Who Killed Jon Benet Ramsey? Poll

[andreww]

I've actually had a discussion about this starting here. Some say she could've read the note because JR laid out the note in the middle of the floor, but on the 9-1-1 call, it sounds to me as if PR had those four letters memorized. If she innocently read them for the first time, I would expect her to read it like, "S... I think that's a B... T...," and so on. She didn't.

Whether or not JR read the note behind the table near the spiral staircase in that diagram linked above or not is also important, IMO.

Ya, and who signs a ransom note anyway? And why would Patsy be the one to call police when she hasn't read the note? Their may be important information there. so why not take the 30 seconds to read the note? In my opinion it was the Ramseys way of ignoring the threats in the note without having to explain why. Patsy called 911 despite threats to behead her daughter if she did so, by claiming to have not read the note she does not have to explain her reasoning for ignoring the threat. Possibly she was planning on discarding the body later, so the unheeded threat would have been the justification for the actual killing.

 

[Anti-K]

Come on, you are playing word games again. You said something long the lines of "some people have said the intruder had OCD" when asked to explain why the intruder would have returned the pen and the pad to their proper places. You answered the question posed to you with that. So you've given a response that you will not take responsibility for, and you have managed to dodge the question all in one go. Bravo.

Well, thanks for proving me right. You clearly did not understand what I said, and am now perpetuating that misunderstanding.

Yes, I said “SOME people have said the intruder had OCD.”

I didn’t say he had OCD. SOME have said it.

I said “if we use my theory of intent as a key, the notepad and the pen (and the so-called practice note, the brush end of the paintbrush in the tote, and the handle on the garrote); even the body hidden in the wc) were all used and put where they were found for the same reason: for investigators to find.”

See? No OCD. And, I did answer the question: the notepad and the pen were all used and put where they were found for investigators to find.

So virtually everything you just posted about me and what I’ve been saying is grossly inaccurate and, by now this should be obvious to everyone, a blatant misrepresentation. Criticism is welcome and when properly applied beneficial; but, you need to start criticizing what I’m actually saying.
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Ya, and who signs a ransom note anyway? And why would Patsy be the one to call police when she hasn't read the note? Their may be important information there. so why not take the 30 seconds to read the note? In my opinion it was the Ramseys way of ignoring the threats in the note without having to explain why. Patsy called 911 despite threats to behead her daughter if she did so, by claiming to have not read the note she does not have to explain her reasoning for ignoring the threat. Possibly she was planning on discarding the body later, so the unheeded threat would have been the justification for the actual killing.

Why would they put threats in the note and then turn around and make up some story just so they could ignore the threats?

Why are you saying the Ramseys when you clearly told me that you don’t think Mr Ramsey even knew what was going on until after the fact?

And, for all RDI, why do you think the Ramseys didn’t simply say, “We went in her room. She was gone, there was a note. We read it, panicked and called 911.”
…

AK

 

[CorallaroC]

Hi Anti-K, since you have invited others to ask you for clarification if it is unclear what you are saying, I would like to ask you exactly what you mean when you say it's your "theory of intent". I'm not finding any definition of what a "theory of intent" actually is..... did you make that up?

 

[questfortrue]

And they both dismiss the IDI theory and were highly a tune to the information in this case...so, what reason is there to believe the IDI theories you have helped to "provide references to information in Kolar's and ST's books in the past."

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’m going to reply to your post on the RDI Theories thread.

 

[InstantProof]

She also got SBTC correct. She didn't say TBCS or SMTC or anything. She got the anagram correct. Under pressure and reading an anagram that allegedly means nothing to her, she was pretty perceptive on this.

To me it sounds like (or she is making it sound like) she reads from the note to the 911 operator "S.B.T.C Victory!"

 

[InstantProof]

But if you think about it, why would
They worry about their prints being on the note? It was addressed to them, they picked it up and read it, so their prints are expected. The fact that their prints are NOT on the note is actually more suspicious in my opinion.

I believe that the note was never on the stairs, and John was never on the floor by the phone. Everything was simply prepared and put in place while They were still wearing gloves. They simply neglected to touch it. This is why they were so awkward when asked about it. If I say I picked it up, my prints should be on it. But if I say I didn't pick it up and they find my print on it, I'm in trouble. Better to say "gee, I can't remember ".


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good call. You are probably right. They never went through the motions.

 

[InstantProof]

Ya, and who signs a ransom note anyway? And why would Patsy be the one to call police when she hasn't read the note? Their may be important information there. so why not take the 30 seconds to read the note? In my opinion it was the Ramseys way of ignoring the threats in the note without having to explain why. Patsy called 911 despite threats to behead her daughter if she did so, by claiming to have not read the note she does not have to explain her reasoning for ignoring the threat. Possibly she was planning on discarding the body later, so the unheeded threat would have been the justification for the actual killing.

This would explain the reason to make the letter so long (so this info is buried).

 

[passionflower]

Does any of the family continue to have a reward ??
Still looking for the killer?
IMO her murder has been accepted by her family???

 

[Annapurna]

No reward, no investigation. I suppose it is acceptance.

 

[Anti-K]

Hi Anti-K, since you have invited others to ask you for clarification if it is unclear what you are saying, I would like to ask you exactly what you mean when you say it's your "theory of intent". I'm not finding any definition of what a "theory of intent" actually is..... did you make that up?

Intent is WHAT he did.

Motive is WHY he did it.

I don’t care for the way the word “theory” is used on the forums. If you go to my “theory” ( http://tinyurl.com/qa5mfbh ) you’ll see a bit of an explanation. I always preferred to call it My Speculative Piece, because IMO that’s all that it is, and it’s the most that any of us has. Thomas and Kolar? Speculation. Anyway, that’s my opinion about that.

So, I say “theory” of intent because IMO none of us are talking real life theories. I’m certainly not. And, I say “theory” of intent because it is a “theory” of WHAT, if IDI, the killer did BUT it is NOT a “theory of WHY he did what he did.

Yes, differentiating between motive and intent can be tricky, and maybe sometimes there’s some overlap. I’ve probably made some mistakes (show me, I’ll say thank you and admit I was wrong) but the “theory” is about what was done. So: “theory” of intent.

Did I make that phrase up? I would be surprised to find out that it is unique to me, but I don’t recall ever seeing it used before. Provisionally, I will take credit.
…

AK

 

[TeaTime]

I've always wondered about that too. It took me a long time to remember those initials and she had the down right away. Leads me to believe that it does represent something significant rather than just being random letters.

I wrote in another thread my theory on the S.B.T.C sign-off.

I think it was originally P.T.C for Patsy. JR knew it was so obvious, so she changed the P to a B and put an S in front. Simple as that.

 

[SapphireSteel]

SBTC = Signed By The Cross

Patsy was religious

 

[Ellie9]

Does any of the family continue to have a reward ??
Still looking for the killer?
IMO her murder has been accepted by her family???

Honestly so far I haven't seen any evidence of them looking for an intruder. They will say this in interviews. But it's always an attempt to get people to stop considering them as suspects. So they'll say things like, "We should be looking for the murderer, not focusing on us so much." (not an exact quote, but I've heard them say things similar to this many many times.) However, the behaviour and actions from the Ramsey's don't seem to indicate they are looking for the killer in any way at all. Not even shortly after the murder.

 

[Ellie9]

Intent is WHAT he did.

Motive is WHY he did it.

I don’t care for the way the word “theory” is used on the forums. If you go to my “theory” ( http://tinyurl.com/qa5mfbh ) you’ll see a bit of an explanation. I always preferred to call it My Speculative Piece, because IMO that’s all that it is, and it’s the most that any of us has. Thomas and Kolar? Speculation. Anyway, that’s my opinion about that.

So, I say “theory” of intent because IMO none of us are talking real life theories. I’m certainly not. And, I say “theory” of intent because it is a “theory” of WHAT, if IDI, the killer did BUT it is NOT a “theory of WHY he did what he did.

Yes, differentiating between motive and intent can be tricky, and maybe sometimes there’s some overlap. I’ve probably made some mistakes (show me, I’ll say thank you and admit I was wrong) but the “theory” is about what was done. So: “theory” of intent.

Did I make that phrase up? I would be surprised to find out that it is unique to me, but I don’t recall ever seeing it used before. Provisionally, I will take credit.
…

AK

Sorry about snipping before, I didn't know that was wrong. The post was long so I thought I'd leave the reference link there but not take up space on the forum. I'll just leave it then and take up space.

