton Fibers. "Brown cotton fibers on JonBenet's body, the paintbrush, the duct tape and on the ligature were not sourced and do not match anything in the Ramsey home. (SMF P 181; PSMF P 181.) (Carnes 2003:20)."

"Caucasian Hair on Blanket. "Likewise, an unidentified Caucasian "pubic or auxiliary" hair, not *1357 matching any Ramsey, was found on the blanket covering JonBenet' body. (SMF P 179-180; PSMF P 179-180.)" (Carnes 2003:96).

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682468/Evidence of an Intruder

 

[redheadedgal]

i'll tackle a few of these:

i believe the palm print was later found to be melinda's...

i believe both BR and FW Jr. said they owned a pair of hi-tec boots...

i believe that hair was found to belong to PR...


http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-prints-hand-foot.htm

 

[redheadedgal]

one more:

from ST:

5. I agree with you on one issue about the beaver hair -- too bad there wasnt a DA who would approve warrants and subpoenas for Patsy's fur garments, coats, boots, etc. That way we could have done comparison analyses, and determined if Patsy had anyting that "matched" or was "consistent". Or, for your argument, that didnt. I feel it would have been wise to take those steps, to determine whether there was a match, or not. It would have been invaluable to have known, to both sides.


http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=jo...lang=en-CA&w=0Kyc2hEAvfhFA_4VQFhF6IkNI0L-Npy7

 

[Edmond.DantesIII]

Question: what if someone saw JR or PR car driving at night (like neighbors, for example)? It's holiday evening...some people had parties...not going to sleep earlier...

So, here would be the huge problem, isn't?:
- we know what time they left FW party;
- we know what time they must fly-out;
- we know John's childrens are waiting for them to meet at their vacation house;
- JB is gone! RN is the proof of kidnapping;
- What explanation would they have for driving OUT OF HOUSE during the night?

And what if the body were to be found in the basement? What explanation would they have then? And what good would be the ransom note? Indeed, a ransom note might look damningly suspicious with the body being found in the basement. Indeed, they could very well spend the next 16 years trying clear their name, even if no concrete proof of their culpability is ever discovered. Indeed, even if they were to be somehow exonerated, there would likely be hordes of internet posters steadfastly convinced that they were guilty as sin.


Seems to me that we have prima facie evidence that dumping the body in the woods would have been the much better option, especially in the wake of the Casey Anthony trial.

 

[Edmond.DantesIII]

i'll tackle a few of these:

i believe the palm print was later found to be melinda's...

i believe both BR and FW Jr. said they owned a pair of hi-tec boots...

i believe that hair was found to belong to PR...


http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-prints-hand-foot.htm

It is not enough to believe. You have to know. There are lives and legacies at stake here.

 

[Magdalyn]

i'll tackle a few of these:

i believe the palm print was later found to be melinda's...

i believe both BR and FW Jr. said they owned a pair of hi-tec boots...

i believe that hair was found to belong to PR...


http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-prints-hand-foot.htm

I thought I also read that some of the BPD and FBI team who tromped through the house also wore hi-tec boots.

 

[Edmond.DantesIII]

I thought I also read that some of the BPD and FBI team who tromped through the house also wore hi-tec boots.

That's really not the point, is it?

The point is that unidentified footprints were found at the crime scene, and they remain unidentified. And given this, and the duct tape, and the rope, and the ransom note, and the body in the basement, it is grossly irresponsible and highly inaccurate for anyone to state unequivocally that there is "no evidence of an intruder."

 

[Magdalyn]

one more:

from ST:

5. I agree with you on one issue about the beaver hair -- too bad there wasnt a DA who would approve warrants and subpoenas for Patsy's fur garments, coats, boots, etc. That way we could have done comparison analyses, and determined if Patsy had anyting that "matched" or was "consistent". Or, for your argument, that didnt. I feel it would have been wise to take those steps, to determine whether there was a match, or not. It would have been invaluable to have known, to both sides.


http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=jo...lang=en-CA&w=0Kyc2hEAvfhFA_4VQFhF6IkNI0L-Npy7

:banghead: No kidding.

And why wouldn't an innocent parent WANT the BPD to have the garments they requested. If I'm innocent, I'm going to give you everything you need to rule me out.

But instead I send my sisiter back to the house and collect suitcases and trunks of clothes and golf clubs and God knows what else, never to be seen again.

And why play dumb that you don't remember exactly what you wore the night your child went 'missing' and turned up murdered. That night is etched in your head down to the last detail. You wore it either continuously, or two days in a row. "Best recollection?" If you're unclear what you wore, how about ask everyone that was at the Christmas party the night before. And two of the first people you called over to witness the kidnapping drama. All those people should be able to narrow down your wardrobe...:banghead: