What we know about Ransom Note

[Camper]

Maikai posted, "Burke could write---it doesn't mean a 9 year old would even have the wherewithal to write such a note.

-------------IF you will read Blue Crabs post on what Blue Crab would have done, there is a BIG clue in there, see if you can find it.

Well, yeah boy howdy, that there note was the only thing I had left of my child, the only clue that would help me get her back, and to toss off that I didn't read it all, imop, some elses priorities were off as well.

Now then, did the kidnapper want money, he asked for some?
Why ask for money, if you were just gonna take poor little JonBenet and have your way with her at the 'hideout' place.

IF HE/she/perp really really wanted money, as sound as they all say they were sleeping, HE/she could have taken everything in the house, jewels, valuables, guns ?, check book out of the kitchen - isn't that where Patsy wasgonna write LHP a check the next day, er huh. Hey with a check book the perp coulda just written checks til he was goofy, or goofier. Just sneak the last 10 checks from the bottom of the checkbook, or random checks outta the middle to bottom of the checkbook, cuz they would not have been missed until much later.

OR just take a credit card, heck easier money. I am just an old lady with an active mind. Heck if the perp came in through the basement, he was active but he was pretty dull witted and base, when you look backwards at whut he did and whut he dint do.

Imagine him/her/perp thinking, I can climb in through the basement, and then I can climb out with little JonBenet, duh, er I could just go out the door quick as a flash, thataway I won't get a hernia.

Criminal people who want money can figure out easier ways to get it.

It appears to me that the killer MAY have just wanted to shut JonBenet up to keep her from telling 'the secret', OR to protect her from an incestual relative. Now who would want to protect JonBenet from an incestual relative. Staging the crime was inept, but the kiler has not seen the inside of a courtroom.

Good luck to Smit and the other detectives.

 

[Maikai]

-------------IF you will read Blue Crabs post on what Blue Crab would have done, there is a BIG clue in there, see if you can find it.

Now then, did the kidnapper want money, he asked for some?
Why ask for money, if you were just gonna take poor little JonBenet and have your way with her at the 'hideout' place.

I totally reject Blue Crab's theory.

In order to answer the question on the intruder's motives, you'd have to know what was going on inside the head of this sick person, or be able to think like one. I don't think he thinks like a normal person....and I wouldn't be surprised if the perp was a drug user. If he is a violent pedophile, then I think we have the motive---and he still could have initially thought he could get some money, tax-free.

 

[Camper]

I totally reject Blue Crab's theory.

In order to answer the question on the intruder's motives, you'd have to know what was going on inside the head of this sick person, or be able to think like one. I don't think he thinks like a normal person....and I wouldn't be surprised if the perp was a drug user. If he is a violent pedophile, then I think we have the motive---and he still could have initially thought he could get some money, tax-free.

-----------Well we do know that the 'perp' did not have enough resources to purchase his own ransom note paper.

I am just guessing of course, but I donut think that violent pedophiles would come into a home and sit forever writing rambling ransom notes, unless they had intentions of actually violently taking the kidnapped subject, just a guess on my part.

Another guess on my part, a violent person usually has a boatload of physical energy to expend, this perp was rather lackadaisical, writing a very long ransom note, not really really wanting any money, not actually raping the victim, plus was able to take JonBenet from her room, quietly tippy toeing down the stairs, MAYBE a bite of pineapple, OK lets go down to the basement instead of violently RUSHING OUT THE DOOR with the hope of getting $118,000 dollars US. hmmm. I guess my idea of violent does not fit here.

Violence takes a lot of physical energy, yet this guy tied fancy little knots, with rope that the Ramseys had never seen, BUT the perp used an old paint stick of Ramseys. Why would he bring rope but nothing to make the contraption he made?

You should understand by now that I personally do NOT believe there was a drooling perp.

IMOP given the known FACTS of this case.

 

[Britt]

In order to answer the question on the intruder's motives, you'd have to know what was going on inside the head of this sick person, or be able to think like one. I don't think he thinks like a normal person....

How convenient for that slippery intruder theory, eh? lol

Why don't we apply the same logic (or lack thereof) to a Ramsey: In order to answer the question on Patsy Ramsey's motives, you'd have to know what was going on inside the head of this sick woman, or be able to think like her. I don't think she thinks like a normal person.

But it should've been (and was) a huge clue to her more observant associates that she treated JonBenet like a living, breathing doll for Patsy to use to act out her own fantasies. I even wonder if those fantasies might've included something with daddy/husband.

Not to mention the medical evidence of prior/chronic sexual abuse, which is clearly trying to tell us something. Hmm, what could that be, I wonder. To paraphrase BobC... it ain't rocket science.

...and I wouldn't be surprised if the perp was a drug user. If he is a violent pedophile, then I think we have the motive---and he still could have initially thought he could get some money, tax-free.

Oh, so he DID want the money? Then why didn't he take the body?

But in any case, so now he's a sick-thinking violent pedophile AND a druggie? Explain, please oh please, HOW this deranged, drugged nutbag pulled off this organized, undetected, clever, serene (complete with bankie and nightie) crime, and how did he avoid slobbering big ol' heaps of DNA all over that house?

And, by the way, how do we know it wasn't Patsy who was the druggie? Cocaine - very popular with some folks who can afford it, but you didn't hear it from me

Camper, #37 - exactly. Great post.

 

[calus_3]

that John and Patsy (or even just one of them) concocted it--and the entire crime scene for that matter--intentionally so that each piece of evidence would confuse the interpreter and point everywhere and nowhere at the same time? Throw in the kitchen sink so to speak so that nothing made any sense. Throw in the bonus amount to potentially make it a work related or 'inside' job--in case they needed to sacrifice a coworker? Throw in the movie references intentionally to make the writer seem young---since John floated the young theory in an interview, that peaked my curiocity. I know many times when I try to leave a hint for someone about something and they just miss it, I will reiterate all or portions of it to try to help them make the connections. If making it seem like a young person was somehow and someway important to John and/or Patsy's cover up--to deflect suspicion from themselves via their master plan--and the police glossed over it, hence the need to make a big point about it in hopes the police would pick up and run with it. It just seemed to me that the entire note was so 'concocted' rather than written as part of some pre-conceived master plan to kidnap JBR. I think the note was possibly dictated by John to Patsy or writen entirely by Patsy herself and they put in pieces that could logically lead investigators down various avenues. Avenues that, if the police began following, the Ramsey's could get on the bandwagon with and say "I see you police are thinking that it could be a co-worker,....I have always thought that was the most likely scenario myself". Or "I always thought it was the boarder across the street".

Some point to the SBTC as a sign that a boarder or neighbor did it because he once had a shirt that said SBTC. Who is to say that Patsy or John didn't see this individual wearing the shirt previously? In the heat of the moment writing the ransom note, throw SBTC because the covetous mystery boarder would make a nice diversionary target.

As far as the DNA that points away from seemingly everyone, who is to say that they didn't drive to the McDonalds, collect a sample from a toilet seat, and plant it under her fingernail and in her panties?

I find the footprint especially suspect. If I were going to abduct someone and/or kill them, I would buy special shoes--using cash--in a store that is guaranteed not to have cameras so it couldn't be traced back to me. I find it odd that someone wore shoes with a big HI-TEC imprint on the bottom. That is even if the print was fresh and related to the killer to begin with. HI-TEC's are not rare, I have owned a pair on many occasions.

Bottom line is.....Patsy Ramsey wrote the note to cover up for herself and/or someone else in the family or immediate circle of friends. When she goes, justice will finally be served in some small measure and who knows....maybe we will get a death bed confession.

Cal

 

[tipper]

I think you are giving the Ramseys credit for being more intelligent and subtle than they actually are.

 

[calus_3]

Well, IMHO, John being an executive in a company is used to thinking on his feet and putting out fires so to speak. He would be capable of making the scene and note more elaborate while Patsy probably would have had a hard time focusing. Since some of the information was pertinent to John personally, he couldn't write the note.

I could see a scenario where Burke killed JBR and John made the decision that he wasn't going to let his first daughter, JBR, and Burke go and leave himself and his wife childless. Therefore, he couldn't really tell what happened.

Whoever did it sure did a good job confusing everyone and the keystone cops didn't help matters either.

I just hope that we find out what happened SOME day.

Cal

 

[Toltec]

John and Patsy are intelligent people...I give them lot's of credit for getting away with murder.

Patsy wrote the note "The Usual Suspects" style...taking references from objects and quotes from anything and everything.

Movie references....lots of them.

Brown paper bag....the brown paper bag in the hallway near the den.

"If you want her to see 1997"...Patsy's Christmas letter..."Burke will see the Orthodontist in 1997"

"You are not the only fat cat"...the "Atlanta Fat Cats"

Patsy may try to disguise the handwriting but her use of words in the note are hers and hers alone.

Patsy staged the crime scene without John's knowledge. She never slept at all. When John was in the shower...she began what would be the role of her life.

The note was put away until morning just in case John woke in the middle of the night so as not to find it too early.

This is my theory.

 

[Rainsong]

There is a huge difference between being intelligent and being criminally sophisticated.

Neither John nor Patsy Ramsey had any prior criminal experience, thus they would have had to spring from novice class to master criminal in the space of a few hours.

Rainsong

 

[luvbeaches]

=Neither John nor Patsy Ramsey had any prior criminal experience, thus they would have had to spring from novice class to master criminal in the space of a few hours.

Rainsong

There's always a first time for every crime, and many times it's murder. Nothing prior to that. Did Scott Peterson ever murder before he killed his wife? I could go on and on with this list.

I don't think it was a planned murder. Things got out of hand. That sort of thing happens all the time. The only thing the Ramsey's mastered was how to "lawyer-up" in a nanoscecond.

 

[tipper]

Were LHP's daughter, Tina and son in law, Mike ever checked out? I'd never heard of him before but while looking through PMPT (for something else) I found this.

p. 81
"After they had washed the windows, Hoffman-Pugh and her daughter started searching the house for the missing trees. She saw a closed door in the basement just past the boiler room, which she had never noriced before. She tried to open the door, but it was stuck shut, apparently from a recent painting, She pulled at it hard, and the door finally opened. Feeling around in the dark, she found a light switch on the wall to her right. [Guess it wasn't that hard to find]

The room was full of trees, some still covered with last year's decorations, replicas of Burke's model airplanes and John Andrew's cowboy hats, boots, and red scarves. The next day the housekeeper had her older daughter Tina, her son-in-law Mike, and her husband, Merv, take all the trees upstairs and place them in their proper rooms."


Mike and Tina or an unknown friend could have learned enough about the Ramseys, their finances and their holiday plans from LHP to give them all the info they needed, plus access to a key. Could he also fit Barnhill's description?

 

[Zman]

You cant have it both ways. If JR and PR were really so careful and mindful to stage this coverup and put such careful and time consumming thought into the ransome note. Then how could they be so dumb to leave the pineapple bowl out on the table and the wiped down flashlight right on the contertop in the kitchen? And tie JBR up in such a terrible excuse for a gerrote. I dont think these people are half as "smart and quick on their feet" as some would lead us to believe.

 

[narlacat]

John Ramsey became a multi millionare by being "smart and quick on his feet".

 

[Rainsong]

Being smart and quick on your feet is not the same as being criminally sophisticated. Criminally sophisticated people get that way through trial and error. In other words, they practice until they 'get it right,' which is why it is important to remember neither Ramsey has a criminal background.