It seems like you don't really have a speculation then. From everything I have read from you, this is how it seems to me. Please tell me if I'm wrong. Right now it looks like you are just stating facts that both sides see, and then just simply stating an intruder did this for unknown reasons. For example, instead of saying why the pen and pad were placed back, you just say "they were put there by an intruder." And there you stop. No reason, no name of possible intruder, no nothing but an established fact and then you saying an intruder was responsible.

I don't know how this is helpful or useful for discussions on this forum.

 

[InstantProof]

Honestly so far I haven't seen any evidence of them looking for an intruder. They will say this in interviews. But it's always an attempt to get people to stop considering them as suspects. So they'll say things like, "We should be looking for the murderer, not focusing on us so much." (not an exact quote, but I've heard them say things similar to this many many times.) However, the behaviour and actions from the Ramsey's don't seem to indicate they are looking for the killer in any way at all. Not even shortly after the murder.

The feeling I get is well the investigation was screwed up from the beginning and we're moving on. I think this is especially unusual in this case because all evidence- and even the R's had to admit to it from the start- points to someone they know.

 

[andreww]

Why would they put threats in the note and then turn around and make up some story just so they could ignore the threats?

Why are you saying the Ramseys when you clearly told me that you don’t think Mr Ramsey even knew what was going on until after the fact?

And, for all RDI, why do you think the Ramseys didn’t simply say, “We went in her room. She was gone, there was a note. We read it, panicked and called 911.”
…

AK

I'm not saying it was a preconceived plan to put the threats in there. But think about. Stressed out Patsy, sitting there alone all night writing that academy award winning ransom note. The it's time to call the police and she thinks "I put those threats in there about calling the police ". So what does she do? Just deny ever having read the note, simple as that.

I never said John definitely had nothing to do with the crime pre-911 call, I said it's a possibility. I say "Ramsey's " because I believe Burke and Patsy are definitely involved and John either was or would eventually become involved.

"And, for all RDI, why do you think the Ramseys didn’t simply say, “We went in her room. She was gone, there was a note. We read it, panicked and called 911.”

That's essentially what they did isn't it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

Well, thanks for proving me right. You clearly did not understand what I said, and am now perpetuating that misunderstanding.

Yes, I said “SOME people have said the intruder had OCD.”

I didn’t say he had OCD. SOME have said it.

I said “if we use my theory of intent as a key, the notepad and the pen (and the so-called practice note, the brush end of the paintbrush in the tote, and the handle on the garrote); even the body hidden in the wc) were all used and put where they were found for the same reason: for investigators to find.”

See? No OCD. And, I did answer the question: the notepad and the pen were all used and put where they were found for investigators to find.

So virtually everything you just posted about me and what I’ve been saying is grossly inaccurate and, by now this should be obvious to everyone, a blatant misrepresentation. Criticism is welcome and when properly applied beneficial; but, you need to start criticizing what I’m actually saying.
…

AK

I didn't read more than the first few lines because you are sapping my energy, and everyone else's.

Bottom line, if you don't think your make believe intruder had OCD, then stop writing it in your posts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

Good call. You are probably right. They never went through the motions.

You are absolutely correct. It's also my opinion that this is why the Ramsey's have such bad memories and their stories constantly change. If you don't actually live through events, you have no visual memory of them. It is easy to keep track of events you live through as they become etched in your mind. You can close your eyes and visualize what actually happened. If you fabricate a series of events, you have none of
Those visual reference markers and it is virtually impossible to keep a story consistent over time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

Honestly so far I haven't seen any evidence of them looking for an intruder. They will say this in interviews. But it's always an attempt to get people to stop considering them as suspects. So they'll say things like, "We should be looking for the murderer, not focusing on us so much." (not an exact quote, but I've heard them say things similar to this many many times.) However, the behaviour and actions from the Ramsey's don't seem to indicate they are looking for the killer in any way at all. Not even shortly after the murder.

At the beginning they were definitely soliciting information from the public. I believe that their true motive for doing so had nothing to do with finding a killer. The Ramsey's fed every BS lead that they got to an already overtaxed BPD. Either BPD would waste valuable resources following up those leads, thus not spending time concentrating on the Ramsey's, or it would later help back their claim that there was a rush to judgement and that BPD had only concentrated on the Ramsey's.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk