Who Killed Jon Benet Ramsey? Poll

[pukasonqo2]

this is what the ramson note makes me think of, this painting by holbein the younger,the meaning of the objects and the anamorphic skull (which can only be seen from certain angles) is still a matter of debate
in the note, like in the painting, everything is in plain view but the interpretation of its components varies

lupus est *advertiser censored* homini, non *advertiser censored*, non quom qualis sit novit

 

[BoldBear]

Perhaps, the note was written to prevent the parents from finding the body, while scaring them enough to get them to call the police, who being presented with a hinky ransom note, would search the house and discover a pristine crime scene (wc). IOWs, maybe this crime was created for LE. Possibly to manipulate them, or mock them or just make them look bad. Etc.

The possible reasons an intruder may have had for committing this crime as he did are endless. I’m still amazed, after all these years, by the number of people who put up their hands and say, I can’t think of a reason why an intruder would do this; must have been the Ramseys.
...

AK

Maybe you didn't read clearly what I said. I presented possible reasons for the ransom note and they weren't all focused on the Ramseys. I believe your reason can fall into the categories I presented. Do you have an actual different category than: 1) create a motive for the murder if the body was actually smuggled out of the home. 2) stop the Ramseys from calling the police to delay any action they may take. 3) use the note to hurt the Ramseys. 4) no purpose--crazy.

I have no idea why I just got a lecture on "the Ramseys didn't do it" when we're on the "who killed JonBenet?" thread.

I also disagree. The reasons an intruder may have committed this crime aren't endless. They're only endless if you're trying to turn an intruder into a legend, a wisp of smoke so loose on details that no one can ever pin you down.

 

[Anti-K]

Maybe you didn't read clearly what I said. I presented possible reasons for the ransom note and they weren't all focused on the Ramseys. I believe your reason can fall into the categories I presented. Do you have an actual different category than: 1) create a motive for the murder if the body was actually smuggled out of the home. 2) stop the Ramseys from calling the police to delay any action they may take. 3) use the note to hurt the Ramseys. 4) no purpose--crazy.

I have no idea why I just got a lecture on "the Ramseys didn't do it" when we're on the "who killed JonBenet?" thread.

I also disagree. The reasons an intruder may have committed this crime aren't endless. They're only endless if you're trying to turn an intruder into a legend, a wisp of smoke so loose on details that no one can ever pin you down.

Since you cited 3 reasons why an intruder might have did this, my “rant” could not have been directed towards you. Sorry that you took what I said as an attack or – worse – a lecture. I was merely trying to be conversant. I was talking about “people.” Not you.

I say the reasons an intruder may have committed this crime are endless simply because we don’t know the intruder. The reasons why an unknown person might do something has a lot to do with that person and their experiences/influences, etc in life. We just have no real way of knowing.

You gave 3 possible reasons, I added another and I’ll add 2 more:
Killer was sexually motivated but ashamed and embarrassed by his own desires so tried or cover up the sexual aspect of his crime by making it seem as if it was a kidnapping. The killer intended the Ramseys to find the note, heed its warnings and pay the ransom.
That’s 6.

I think if people were offered 5 bucks for every motive they could come up with we’d be inundated.

Here’s another one: the killer wanted to become a legend, a wisp of smoke so loose on details that no one could ever pin him down.  Why not? Or, maybe we’re just talking about a killer with a really, really weird sense of humor. Or, he did it on a dare. Or, he left the note, bungled the kidnapping and forgot he’d left the note when he panicked and ran. Maybe he did it to ensure that suspicion would never come anywhere near him. Etc and so on and forever onward...

I think the truth is that even if this guy was standing right before us and we knew everything about him we’d still be arguing over his motive.

Anyway, sorry, I came off wrong. I’ve been curious about what just clicked for you? What was the epiphany? What are you now thinking? Etc?
...

AK

 

[UKGuy]

Since you cited 3 reasons why an intruder might have did this, my “rant” could not have been directed towards you. Sorry that you took what I said as an attack or – worse – a lecture. I was merely trying to be conversant. I was talking about “people.” Not you.

I say the reasons an intruder may have committed this crime are endless simply because we don’t know the intruder. The reasons why an unknown person might do something has a lot to do with that person and their experiences/influences, etc in life. We just have no real way of knowing.

You gave 3 possible reasons, I added another and I’ll add 2 more:
Killer was sexually motivated but ashamed and embarrassed by his own desires so tried or cover up the sexual aspect of his crime by making it seem as if it was a kidnapping. The killer intended the Ramseys to find the note, heed its warnings and pay the ransom.
That’s 6.

I think if people were offered 5 bucks for every motive they could come up with we’d be inundated.

Here’s another one: the killer wanted to become a legend, a wisp of smoke so loose on details that no one could ever pin him down.  Why not? Or, maybe we’re just talking about a killer with a really, really weird sense of humor. Or, he did it on a dare. Or, he left the note, bungled the kidnapping and forgot he’d left the note when he panicked and ran. Maybe he did it to ensure that suspicion would never come anywhere near him. Etc and so on and forever onward...

I think the truth is that even if this guy was standing right before us and we knew everything about him we’d still be arguing over his motive.

Anyway, sorry, I came off wrong. I’ve been curious about what just clicked for you? What was the epiphany? What are you now thinking? Etc?
...

AK

Anti-K,
You have a vivid imagination, alike Lou Smit, yet there is no Forensic Evidence to implicate any intruder, never mind prosecute such a person.

Your imagined reasons might be endless, but the forensic evidence does not enjoy such an enumarate landscape.

The case is BDI and the parents, as per the GJ indictment, are assistants to the main perpetrator!


.

 

[BoldBear]

Since you cited 3 reasons why an intruder might have did this, my “rant” could not have been directed towards you. Sorry that you took what I said as an attack or – worse – a lecture. I was merely trying to be conversant. I was talking about “people.” Not you.

You used my full quote so of course I viewed it as a reply.

You're also confusing the reasons for the murder vs the reasons for the ransom note. I was talking about the reasons for writing the ransom note. The ransom note wasn't written because it was a sexual crime. The ransom note was written because a crime was committed and there was a need to explain, deflect or cover-up. There are two different motives here to discuss: one for the killing and one for why the ransom note was written.

I will admit that I won't accept the ransom note as an actual ransom note because I don't believe it was written before the killing. There are endless reasons discussed here on WS and I'm not going to rehash them. This wasn't a ransom note. You suggest that the writer wrote it with the intent to confuse. Sorry. You're viewing from this the point of view of someone who knows what happened. Before the ransom note was discovered, before the body was discovered, this person couldn't have know how this would have played-out. You're transferring a super intelligence, an all knowing power, to the intruder. I was making that mistake by starting after the murder was discovered with all the details. How about we assume that the murderer didn't know how botched this murder investigation would turn out? Let's assume that the murderer had to cover-up involvement in a crime. If it was the Ramseys, then it could be seen in how they acted. If it was an intruder, then this person had to hide involvement even if that meant leaving Boulder and never coming back.

I was also using the wisp of smoke metaphor to specifically address your arguments. With all the reading I've done for possible intruder suspects, the investigators talk about specific individuals they suspected and interviewed. Koler talked about how investigators had to track-down vagrants. He talked about how they flew out of state just to interview someone who might have been in Boulder at the time. When they talk about intruder suspects, they talk about real people. I've seen you dodge turning this intruder into a real person. If this is someone mysterious, if this is an omniscient and omnipotent power then this won't ever have to be a real person. By making this person a ghost, you never had to discuss why there aren't more supporting intruder details.

The 'yeah but there was DNA' argument gets really old. Many investigators have said that the finding the person who belongs to the DNA may not mean we've found the killer. Yet, I still hear the Paul Revere call, "The DNA belonged to the killer. The DNA belonged to the killer." It may, but until that person is found it can't be proved. Claiming that the DNA evidence is the only thing that matters is crazy at best.

Anyway, sorry, I came off wrong. I’ve been curious about what just clicked for you? What was the epiphany? What are you now thinking? Etc?

I suggest that if you're addressing generic comments in the discussion, then you don't use someone's full quote. I've seen you make separate postings when addressing individual posts so this isn't anything new to you.

I also didn't take offence. When I was talking about the motives for the ransom note, you went off and starting talking about the motives for the killing. To claim that there are infinite reasons for a murder, you're adding mystery to the intruder. I'm not an investigator, but I've listened enough to investigators. There's a limited list of motives for murder. From there, there are subcategories for the motive. The list isn't infinite so please don't exaggerate.

My epiphany was to switch from believing one person was probably involved in a cover up to being sure of it. This shouldn't surprise you because the GJ, the people that had access to evidence we don't have access to, came to that conclusion as well. I've been on the fence all this time. I was weighing all of this as probabilities. I never gave anything a 100%. I'm now sure of it.

Oh by the way, I think I should also thank you for the reason why I'm still around. I wasn't getting much more detail out of reading about this case so I was getting bored and was about ready to move on. I think it was you who challenged SD to put the body in the house with the RN. I really didn't think about that much at the time but that and other details started to bother me. It really got under my skin. I then had an idea that made me laugh. I wrote it off. Then another laughable idea followed. And then I started to apply it to the RN and I'm still here. I'll present it when it's ready. It's just taking forever.

I really wish I could find that 1997 interview again. I'll have to go over the transcripts but it's not the same.

 

[Anti-K]

You used my full quote so of course I viewed it as a reply.

You're also confusing the reasons for the murder vs the reasons for the ransom note. I was talking about the reasons for writing the ransom note. The ransom note wasn't written because it was a sexual crime. The ransom note was written because a crime was committed and there was a need to explain, deflect or cover-up. There are two different motives here to discuss: one for the killing and one for why the ransom note was written.

I will admit that I won't accept the ransom note as an actual ransom note because I don't believe it was written before the killing. There are endless reasons discussed here on WS and I'm not going to rehash them. This wasn't a ransom note. You suggest that the writer wrote it with the intent to confuse. Sorry. You're viewing from this the point of view of someone who knows what happened. Before the ransom note was discovered, before the body was discovered, this person couldn't have know how this would have played-out. You're transferring a super intelligence, an all knowing power, to the intruder. I was making that mistake by starting after the murder was discovered with all the details. How about we assume that the murderer didn't know how botched this murder investigation would turn out? Let's assume that the murderer had to cover-up involvement in a crime. If it was the Ramseys, then it could be seen in how they acted. If it was an intruder, then this person had to hide involvement even if that meant leaving Boulder and never coming back.

I was also using the wisp of smoke metaphor to specifically address your arguments. With all the reading I've done for possible intruder suspects, the investigators talk about specific individuals they suspected and interviewed. Koler talked about how investigators had to track-down vagrants. He talked about how they flew out of state just to interview someone who might have been in Boulder at the time. When they talk about intruder suspects, they talk about real people. I've seen you dodge turning this intruder into a real person. If this is someone mysterious, if this is an omniscient and omnipotent power then this won't ever have to be a real person. By making this person a ghost, you never had to discuss why there aren't more supporting intruder details.

The 'yeah but there was DNA' argument gets really old. Many investigators have said that the finding the person who belongs to the DNA may not mean we've found the killer. Yet, I still hear the Paul Revere call, "The DNA belonged to the killer. The DNA belonged to the killer." It may, but until that person is found it can't be proved. Claiming that the DNA evidence is the only thing that matters is crazy at best.



I suggest that if you're addressing generic comments in the discussion, then you don't use someone's full quote. I've seen you make separate postings when addressing individual posts so this isn't anything new to you.

I also didn't take offence. When I was talking about the motives for the ransom note, you went off and starting talking about the motives for the killing. To claim that there are infinite reasons for a murder, you're adding mystery to the intruder. I'm not an investigator, but I've listened enough to investigators. There's a limited list of motives for murder. From there, there are subcategories for the motive. The list isn't infinite so please don't exaggerate.

My epiphany was to switch from believing one person was probably involved in a cover up to being sure of it. This shouldn't surprise you because the GJ, the people that had access to evidence we don't have access to, came to that conclusion as well. I've been on the fence all this time. I was weighing all of this as probabilities. I never gave anything a 100%. I'm now sure of it.

Oh by the way, I think I should also thank you for the reason why I'm still around. I wasn't getting much more detail out of reading about this case so I was getting bored and was about ready to move on. I think it was you who challenged SD to put the body in the house with the RN. I really didn't think about that much at the time but that and other details started to bother me. It really got under my skin. I then had an idea that made me laugh. I wrote it off. Then another laughable idea followed. And then I started to apply it to the RN and I'm still here. I'll present it when it's ready. It's just taking forever.

I really wish I could find that 1997 interview again. I'll have to go over the transcripts but it's not the same.

Actually I was offering reasons for the ransom note. For instance, while the note may not have been written because it was a sexual crime it could have been written to cover up that it was a sexual crime. Etc.

You see, I don’t accept that the note was a genuine note, either.

Every reason I offered was for writing the note and/or why both and note and body were left. Not one of my reasons were for the killing. Not one.

And, I don’t think I’ve been viewing this from the viewpoint of “someone who knows what happened.” I actually think, if IDI, that the killer thought things would play out quite differently. In fact, he may have counted on them turning out differently. He, IMO, as you say, could not have realized how badly botched this investigation would turn out.

So, I’m definitely not suggesting a super-intelligent, all-knowing being at all!! LOL 

I also think you misjudge me on the “wisp of smoke.” I have never dodged turning this intruder into a real person. Of course, he’s a real person. And, IMO, no one special. But, I do not believe he has ever been investigated, and he has probably not been suspected.

But, back to the motive, if IDI, we’re dealing with an unknown person and IMO that makes discerning motive very difficult in a case like this. However, intent is something different and I think understanding intent is the key – A key - in pointing us towards possible motives (at least, by helping us to eliminate possibilities).

I’m certainly not trying to conjure up some mystical, magical mastermind of any kind. I see an ordinary person “familiar with Police countermeasures and tactics” who used that familiarity to commit a crime that no one would ever suspect him of. Not only would no one suspect him of it, but no one would even believe that he existed (cuz, you know: RDI).
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

You used my full quote so of course I viewed it as a reply.

You're also confusing the reasons for the murder vs the reasons for the ransom note. I was talking about the reasons for writing the ransom note. The ransom note wasn't written because it was a sexual crime. The ransom note was written because a crime was committed and there was a need to explain, deflect or cover-up. There are two different motives here to discuss: one for the killing and one for why the ransom note was written.

I will admit that I won't accept the ransom note as an actual ransom note because I don't believe it was written before the killing. There are endless reasons discussed here on WS and I'm not going to rehash them. This wasn't a ransom note. You suggest that the writer wrote it with the intent to confuse. Sorry. You're viewing from this the point of view of someone who knows what happened. Before the ransom note was discovered, before the body was discovered, this person couldn't have know how this would have played-out. You're transferring a super intelligence, an all knowing power, to the intruder. I was making that mistake by starting after the murder was discovered with all the details. How about we assume that the murderer didn't know how botched this murder investigation would turn out? Let's assume that the murderer had to cover-up involvement in a crime. If it was the Ramseys, then it could be seen in how they acted. If it was an intruder, then this person had to hide involvement even if that meant leaving Boulder and never coming back.

I was also using the wisp of smoke metaphor to specifically address your arguments. With all the reading I've done for possible intruder suspects, the investigators talk about specific individuals they suspected and interviewed. Koler talked about how investigators had to track-down vagrants. He talked about how they flew out of state just to interview someone who might have been in Boulder at the time. When they talk about intruder suspects, they talk about real people. I've seen you dodge turning this intruder into a real person. If this is someone mysterious, if this is an omniscient and omnipotent power then this won't ever have to be a real person. By making this person a ghost, you never had to discuss why there aren't more supporting intruder details.

The 'yeah but there was DNA' argument gets really old. Many investigators have said that the finding the person who belongs to the DNA may not mean we've found the killer. Yet, I still hear the Paul Revere call, "The DNA belonged to the killer. The DNA belonged to the killer." It may, but until that person is found it can't be proved. Claiming that the DNA evidence is the only thing that matters is crazy at best.



I suggest that if you're addressing generic comments in the discussion, then you don't use someone's full quote. I've seen you make separate postings when addressing individual posts so this isn't anything new to you.

I also didn't take offence. When I was talking about the motives for the ransom note, you went off and starting talking about the motives for the killing. To claim that there are infinite reasons for a murder, you're adding mystery to the intruder. I'm not an investigator, but I've listened enough to investigators. There's a limited list of motives for murder. From there, there are subcategories for the motive. The list isn't infinite so please don't exaggerate.

My epiphany was to switch from believing one person was probably involved in a cover up to being sure of it. This shouldn't surprise you because the GJ, the people that had access to evidence we don't have access to, came to that conclusion as well. I've been on the fence all this time. I was weighing all of this as probabilities. I never gave anything a 100%. I'm now sure of it.

Oh by the way, I think I should also thank you for the reason why I'm still around. I wasn't getting much more detail out of reading about this case so I was getting bored and was about ready to move on. I think it was you who challenged SD to put the body in the house with the RN. I really didn't think about that much at the time but that and other details started to bother me. It really got under my skin. I then had an idea that made me laugh. I wrote it off. Then another laughable idea followed. And then I started to apply it to the RN and I'm still here. I'll present it when it's ready. It's just taking forever.

I really wish I could find that 1997 interview again. I'll have to go over the transcripts but it's not the same.

Oh. I forgot to ask. What interview are you looking for? I have all sorts of stuff stashed somewhere.
...

AK

 

[questfortrue]

If the intent of the RN was to remove the body from the home and have it found later then it was foreshadowing. It would explain why JBR was dead.

Another intent could have been to keep the Ramseys from calling the police so the intruder could get as far away from the crime scene as possible.

~RSBM~
Hi, BoldBear, something which may be of interest to you pertaining to the ransom note is a breakdown of the different statements JR and PR gave in interviews. It’s located in the ws library under links and resources and referenced as statement analysis. The link will take you to pages of Mark McClish’s work. He disected the differing statements of PR and JR in a variety of interviews. One of the presentations the Rs made was on a LKL show in 2000. McClish points to the fact that the two Rs have different answers for the existence of the ransom note and a body in the basement. When asked why an Intruder would write a ransom note and leave the body in the home, PR stated it was because it was a ruse to throw off the police. JR, OTOH, claimed the ransom note was real, that the crime was a real kidnapping, but something went wrong and the kidnappers killed her.

Defining this a little closer, as per McClish, PR seems to be claiming the intent of the ransom note writer was a ruse to disguise a murder. The Intruder came in and intended to kill JonBenet and wrote the ransom note to throw off the authorities. JR says the intent of the Intruder was a kidnapping which went wrong, and JonBenet died. Sorting out why their statements differ will tell one a lot about their separate roles.

That quote is the reason I can't help but think JR had something to do with that note.

Sometime back otg discovered another coincidence in an interview with a journalism class involving JR and PR. The transcript is located on this FFJ thread - http://www.forumsforjustice.org/for...view-transcripts-from-Journalism-Class-visit). But here's the interesting repeat of the phrase "and hence." -

"JOHN RAMSEY: The police as a gov-, …you know, the justice system is a government organization. And hence, should be looked at with some degree of skepticism, and, uh…and, uh…suspicion."

 

[BoldBear]

Anti-K,

Thank you.

Okay, I'll concede that I didn't include that the ransom note could have been written to confuse. I will, however, restate that murders are committed for a list of known reasons. The motive for the ransom note isn't to commit murder. It isn't to commit rape. It's to commit the crime of covering-up the rape and/or the murder. There are two distinct motives: one for the murder and the other for why the ransom note was written. If you can't understand that, then I'll just have to assume that you're incapable of understanding such a simple concept. By the way, I understand this game. I actually learned it from the West Wing many years ago. You're refusing the premise. That's okay. I understand the method.

As for my 'wisp of smoke' argument, I've seen you do this many times. To me, you're less interested in proving that this was IDI than you are to prove RDI wrong. When you were asked for your opinion about how an intruder entered and exited the house, you gave a solid answer for the exit. You dodged the question for the entry. The person who posted the question was asking about 'your' theory. You could have given your favorite theory for entry, but you didn't. I personally believe that if you keep this intruder as an abstract, you never have to actually argue a detail--no one can ever prove you wrong.

I love this argument that the intruder was familiar with LE. So now we have an intruder that has a vendetta against the Ramseys or LE. This is a very clever person you would almost say 'all knowing'. They didn't leave a single hair or fingerprint at the murder scene. They knew enough to use Patsy's supplies to write the note. All that this person needs to do to these people who wronged them is enter a house. He has to know that the Ramseys don't use their alarm. He has to know that they won't bring the dog home that night. And then he has to kill and molest a little girl to get his revenge. This person knows how to outwit LE. He knows that a 2.5 page rambling ransom note will confuse everyone and allow him to get away. He exits from the Butler's pantry door (your theory), a door that has a checkerboard of concrete squares and grass and leaves no markings in any of the grass because we all know that there was a solid concrete slab from the Butler's pantry to the front sidewalk or around the back to the alley (I'm making-up this detail. I haven't seen a solid walkway around the Butler's pantry and from the photos I've seen, It's not there.) He takes the risk of being seen by a passing neighbor because he somehow knows no one will be able to identify him later. He then escapes because despite all the research he's done on the Ramseys and all the time it took to do surveillance on the home, no one will ever remember him.

If there was an intruder, this person was taking an enormous risk. The level of intelligence you put on this person, claiming that he knows how LE works, is astounding. And with all that intelligence, I have to ask the question: Aren't there better ways to get revenge? If you're that smart, wouldn't your intelligence give you better options? Do you really have to kill a little girl? Burke was in the home. Why not carry him down to the basement too? You could get twice the revenge. I also think I've seen a story very close to this in Foreign Faction.

Would you like me to do more intruder scenarios for you? Maybe I can take the time to polish this one up. Or we could move onto the genius pedophile who is familiar with LE. It will be like the other story but we only have so much to work on.

If you talk about an intruder in the abstract, you don't have to sweat the details. All you have to do is to claim that everyone but you is crazy, that they don't understand the details and that it was this mysterious genius pedophile. He doesn't need to commit any more crimes after this one because this one was enough. Unless you're going to try to convince us he was BTK.

The interview I was looking for was the first interview the Ramseys gave in 1997. The transcripts are available online, but the actual interview is not.

 

[BoldBear]

questfortrue,

Thank you for your reply. You brought-up some details that I will surely look at. I do expect some of their details to be different. They also change over time. Patsy was kind of out of it with the loss, the cancer and the pills. As time progresses, we all remember things differently. We don't remember the actual events but our stories of the events.

In this case, however, the Ramsey's stories can't change. You have so many people who are looking for an 'ah ha' moment. I'm sure with their legal teams they had to go over the stories again and again. I love it when they say they weren't coached. Bill Clinton taught us that we need to parse words. If they weren't coached then were they prepped? Was there any time that they went over their stories again and again with their council present?

 

[Anti-K]

Anti-K,

Thank you.

Okay, I'll concede that I didn't include that the ransom note could have been written to confuse. I will, however, restate that murders are committed for a list of known reasons. The motive for the ransom note isn't to commit murder. It isn't to commit rape. It's to commit the crime of covering-up the rape and/or the murder. There are two distinct motives: one for the murder and the other for why the ransom note was written. If you can't understand that, then I'll just have to assume that you're incapable of understanding such a simple concept. By the way, I understand this game. I actually learned it from the West Wing many years ago. You're refusing the premise. That's okay. I understand the method.

As for my 'wisp of smoke' argument, I've seen you do this many times. To me, you're less interested in proving that this was IDI than you are to prove RDI wrong. When you were asked for your opinion about how an intruder entered and exited the house, you gave a solid answer for the exit. You dodged the question for the entry. The person who posted the question was asking about 'your' theory. You could have given your favorite theory for entry, but you didn't. I personally believe that if you keep this intruder as an abstract, you never have to actually argue a detail--no one can ever prove you wrong.

I love this argument that the intruder was familiar with LE. So now we have an intruder that has a vendetta against the Ramseys or LE. This is a very clever person you would almost say 'all knowing'. They didn't leave a single hair or fingerprint at the murder scene. They knew enough to use Patsy's supplies to write the note. All that this person needs to do to these people who wronged them is enter a house. He has to know that the Ramseys don't use their alarm. He has to know that they won't bring the dog home that night. And then he has to kill and molest a little girl to get his revenge. This person knows how to outwit LE. He knows that a 2.5 page rambling ransom note will confuse everyone and allow him to get away. He exits from the Butler's pantry door (your theory), a door that has a checkerboard of concrete squares and grass and leaves no markings in any of the grass because we all know that there was a solid concrete slab from the Butler's pantry to the front sidewalk or around the back to the alley (I'm making-up this detail. I haven't seen a solid walkway around the Butler's pantry and from the photos I've seen, It's not there.) He takes the risk of being seen by a passing neighbor because he somehow knows no one will be able to identify him later. He then escapes because despite all the research he's done on the Ramseys and all the time it took to do surveillance on the home, no one will ever remember him.

If there was an intruder, this person was taking an enormous risk. The level of intelligence you put on this person, claiming that he knows how LE works, is astounding. And with all that intelligence, I have to ask the question: Aren't there better ways to get revenge? If you're that smart, wouldn't your intelligence give you better options? Do you really have to kill a little girl? Burke was in the home. Why not carry him down to the basement too? You could get twice the revenge. I also think I've seen a story very close to this in Foreign Faction.

Would you like me to do more intruder scenarios for you? Maybe I can take the time to polish this one up. Or we could move onto the genius pedophile who is familiar with LE. It will be like the other story but we only have so much to work on.

If you talk about an intruder in the abstract, you don't have to sweat the details. All you have to do is to claim that everyone but you is crazy, that they don't understand the details and that it was this mysterious genius pedophile. He doesn't need to commit any more crimes after this one because this one was enough. Unless you're going to try to convince us he was BTK.

The interview I was looking for was the first interview the Ramseys gave in 1997. The transcripts are available online, but the actual interview is not.

Actually, I think that the note and the murder could have had the same motivation. Why not? For example, let’s say the entire experience was designed to mess with the Ramseys and torture them. Or, he wanted to create a murder mystery that would be argued over forever, or simply wanted to make fools out of LE, etc. You see, IMO we just don’t know.

