Who Killed Jon Benet Ramsey? Poll

[Anti-K]

Just wanted to add in a thought here to everyone else's mix.

I know there is a lot of contention over why a kidnapping was staged exactly, especially with a dead body. I'd say, think about it. What else happens to children this age at all that doesn't point the finger right at the parents?

For an adult, you can come up with many things. Drug overdose, car 'accident', 'accidental' house fire, they were mixed up with the wrong crowd, had gambling debt, jealous secret lover, suicide (that's really homicide). So many ideas. A child, though, there's basically only one single go-to. Kidnapping. The reason this excuse is overused by guilty parents everywhere is because it's basically the only possible excuse. Running away is a possibility for faking innocence - but not in the dead of winter, not usually at age six, and not without questioning about what would lead a small child to run away from home in the first place. So really there's only one possible way to point the finger at an outsider and away from the home, and that's kidnapping. It has been used as an excuse for ages, and it will be continued to be used no matter how many parents get caught in this lie. And that's because it's the only lie they can possibly use that stands a chance.

I was reading about the Caylee Anthony case recently, and here it is all over again. Obviously suspicious parent blames a kidnapper. It's the way this always goes. So therefore I view the fact that a ransom note and a kidnapping premise was used as further proof that there isn't actually anything too unusual with the Ramsey case at all. The only thing that left this case in such mystery is the botched crime scene and the lack of an indictment.

You say there is nothing unusual here despite the fact that no one in the history of the planet has ever done such a thing – faked a kidnapping to explain a body in the house.

Every person who has claimed a kidnapping did so because they had to explain one thing – why a body was NOT in the house. The exact opposite thing that the Ramseys had to explain.

What else could the Ramseys say happened? Accidents happen. A killer comes into your home – it happens; kidnappings with the body still in the house, don’t.

Many RDI think that this started off as an accident (this is almost certainly wrong as the evidence strongly suggests that the head blow was intentional), so, it would only make sense that an accident is all the Ramseys would have to report. Exaggerate, tell a lie if necessary, call a lawyer; take your chances.
…

AK

 

[Annapurna]

Then this also has to be the first time in the history of the world that a faux kidnapper left a ransom note for....what exactly? To buy time? Seems like the risk far outweighs that reward. Why not try to collect the ransom? The "kidnapper" wrote that 2.5 page long note by hand, leaving evidence against them. This note took time to write. You're going to say that the intruder could have stolen the pad and marker before hand but thats a ridiculous excuse.


The Ramsey's didn't realize how bad it would look to have a RN and a body. They are not expert criminals, they are people trying to avoid punishment by changing the initial narrative presented to LE. By presenting the note instead of a body, they were not immediately arrested.

Again, this all worked, they weren't even brought to trial. So maybe its not so stupid after all. Casey Anthony got away with it too.

 

[Ellie9]

You say there is nothing unusual here despite the fact that no one in the history of the planet has ever done such a thing – faked a kidnapping to explain a body in the house.

I get what you're saying, but this wasn't their intent. They called the cops to report a kidnapping, and a missing child. They did have a body in the house, but that was held back from the cops for about seven hours. Then they (if RDI) feigned ignorance over this body and why it was there. I think John 'found' the body as a last resort, knowing that he was the one searching and if the cops did their own final sweep they'd easily find the poor child - and then say John was intentionally hiding it, which makes him look very guilty.

So, then, your judgment on this part of the case would make a lot more sense if PR had called 911 and said they have a note and they found their daughter's dead body. In this case, perhaps, they would have strayed from the usual plan. But they didn't do this. Patsy called and reported a missing child and a ransom note, and did not mention a body at all. The idea was not to mention it, and to dispose of it at some other point in time. The repeated house searches and constant police presence foiled this plan, thankfully, or we'd have an even bigger fiasco to work through when analyzing this case.

 

[Ellie9]

Again, this all worked, they weren't even brought to trial. So maybe its not so stupid after all. Casey Anthony got away with it too.

You're right. It does work, and probably because many people can't believe a mother or father would kill their own child. I think this was summed up best in the book I'd just finished on the Anthony case.

There is this common belief that jurors’ hearts go out to children who are the victims of homicide, but in my experience that is less the case when a parent is accused of the crime. They have a much easier time accepting the homicide when it has been committed by a stranger. It is too horrible to comprehend that a parent could kill his or her own child, especially one so young and defenseless. For a jury, maternal filicide was the most difficult crime of all.

- source: Imperfect Justice by Jeff Ashton

This, imo, completely explains why the IDI theorists have trouble thinking the Ramsey's had anything to do with JBR's death. And I do totally agree here it's a messed up world we live in, where stuff like this happens to innocent children. It's messed up that a parent could do this. But if any parent can do this, then it's possible, and so we can't just exclude people by saying 'there's no way' when history has (sadly) proven us wrong. A lot of parents have harmed, abused, and killed their own children. It's awful, but that's life. It happens and we have to take it's occurrence into consideration, and we have to realize that it's actually more likely a family member will kill a child than a stranger.

 

[AndHence]

I think almost everyone can agree that there is evidence of staging in this crime. Once you accept that to be true, there are only two possibilities. 1) The Ramseys staged the crime scene to point suspicion away from them or 2) An intruder 'staged a staging' to make it look like the Ramseys killed their daughter and then tried to cover it up. The first scenario is far more likely because fewer things have to fall into place for it to happen.

 

[andreww]

You're right. It does work, and probably because many people can't believe a mother or father would kill their own child. I think this was summed up best in the book I'd just finished on the Anthony case.

Even though I think this may be true for the general public and jurors, I highly doubt that those feelings affected the detectives and DA in this case. The fact that nobody was ever charged shows that the case went very wrong before any "parent sympathetic juror" ever got to hear it.

The way the Ramseys got away with this is actually very simple. They weren't geniuses, but they did enough. They created the possibility of an intruder, and the all stuck to exactly the same story "We were asleep and we didn't see or hear anything". Finally, they were smart enough not to talk to the police. The Ramseys spin it to say this or that happened and we decided with our lawyers that LE was out to get us, so we stopped cooperating. I am of the opinion that there was never ant intention of speaking to LE, EVER! Some will say they should have wanted to help find their child's killer, but lets be honest, they were criminals and they shouldn't have talked with police. They kept to their stories and they rarely tried to alter or expand upon them, and the three of them simply never ratted each other out.

Some may say Alex Hunter was too easy on them, that he should have had them separated and individually interrogated. But it is the Ramsey's right not to talk, and I think John was smart enough to know not to talk, especially without a lawyer.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

You're right. It does work, and probably because many people can't believe a mother or father would kill their own child. I think this was summed up best in the book I'd just finished on the Anthony case.

- source: Imperfect Justice by Jeff Ashton

This, imo, completely explains why the IDI theorists have trouble thinking the Ramsey's had anything to do with JBR's death. And I do totally agree here it's a messed up world we live in, where stuff like this happens to innocent children. It's messed up that a parent could do this. But if any parent can do this, then it's possible, and so we can't just exclude people by saying 'there's no way' when history has (sadly) proven us wrong. A lot of parents have harmed, abused, and killed their own children. It's awful, but that's life. It happens and we have to take it's occurrence into consideration, and we have to realize that it's actually more likely a family member will kill a child than a stranger.

Considering how many people blame the parents when a child goes missing or is killed, I find it hard to believe that people can't believe that a family member would kill their child. I don't think the Ramseys had many supporters back in the late 90's and it took years of positive PR, being told that the Ramseys were cleared, etc for that to change a bit. Most of the media in recent years acts like it's open-and-shut, the Ramseys were accused by the media, but an intruder did it, lives ruined, police did bad job, etc. I see cases all the time where the child is missing, the parent has no history of abuse, and most people think the parents did it. I definitely don't believe that most people think that a stranger is involved in cases unless LE is extremely adamant about it.

 

[andreww]

You say there is nothing unusual here despite the fact that no one in the history of the planet has ever done such a thing – faked a kidnapping to explain a body in the house.

Every person who has claimed a kidnapping did so because they had to explain one thing – why a body was NOT in the house. The exact opposite thing that the Ramseys had to explain.

What else could the Ramseys say happened? Accidents happen. A killer comes into your home – it happens; kidnappings with the body still in the house, don’t.

Many RDI think that this started off as an accident (this is almost certainly wrong as the evidence strongly suggests that the head blow was intentional), so, it would only make sense that an accident is all the Ramseys would have to report. Exaggerate, tell a lie if necessary, call a lawyer; take your chances.
…

AK

First, I'm not sure many RDIs think it was an accident. You are confusing the fact that most of us don't think that whoever did it was intentionally trying to kill her. Big difference there. But make know mistake, whoever hit here meant to hit her. Probably not as hard as the did, but the meant it.

As far as the ransom note goes, we've been over this a million times haven't we? It seems that this is a common strategy, or a variation of a common strategy to explain why a child is no longer their. "We were carjacked and they took her", "someone took her from her bed" or "I turned around and she was gone" all use a similar explanation, that a stranger took the child. This crime is no different. Because the crime happened so late at night, the options are limited. The question becomes "Do or don't I remove her from the house?". This is where the Ramseys were actually smart, keeping the crime scene in their house where their DNA and forensic evidence could be explained. But having the child found dead in the house probably wouldn't have gotten them far. LE's eyes would have solely focused on the family and they would have had some immediate explaining to do. I've said it many times, the ransom note allowed the Ramseys to get LE in to their house and established themselves as victims and not suspects. The were able to relate their stories in a non-interrogative atmosphere. It also allowed them to walk away from the house as shattered victims rather than face questions. But the original purpose of the note is to get police to the house and to establish themselves as victims.

The next question is what was their plan for dealing with the body? My feeling is that they had wanted police to find it all along. Others feel they may have planned to dispose of the body at a later time, but I feel that if they were planning to dispose of it, the time to do it was before calling police. Disposing of the body after the fact would have entailed the same risks as doing it previous to calling LE, but with the additional risk that the Ramsey's would have been under surveillance. Also, why bother with bindings and duct tape if you are going to dump her in a creek?

So AK, as with every other murder of a child by a parent, the story is essentially the same. "Someone took her". Only difference is they put it in a note this time.

 

[Annapurna]

Its right in the note! The R's were concerned with a proper burial.

PR put on such a show at the funeral. The little one laid out like a princess, a christmas angel, in her white dress and crown (She Bears The Crown). P in her Jackie Kennedy veil being held by her friends. BR touching the coffin like Caroline.

The Rs did not know that having the body in the house would make them look guilty. They did not study crimes the way we do. The idea that just because Mindhunter was in the house so they would know that looks incriminating is silly.

Their desire to have her body for burial, not decomposed or ravaged by nature & wild animals was far greater than any niggling concern about making the kidnapping look more convincing. I don't believe they ever intended to dispose of her.

This did have the additional effect of making the trace evidence less incriminating and giving them more control of the scene. The note "explained" her body." Look at all those threats!" they say "99% chance she dies" "you talk to a stray dog, she dies" etc.

It would be far more incriminating to have the body without the note. The note allowed them to stick to their story of knowing nothing. They wouldn't have to answer questions about how they knew she was gone.

Regardless of the unconvincing window there was nothing else to suggest someone got in the house from outside. Sure, they could "tie" her up and hide her and all that, but they would have been treated as suspects, not victims. The victim advocates cleaned the kitchen for christ's sake. I think they expected the body to be found quicker than it was.

 

[andreww]

Its right in the note! The R's were concerned with a proper burial.

Funny how those words kept coming up.

The Rs did not know that having the body in the house would make them look guilty. They did not study crimes the way we do. The idea that just because Mindhunter was in the house so they would know that looks incriminating is silly.

The Ramsey's had a lot of dumb luck for sure. But they knew that if there was no evidence to point directly at one of them, LE would not be able to solve the case without the cooperation of the other two. That wasn't going to happen, so the case was probably unsolvable from the get go.

The Rs did not know that having the body in the house would make them look guilty. They did not study crimes the way we do. The idea that just because Mindhunter was in the house so they would know that looks incriminating is silly.

I'm pretty sure the Mindhunter thing is a myth. I don't think an actual copy was found in the house.

It would be far more incriminating to have the body without the note. The note allowed them to stick to their story of knowing nothing. They wouldn't have to answer questions about how they knew she was gone.

I can not stress enough how important the note was and how it did exactly what it was supposed to do.

It would be far more incriminating to have the body without the note. The note allowed them to stick to their story of knowing nothing. They wouldn't have to answer questions about how they knew she was gone.

I am convinced at this point that the Ramseys were never going to answer questions. I believe that it is quite likely that the Ramseys were receiving legal advice long before the body was found.

 

[Annapurna]

I've never seen any proof about them owning Mindhunter either. I've asked for it. I began a full rebuttal for the post in which this and other "facts" were asserted, but honestly I think it might be wasted effort.


“You can sway a thousand men by appealing to their prejudices quicker than you can convince one man by logic.”


If nothing else the note creates reasonable doubt (only need to convince 1 of 12!). So regardless of trying to assert that "occam's razor" says the R's would not write the note because its incriminating, it was not as incriminating as all the other evidence without the note. Occam's razor (getting sick of this phrase tbh) would assert that an intruder would not want to leave a note. Especially if, as some think, this intruder was trying to somehow frame the parents. The note did its job.

 

[questfortrue]

I've never seen any proof about them owning Mindhunter either. I've asked for it. I began a full rebuttal for the post in which this and other "facts" were asserted, but honestly I think it might be wasted effort.


“You can sway a thousand men by appealing to their prejudices quicker than you can convince one man by logic.”


If nothing else the note creates reasonable doubt (only need to convince 1 of 12!). So regardless of trying to assert that "occam's razor" says the R's would not write the note because its incriminating, it was not as incriminating as all the other evidence without the note. Occam's razor (getting sick of this phrase tbh) would assert that an intruder would not want to leave a note. Especially if, as some think, this intruder was trying to somehow frame the parents. The note did its job.

None of the information we have is first hand. It is simply in books and Internet sources deemed reliable. (The book with the most errors, imo, is PMPT, which was written by someone who seemed to be writing more of a “crime tome” and who was not always thorough in evaluating some of the sources of information.) Anyway, the book Mindhunter was said to be on the nightstand of JR. This information was in IRMI and attributed to Sgt. Wickman. Wickman was highly regarded within the force and was assigned to manage evidence collection and to be the liaison between the GJ, the prosecutor and the BPD. He sat in on GJ proceedings every day. JR denied owning the book. So, as with much of the elements of the case, one chooses who to believe.

 

[Annapurna]

None of the information we have is first hand. It is simply in books and Internet sources deemed reliable. (The book with the most errors, imo, is PMPT, which was written by someone who seemed to be writing more of a “crime tome” and who was not always thorough in evaluating some of the sources of information.) Anyway, the book Mindhunter was said to be on the nightstand of JR. This information was in IRMI and attributed to Sgt. Wickman. Wickman was highly regarded within the force and was assigned to manage evidence collection and to be the liaison between the GJ, the prosecutor and the BPD. He sat in on GJ proceedings every day. JR denied owning the book. So, as with much of the elements of the case, one chooses who to believe.

Thanks for that information. I agree that PMPT is more concerned with the story than the facts. I haven't read Thomas's book yet do I can't evaluate the validity of the claims, but to be completely honest I take some of it with a grain of salt. Thomas was a good detective, but a vice detective and he didn't work on the case after a while. Do you or does anyone know if the book titles are listed in the search warrants? I'll check later tonight and get back to you all. Regardless of whether or not they owned this book I think it likely had little influence on the way the crime was carried out. I think that the R's awareness of forensics was probably enhanced by true crime books and the OJ trial's popularity and ubiquitousness. You could extend that logic to say that is why some things about the scene are as they are. Since they knew a little bit about how LE worked they knew what bases to cover.

 

[Anti-K]

Then this also has to be the first time in the history of the world that a faux kidnapper left a ransom note for....what exactly? To buy time? Seems like the risk far outweighs that reward. Why not try to collect the ransom? The "kidnapper" wrote that 2.5 page long note by hand, leaving evidence against them. This note took time to write. You're going to say that the intruder could have stolen the pad and marker before hand but thats a ridiculous excuse.


The Ramsey's didn't realize how bad it would look to have a RN and a body. They are not expert criminals, they are people trying to avoid punishment by changing the initial narrative presented to LE. By presenting the note instead of a body, they were not immediately arrested.

Again, this all worked, they weren't even brought to trial. So maybe its not so stupid after all. Casey Anthony got away with it too.

For the time being I’m going to stick to my “theory” of intent; so, that’s the reason I’m proposing for both note and body *crime staged for profilers; note alerts profilers and preserves crime scene for them).

No, I’m not going to say that “the intruder could have stolen the pad and marker before hand.” Other IDI have said that (some think the pen was his to begin with). However, I will say that he pretty much knew, well in advance, what he was going to write once in the house.
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

I get what you're saying, but this wasn't their intent. They called the cops to report a kidnapping, and a missing child. They did have a body in the house, but that was held back from the cops for about seven hours. Then they (if RDI) feigned ignorance over this body and why it was there. I think John 'found' the body as a last resort, knowing that he was the one searching and if the cops did their own final sweep they'd easily find the poor child - and then say John was intentionally hiding it, which makes him look very guilty.

So, then, your judgment on this part of the case would make a lot more sense if PR had called 911 and said they have a note and they found their daughter's dead body. In this case, perhaps, they would have strayed from the usual plan. But they didn't do this. Patsy called and reported a missing child and a ransom note, and did not mention a body at all. The idea was not to mention it, and to dispose of it at some other point in time. The repeated house searches and constant police presence foiled this plan, thankfully, or we'd have an even bigger fiasco to work through when analyzing this case.

I know we all disagree on certain things (some huge!) and will never agree about certain things, but I’m really hoping that we can all disagree nicely and maybe even learn a little bit from our disagreements. I’ve paid a lot of attention to other theories and I like to think that I have a pretty good understanding of most of them. Your idea that she planned to get rid of the body after she called 911 is a minority opinion amongst your cohorts.

My “judgment on this part of the case” is that a kidnapping doesn’t explain a dead body in the house and that is why no one in history has ever done such a thing and that is why no one would (well, maybe nowww. ) ever consider such a thing.
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

You're right. It does work, and probably because many people can't believe a mother or father would kill their own child. I think this was summed up best in the book I'd just finished on the Anthony case.

- source: Imperfect Justice by Jeff Ashton

This, imo, completely explains why the IDI theorists have trouble thinking the Ramsey's had anything to do with JBR's death. And I do totally agree here it's a messed up world we live in, where stuff like this happens to innocent children. It's messed up that a parent could do this. But if any parent can do this, then it's possible, and so we can't just exclude people by saying 'there's no way' when history has (sadly) proven us wrong. A lot of parents have harmed, abused, and killed their own children. It's awful, but that's life. It happens and we have to take it's occurrence into consideration, and we have to realize that it's actually more likely a family member will kill a child than a stranger.

We have trouble thinking the Ramseys had anything to do with the death because we think the case against them is very weak and that the exculpatory doubt is more then sufficient for reasonable doubt and we acknowledge that there is unsourced evidence of the exact kind that an unknown person could leave and that it is in the exact places where he would leave them.

We all know no one is excluded from suspicion simply because they are a parent. We also know that investigation showed them to be loving, caring parents. They could’ve still been bad parents, too. But, extremely bad things were done to the victim and the evidence does not support the claim that these parents were this bad.
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

First, I'm not sure many RDIs think it was an accident. You are confusing the fact that most of us don't think that whoever did it was intentionally trying to kill her. Big difference there. But make know mistake, whoever hit here meant to hit her. Probably not as hard as the did, but the meant it.

As far as the ransom note goes, we've been over this a million times haven't we? It seems that this is a common strategy, or a variation of a common strategy to explain why a child is no longer their. "We were carjacked and they took her", "someone took her from her bed" or "I turned around and she was gone" all use a similar explanation, that a stranger took the child. This crime is no different. Because the crime happened so late at night, the options are limited. The question becomes "Do or don't I remove her from the house?". This is where the Ramseys were actually smart, keeping the crime scene in their house where their DNA and forensic evidence could be explained. But having the child found dead in the house probably wouldn't have gotten them far. LE's eyes would have solely focused on the family and they would have had some immediate explaining to do. I've said it many times, the ransom note allowed the Ramseys to get LE in to their house and established themselves as victims and not suspects. The were able to relate their stories in a non-interrogative atmosphere. It also allowed them to walk away from the house as shattered victims rather than face questions. But the original purpose of the note is to get police to the house and to establish themselves as victims.

The next question is what was their plan for dealing with the body? My feeling is that they had wanted police to find it all along. Others feel they may have planned to dispose of the body at a later time, but I feel that if they were planning to dispose of it, the time to do it was before calling police. Disposing of the body after the fact would have entailed the same risks as doing it previous to calling LE, but with the additional risk that the Ramsey's would have been under surveillance. Also, why bother with bindings and duct tape if you are going to dump her in a creek?

So AK, as with every other murder of a child by a parent, the story is essentially the same. "Someone took her". Only difference is they put it in a note this time.

Yes, I know, some of you think that there was an intentional blow, but the force was more than intended and the consequence unintended. I’m calling that an accident.
.

Yes, for a million times, the “common strategy” you describe is used to “explain why a child is no longer their [sic].” The opposite of what the Ramseys would have needed to explain.
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Its right in the note! The R's were concerned with a proper burial.

PR put on such a show at the funeral. The little one laid out like a princess, a christmas angel, in her white dress and crown (She Bears The Crown). P in her Jackie Kennedy veil being held by her friends. BR touching the coffin like Caroline.

The Rs did not know that having the body in the house would make them look guilty. They did not study crimes the way we do. The idea that just because Mindhunter was in the house so they would know that looks incriminating is silly.

Their desire to have her body for burial, not decomposed or ravaged by nature & wild animals was far greater than any niggling concern about making the kidnapping look more convincing. I don't believe they ever intended to dispose of her.

This did have the additional effect of making the trace evidence less incriminating and giving them more control of the scene. The note "explained" her body." Look at all those threats!" they say "99% chance she dies" "you talk to a stray dog, she dies" etc.

It would be far more incriminating to have the body without the note. The note allowed them to stick to their story of knowing nothing. They wouldn't have to answer questions about how they knew she was gone.

Regardless of the unconvincing window there was nothing else to suggest someone got in the house from outside. Sure, they could "tie" her up and hide her and all that, but they would have been treated as suspects, not victims. The victim advocates cleaned the kitchen for christ's sake. I think they expected the body to be found quicker than it was.

I don’t think Mindhunter was in the house.

My “theory” of intent proposes that the killer had Mindhunter, and that he used it as a sort of guide for planning the crime scene that he was going to create.

They could have lied about an accident and avoided calling the police the police, and avoided creating self-incriminating evidence. Or, without a note, they could have said they heard an intruder, or saw an intruder, or fought an intruder; found their daughter dead in her bed, or on the first floor, sexually assaulted and dead. Etc.

They needed to explain a dead body in the house, kidnappings don’t do that. Doing so contradicts what they needed to do. Because of this, the note and the body add a layer of complexity to RDI that completely vanishes with IDI. For example, in a genuine kidnapping scenario the body is in the house simply because the kidnapper had nowhere else to take her. My “theory” vanishes it by saying that the body was what he wanted profilers to see, and he used the note to bring them to it and to preserve it (this part failed on account of, you know, keystone kops). In a sexually motivated scenario, the body is in the house because he had nowhere else to take her and the note is misdirection from the sexual motivation. Etc
…

AK

 

[Ellie9]

I know we all disagree on certain things (some huge!) and will never agree about certain things, but I’m really hoping that we can all disagree nicely and maybe even learn a little bit from our disagreements.

Literally I have no idea what in my post bothered you. I was just disagreeing with one part of the case.

My “judgment on this part of the case” is that a kidnapping doesn’t explain a dead body in the house

There is no other way to point the blame at anyone else if there's a dead child. A ransom note has the big advantage of being able to construct a narrative, a fiction. As Andreww said earlier it also allows the R's to be the 'victims' straight away. It gives them the upper hand and helped them run the show a bit in the beginning.

I'm not sure what they were planning. Maybe the others are right and they never intended to get rid of the body. But that doesn't mean that a ransom note isn't just about the only way to create a fiction for LE - to create some alternative explanation. Mainly, that this was a kidnapping gone wrong. It happened before, with the Lindbergh baby.

 

[Anti-K]

Literally I have no idea what in my post bothered you. I was just disagreeing with one part of the case.



There is no other way to point the blame at anyone else if there's a dead child. A ransom note has the big advantage of being able to construct a narrative, a fiction. As Andreww said earlier it also allows the R's to be the 'victims' straight away. It gives them the upper hand and helped them run the show a bit in the beginning.

I'm not sure what they were planning. Maybe the others are right and they never intended to get rid of the body. But that doesn't mean that a ransom note isn't just about the only way to create a fiction for LE - to create some alternative explanation. Mainly, that this was a kidnapping gone wrong. It happened before, with the Lindbergh baby. [/COLOR]

Nothing bothered me. But, I know I’ve upset you in the past and I’m just trying to find ways to avoid that happening again. I know that this particular issue is contentious.
.
They wouldn’t have to point the blame at anyone else if they lied about an accident.
.

People do stage break-ins and assaults and murders when they have a body that needs explaining and an accident just won’t do. And, they do so without creating ransom notes and reporting kidnappings.

To say that they needed a narrative or that they needed to appear victims, etc is mere opinion. To say that they wanted to blame this on someone else and then used the paintbrush, breaking it and putting an end in the paint tote so that the murder weapon is connected to the house, using the note pad and leaving the so-called practice note so that the ransom note is connected to the house, saying the doors were locked, etc doesn’t exactly look like they were trying to point at anyone else. If RDI, it looks like they were trying to point at themselves!
…

AK