Rainsong

 

[why_nutt]

Being smart and quick on your feet is not the same as being criminally sophisticated. Criminally sophisticated people get that way through trial and error. In other words, they practice until they 'get it right,' which is why it is important to remember neither Ramsey has a criminal background.

Rainsong

John Ramsey practiced the trappings of a criminal background when he had his affair during his first marriage. During that time, he had to become skilled in being able to deceive two people he was intimately close to, being his wife (who he fooled into thinking he still loved her) and his mistress (who he fooled into thinking he was devoted to her). Obviously, subspecialties of criminal behavior became part of his personal toolkit. He had to learn how to make items of evidence of his affair look like innocent items of ordinary life to his wife. He had to become a skilled manager of time and how to make the best use of it. He had to learn how to hide his true emotions from everyone. He had to do this while feeling shame over what he was doing, yet doing it every day, over and over and over again. This skillset practice would have served him well if he had killed JonBenet, and had to call on those skills yet again, can you agree with that?

 

[narlacat]

I can.

 

[Rainsong]

John Ramsey practiced the trappings of a criminal background when he had his affair during his first marriage. During that time, he had to become skilled in being able to deceive two people he was intimately close to, being his wife (who he fooled into thinking he still loved her) and his mistress (who he fooled into thinking he was devoted to her). Obviously, subspecialties of criminal behavior became part of his personal toolkit. He had to learn how to make items of evidence of his affair look like innocent items of ordinary life to his wife. He had to become a skilled manager of time and how to make the best use of it. He had to learn how to hide his true emotions from everyone. He had to do this while feeling shame over what he was doing, yet doing it every day, over and over and over again. This skillset practice would have served him well if he had killed JonBenet, and had to call on those skills yet again, can you agree with that?

Sorry, but the two do not equate.

Rainsong

 

[sissi]

John Ramsey practiced the trappings of a criminal background when he had his affair during his first marriage. During that time, he had to become skilled in being able to deceive two people he was intimately close to, being his wife (who he fooled into thinking he still loved her) and his mistress (who he fooled into thinking he was devoted to her). Obviously, subspecialties of criminal behavior became part of his personal toolkit. He had to learn how to make items of evidence of his affair look like innocent items of ordinary life to his wife. He had to become a skilled manager of time and how to make the best use of it. He had to learn how to hide his true emotions from everyone. He had to do this while feeling shame over what he was doing, yet doing it every day, over and over and over again. This skillset practice would have served him well if he had killed JonBenet, and had to call on those skills yet again, can you agree with that?

I can't agree with this, John described his first marriage as a comfortable arrangement, two who married but didn't seem to share much in the way of devotion and love. It seems they were finished with each other, and just going through the motions of being a family before the unfortunate affair. He was not in love with Ms. Williams, he felt as though it was a fatal attraction that he was somewhat snagged into . He spoke of feeling sad about both the breakup of his first marriage, and of the relationship with the other woman.
I am posting because of a big AH HA I felt while reading your post. It may be nothing. While Ms. Williams was never a suspect, and certainly I'm not suggesting she should have been, I wonder if someone in her life who cared deeply about her, held a grudge against John Ramsey,perhaps a brother or a son?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

How relevant is the ransom note to the actual motive, or other aspect of this case?

1. Not relevant at all. The ransom note has nothing to do with the motive or any other aspect of the crime. Its a fake and can be completely disregarded.
2. Somewhat relevant. A few statements in the note relate in some way to the motive or other aspects of the crime.
3. Mostly relevant. Most of the statements in the note relate to the actual motive and other aspects of the crime.
4. Completely relevant. The ransom note tells it like it was, a kidnapping for ransom by a foreign faction.

 

[halycon]

Oh no. Please delete my vote!

I picked Completely Relevant because I assumed it meant that it was critical to the case, not for the reason you cited (which doesn't make sense, frankly).

The ransom note is the single biggest clue to this case... and it leads directly to Patsy Ramsey.