This is something that you seem to have a problem with, and you seem to think it’s a game I’m playing. That seems silly to me. The plain fact is that I DON’T KNOW the right answer to these questions and I’m pretty comfortable with that.

As you’ve noted, I’ve given a fairly solid answer to how an intruder may have exited the house. I have a clear answer to that, because I see evidence and reason for seeing the butler door as being that exit point. I’m vague on entry because I DON’T KNOW the answer to the question. I’ve listed several possibilities but I don’t favor any of them and I don’t think there is enough evidence or reason to favor one explanation over another. And, I think that it’s sad (and, mildy offensive) that you think answers of this sort are game-playing or somehow disingenuous when they are simply an admission of uncertainty.

It’s nice that you love the argument that the intruder was familiar with LE, but I’m afraid that you are being sarcastic. I see nothing far-fetched or bizarre about the possibility, at all. In fact, I think there is evidence to support the claim. Where’s the problem in accepting something like this? And, WHY do you think this person would have to be super clever or “all-knowing,” etc? That seems ridiculous to me, and I’m not proposing anything of the sort.

You seem to be putting a lot of thoughts into my head that just aren’t there. Another example: I don’t think the intruder had any sort of vendetta against the Ramseys. I don’t think we’re dealing with a genius or anyone of above average intelligence, I don’t think this was a sexually motivated crime or that we’re talking about a pedophile. Although, any of these things could be true – I just don’t know.
...

AK

 

[THE BUNK]

I don’t think the intruder had any sort of vendetta against the Ramseys. I don’t think we’re dealing with a genius or anyone of above average intelligence, I don’t think this was a sexually motivated crime or that we’re talking about a pedophile. Although, any of these things could be true – I just don’t know

1. I've always found it interesting that despite a killer leaving a 3 page RANSOM note and bringing a rope and tape (tools need to bind someone for kidnapping), most IDI's don't jump on the most logical IDI theory that this was a botched kidnapping. It would seem pretty obvious to me that if you are writing a ransom note, your probably planning to kidnap someone for money. Especially when your target is the daughter of a wealthy man.

2. Anti-K's statement above is the point where i think every IDI starts doubting whether such an intruder could possibly exists. ROBBER?? TERRORIST?? PEDOPHILE??? AVENGER??? ROBIN HOOD?? SERIAL KILLER??; Which rabbit hole do you go down first and how far do you go before it becomes a fruitless endeavor?

 

[Anti-K]

I don’t think the intruder had any sort of vendetta against the Ramseys. I don’t think we’re dealing with a genius or anyone of above average intelligence, I don’t think this was a sexually motivated crime or that we’re talking about a pedophile. Although, any of these things could be true – I just don’t know

1. I've always found it interesting that despite a killer leaving a 3 page RANSOM note and bringing a rope and tape (tools need to bind someone for kidnapping), most IDI's don't jump on the most logical IDI theory that this was a botched kidnapping. It would seem pretty obvious to me that if you are writing a ransom note, your probably planning to kidnap someone for money. Especially when your target is the daughter of a wealthy man.

2. Anti-K's statement above is the point where i think every IDI starts doubting whether such an intruder could possibly exists. ROBBER?? TERRORIST?? PEDOPHILE??? AVENGER??? ROBIN HOOD?? SERIAL KILLER??; Which rabbit hole do you go down first and how far do you go before it becomes a fruitless endeavor?

Some IDI do think this was a botched kidnapping. I don’t. I don’t think it was a botched anything. But, I could be wrong and this could have been exactly that: a botched kidnapping.

I don’t think there are any IDI who have the doubts you project. We don’t have any problem accepting that people commit these sorts of crimes and under similar conditions (criminals have entered homes while persons were home, and they have assaulted people while others were in the homes, unawares; etc). The only thing unusual here is the ransom note.

Some IDI will tell you that this was a pedophile. Or, that this an attack on Mr Ramsey. Or, this was financially motivated. Or, a crime gone wrong. There are a lot of concrete IDI beliefs. I just don’t agree with most of them.

Without an identified killer, IDI will always be mysterious. We’ll never know who or why. But, this doesn’t mean that the who or the why doesn’t exist.
...

AK

 

[andreww]

You don't think it was a kidnapping yet there was a ransom note. You don't think it was sexually motivated yet there is trauma to her vagina. Are you saying all these things were done to throw the police off?

Finally, you don't think this person is very bright yet they spent considerable time in that house without leaving a trace of evidence that they were there.

And yes people do randomly break in to homes, but there is always a motive. As you pointed out there doesn't seem to be any motive here at all.

Your case is among the weakest I've heard my friend.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[THE BUNK]

I don’t think the intruder had any sort of vendetta against the Ramseys. I don’t think we’re dealing with a genius or anyone of above average intelligence, I don’t think this was a sexually motivated crime or that we’re talking about a pedophile. Although, any of these things could be true – I just don’t know

Some IDI do think this was a botched kidnapping. I don’t. I don’t think it was a botched anything. But, I could be wrong and this could have been exactly that: a botched kidnapping.

I don’t think there are any IDI who have the doubts you project. We don’t have any problem accepting that people commit these sorts of crimes and under similar conditions (criminals have entered homes while persons were home, and they have assaulted people while others were in the homes, unawares; etc). The only thing unusual here is the ransom note.

Some IDI will tell you that this was a pedophile. Or, that this an attack on Mr Ramsey. Or, this was financially motivated. Or, a crime gone wrong. There are a lot of concrete IDI beliefs. I just don’t agree with most of them.

Without an identified killer, IDI will always be mysterious. We’ll never know who or why. But, this doesn’t mean that the who or the why doesn’t exist.
...

AK

Why do you not believe it was a botched crime? Do you believe everything that happened in this cause occurred as the killer wanted it to? Are you under the assumption this was the perfect crime....with no motive?

 

[Anti-K]

You don't think it was a kidnapping yet there was a ransom note. You don't think it was sexually motivated yet there is trauma to her vagina. Are you saying all these things were done to throw the police off?

Finally, you don't think this person is very bright yet they spent considerable time in that house without leaving a trace of evidence that they were there.

And yes people do randomly break in to homes, but there is always a motive. As you pointed out there doesn't seem to be any motive here at all.

Your case is among the weakest I've heard my friend.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You may be surprised to learn that almost no one believes there was a kidnapping.

IMO, the killer spent very little time in the house; somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 – 45 minutes.

IMO, he left traces of evidence; for example: handwriting, hair, fibers, DNA; the acts committed upon the victim.

I have never “pointed out” that there was no motive.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Why do you not believe it was a botched crime? Do you believe everything that happened in this cause occurred as the killer wanted it to? Are you under the assumption this was the perfect crime....with no motive?

I don’t believe it was a botched crime because I don’t see any evidence of a botched crime. I think that virtually everything that the killer did may have been an act of intent.

No, I don’t think this was a perfect crime, but this might be a matter of how one defines a perfect crime.

I try very hard not to assume anything.

I am convinced that the killer had a motive.
...

AK

 

[andreww]

You may be surprised to learn that almost no one believes there was a kidnapping.

AK

Well duh.

IMO, the killer spent very little time in the house; somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 – 45 minutes.

AK

The time between the head blow and strangulation was longer than that. Add in the practice note and real note, wipe down, re-dress, fake bindings, etc and you are well over that time. Try again.

IMO, he left traces of evidence; for example: handwriting, hair, fibers, DNA; the acts committed upon the victim.

AK

Patsy's handwriting, Patsy's hair, Patsy's fibers..... Yeh, we're well aware of what was found.

And I'm aware that you've never said there wasn't a motive, but in all these years that you've been playing pretend detective you've never come up with one to fit your theory. In fact I've yet to see an actual theory from you either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Anti-K]

Well duh.



The time between the head blow and strangulation was longer than that. Add in the practice note and real note, wipe down, re-dress, fake bindings, etc and you are well over that time. Try again.



Patsy's handwriting, Patsy's hair, Patsy's fibers..... Yeh, we're well aware of what was found.

And I'm aware that you've never said there wasn't a motive, but in all these years that you've been playing pretend detective you've never come up with one to fit your theory. In fact I've yet to see an actual theory from you either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The time between head blow and asphyxiation has not been fixed. It is controversial, and some even argue over which came first!

I’ve added everything up (and, acted out many of these acts to test for time) and IMO this crime – minus time required to write ransom note – could have been committed in 15 minutes. I posted a detailed analysis somewhere here on this forum not too terribly long ago. I can repost it if you want me to.

The handwriting has never been identified by any credible expert. There are unidentified fibers, hairs and DNA all found in incriminating locations.

I’ve offered you my “theory” on several occasions and it is posted here on this forum. Stop blaming me because you never bothered to read it. Here it is again:
http://tinyurl.com/qa5mfbh
http://tinyurl.com/l5j7787
http://tinyurl.com/mxr5xf5
http://tinyurl.com/lvgzfx5
...

AK

 

[andreww]

Ya, I've read that tripe before and it certainly does not constitute a theory.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk