Who Killed Jon Benet Ramsey? Poll

[InstantProof]

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.



AK

With all the facts, you believe an intruder killed her and left her in the cellar, which is what the R's wanted police to believe, so this does actually work out, no?

 

[InstantProof]

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

In all the high profile cases of parents that killed their child/children that I've heard about I can't think of one where the parent was said to be a bad parent prior. People snap.

 

[andreww]

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

You forgot to say that we know the Grand Jury chose to indict the Ramsey's for not ensuring the safety of their child.

You forgot to say that the Ramsey's were oblivious to the ongoing sexual assaults on their daughter.

Let's not pull that "parents of the year" crap okay?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

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

For the millionth time, the note doesn't have to get her out of the house, just out of her bed and room. The premise is that she gets unruly and is killed while being removed from the home. I know you are not too thick to understand that, are you just being stubborn?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

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

Well the note worked pretty damned well didn't it? Despite your protests it accomplished exactly what it intended, so your argument has already been proved wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

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

Who was the first person they pointed a finger at? LHP? And she had a key right? So why would they need a forced entry?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[InstantProof]

Who was the first person they pointed a finger at? LHP? And she had a key right? So why would they need a forced entry?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In the Lindbergh kidnapping the housekeeper was a suspect in aiding the kidnappers, who were suspected to be foreign and have inside information. That's the directions the Ramsey's letter points. And note the Hoffman/Hauptmann coincidence.

From Wikipedia;
In June 1932, officials began to suspect an "inside job" perpetrated by someone the Lindberghs trusted. Suspicions fell upon Violet Sharp, a British household servant at the Morrow home.

the main story;
The kidnapping of Charles Augustus Lindbergh, Jr., the eldest son of aviator Charles Lindbergh and Anne Morrow Lindbergh, was one of the most highly publicized crimes of the 20th century. The 20-month-old toddler was abducted from his family home, Highfields, in East Amwell, New Jersey, on the evening of March 1, 1932.[2] Over two months later, on May 12, 1932, his body was discovered a short distance from the Lindberghs' home in neighboring Hopewell Township.[3] A medical examination determined that the cause of death was a massive skull fracture.[4]

After an investigation that lasted more than two years, Richard Hauptmann was arrested and charged with the crime. In a trial that was held from January 2 to February 13, 1935, Hauptmann was found guilty of murder in the first degree and sentenced to death. He was executed by electric chair at the New Jersey State Prison on April 3, 1936. Hauptmann proclaimed his innocence to the end, and many historians question his guilt.[5]

Newspaper writer H. L. Mencken called the kidnapping and subsequent trial "the biggest story since the Resurrection."[6][7] The crime spurred Congress to pass the Federal Kidnapping Act, commonly called the "Lindbergh Law," which made transporting a kidnapping victim across state lines a federal crime.[8]

the ransom note;

Dear Sir!

Have 50.000$ redy [sic] 25 000$ in
20$ bills 15000$ in 10$ bills and
10000$ in 5$ bills After 2–4 days
we will inform you were [sic] to deliver
the money.

We warn you for making
anyding [sic] public or for notify the Police
The child is in gut [sic] care.
Indication for all letters are
Singnature [sic] [Symbol to right]
and 3 hohls. [sic][9]


also spotted this;
1996: The Lindbergh kidnapping was the subject of a 1996 Golden Globe- and Emmy-nominated HBO TV movie titled Crime of the Century

 

[andreww]

In the Lindbergh kidnapping the housekeeper was a suspect in aiding the kidnappers, who were suspected to be foreign and have inside information. That's the directions the Ramsey's letter points. And note the Hoffman/Hauptmann coincidence.

From Wikipedia;
In June 1932, officials began to suspect an "inside job" perpetrated by someone the Lindberghs trusted. Suspicions fell upon Violet Sharp, a British household servant at the Morrow home.

the main story;
The kidnapping of Charles Augustus Lindbergh, Jr., the eldest son of aviator Charles Lindbergh and Anne Morrow Lindbergh, was one of the most highly publicized crimes of the 20th century. The 20-month-old toddler was abducted from his family home, Highfields, in East Amwell, New Jersey, on the evening of March 1, 1932.[2] Over two months later, on May 12, 1932, his body was discovered a short distance from the Lindberghs' home in neighboring Hopewell Township.[3] A medical examination determined that the cause of death was a massive skull fracture.[4]

After an investigation that lasted more than two years, Richard Hauptmann was arrested and charged with the crime. In a trial that was held from January 2 to February 13, 1935, Hauptmann was found guilty of murder in the first degree and sentenced to death. He was executed by electric chair at the New Jersey State Prison on April 3, 1936. Hauptmann proclaimed his innocence to the end, and many historians question his guilt.[5]

Newspaper writer H. L. Mencken called the kidnapping and subsequent trial "the biggest story since the Resurrection."[6][7] The crime spurred Congress to pass the Federal Kidnapping Act, commonly called the "Lindbergh Law," which made transporting a kidnapping victim across state lines a federal crime.[8]

the ransom note;

Dear Sir!

Have 50.000$ redy [sic] 25 000$ in
20$ bills 15000$ in 10$ bills and
10000$ in 5$ bills After 2–4 days
we will inform you were [sic] to deliver
the money.

We warn you for making
anyding [sic] public or for notify the Police
The child is in gut [sic] care.
Indication for all letters are
Singnature [sic] [Symbol to right]
and 3 hohls. [sic][9]


also spotted this;
1996: The Lindbergh kidnapping was the subject of a 1996 Golden Globe- and Emmy-nominated HBO TV movie titled Crime of the Century

John, being an aviation buff would undoubtedly know all about Charles Lindbergh.

 

[Ellie9]

John, being an aviation buff would undoubtedly know all about Charles Lindbergh.

Yeah I see a lot of connections here! For the record I think the Lindbergh baby actually was a botched real life kidnapping by an outsider. But, it made sense in that case. That man was super famous, a household name! There was real evidence pointing to an outsider. A specific man even.

I just think that this case was used by the Ramsey's as inspiration during their staging. Great find on the movie playing that year and connecting John's aviation enthusiasm to famous aviator Lindbergh. Thanks Andrew and instant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[THE BUNK]

John, being an aviation buff would undoubtedly know all about Charles Lindbergh.

And 1997 being the infancy of the internet, such information isn't as readily available as it would be know. You would have to be really acquainted with the case or own a book on it to get details like that.

 

[Anti-K]

With all the facts, you believe an intruder killed her and left her in the cellar, which is what the R's wanted police to believe, so this does actually work out, no?

According to the ransom note and the 911 call, if RDI, the Ramseys wanted the police to believe the opposite of what you say, they wanted the police to believe that their daughter had been kidnapped, iows, not in the house.

However, since the FBI and you think RDI, I guess “my” intruder’s plan worked.

But, seriously, if RDI, the Ramseys wanted the police to believe the opposite of what you say, they wanted the police to believe that their daughter had been kidnapped, iows, not in the house.
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

In all the high profile cases of parents that killed their child/children that I've heard about I can't think of one where the parent was said to be a bad parent prior. People snap.

Yes, but after they snap, things are always found out. At first, people often say, omg, I can’t believe it, they’d be the last person I’d suspect; but, later, after a while, the story changes…
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

You forgot to say that we know the Grand Jury chose to indict the Ramsey's for not ensuring the safety of their child.

You forgot to say that the Ramsey's were oblivious to the ongoing sexual assaults on their daughter.

Let's not pull that "parents of the year" crap okay?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I quote myself, “They could’ve still been bad parents, too.” That doesn’t sound like "parents of the year" to me.
…

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Who was the first person they pointed a finger at? LHP? And she had a key right? So why would they need a forced entry?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would have to review what is known about the circumstances n which LHP’s name was first brought up, and exactly what was said about her before commenting on this.

I’m skeptical about the claim that, if RDI, the Ramseys intended to pin things on her, or anyone else that they knew would only end up being quickly and easily cleared. I think, if RDI, the Ramseys would have been more likely to want to point as far away from the house and themselves as possible, you know, over there… somewhere… no, no, a little further away, more more more…
…

AK

 

[Annapurna]

The kidnapping plan does not become invalidated by the body in the house. They did not want to get rid of her body. They did not consider how that is illogical, and yes it is. But this isn't a logical crime.

Things don't always come out about behavior. I think there is a lot of "memory editing" in many crime cases (especially if they're being interviewed by 48hrs. for example) where people see things through the filter of the crime, 20/20 hindsight etc. This is not good logic for excusing the parents.

I don't think they were the worst parents ever. I think they did love their kids but were maybe damaged people. An environment of dysfunction can produce disastrous circumstances. The Paugh family shows evidence of being what is known as an "enmeshed" family. This can lead to some emotional problems and relationship issues further down the line. Maybe, for example, and inability to express anger in a healthy way. This does not make them bad people. Maybe not even people who are usually capable of violence...but sometimes it only takes one moment to cause something irreversible.

Narcissistic parents can have extremely toxic relationships with their children, and enmeshment frequently goes along with a family that has one or more N. parents. These traits can be passed on, or normalized to the next generation. I don't think I'm going too far out to say that P may have exhibited some N. traits, as I recognize in her mother Nedra as well.

I recommend anyone interested in the family dynamics look into narcissistic parents.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...c-parents-psychological-effect-their-children

Here are a couple relevant quotes:

"Young children of narcissists learn early in life that everything they do is a reflection on the parent to the point that the child must fit into the personality and behavioral mold intended for them. These children bear tremendous anxiety from a young age as they must continually push aside their own personality in order to please the parent and provide the mirror image the parent so desperately needs."


" Once the child or adult child of the narcissist starts to... distance himself a bit from the parent, the narcissistic parent experiences a sort of existential panic "

"Narcissistic parenting often leads to children being either victimized or bullying themselves, hypersexual in nature (media driven), having a poor or overly inflated body image,.... or acting out (in a potentially harmful manner) for attention. (wikipedia)"

 

[InstantProof]

According to the ransom note and the 911 call, if RDI, the Ramseys wanted the police to believe the opposite of what you say, they wanted the police to believe that their daughter had been kidnapped, iows, not in the house.


AK

The kidnapper killed her accidentally or intentionally, hid her right under their nose, and would have called about collecting ransom "between 8 and 10" if the police didn't show up, is probably what they were going for. Someone familiar with the Lindbergh kidnapping would think it was logical. And to tell you the truth it's starting to make sense to me finally.

 

[Fides]

AK - please forgive my quote patching:

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.

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 - I agree with much of the above. The parents were loving and caring. The consequence of the blow was accidental. The purpose of the fake kidnapping note was not to explain the absence of a child, because, as you observe, the child never left.

But, seriously, if RDI, the Ramseys wanted the police to believe the opposite of what you say, they wanted the police to believe that their daughter had been kidnapped, iows, not in the house.

Here I disagree. I believe the sole purpose of the note was to provide an explanation for the condition of the body in the basement.

Many have proposed that the parent(s) acted to cover up the head blow. In that case, I agree that the ransom note and strangulation staging would be ridiculous. And evil. But what if a parent intervened only after the first attempt at a cover-up (the neck ligature) was complete? What if that parent discovered a scene involving her children that was so terrible she believed she had to 1) explain everything and 2) pretend she knew nothing? Let’s agree that since she was also a loving parent she would never throw away the body of her beloved child.

I propose that parent might decide to write a letter that fakes a failed kidnapping. A letter that mentions beheading, that implies terrorism, that is filled with death threats directed at her now dead daughter. And she might not worry too much about what pen she uses or about saving herself from prosecution, because she knows she has not harmed anyone. She is just trying to save her only remaining child from an unknown fate. Although she knows his motives were not evil, there is a very good chance that other people won't see it that way.

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!

The author of the ransom note did not use a paintbrush from her tote, or create a "garrote" that looks like a Boy Scout Merit Badge project. Those things were already done, and that was the problem. She had to create instant fictional distance between the condition of the body, the members of her family, and the items in her home. Plus, she is not operating as a criminal mastermind here. She is just trying to create a backstory that might fly. It might not, but she herself has not harmed anyone, so she does not feel she is at risk. There is courage and perhaps a little extra recklessness that flows from that fact. And as a former beauty queen, she is at heart something of a performance artist.

The guy who told police that the doors were locked was just telling the truth as he knew it at the time. He quickly understood the situation, joined his wife, and started to tell some of the tales that still confuse us, though his are couched in legalese. I suspect that is why he continues his presence on television - to keep that confusion alive. As far as I can tell, those methods are still working. Because the statute of limitations has run out on any possible charges, I suspect they always will.

 

[TeaTime]

JBR's body wasn't visible when FW searched the basement right after arriving at the R home. JR went to the basement, alone, right after 10am. The body was visible from the door of the wine cellar after 1:00pm when both FW and JR searched the basement. Please.

The ransom note. Please.

To insist on the basement window as a means of entry or exit suspends the laws of natural science. The spiders can't lie. Please.

All the doors were locked. There was no forced entry or lockpicking. There were no footprints in the snow. The body was covered in and the garotte entwined with fibers from PR and JR's clothes. Please.

The parents wouldn't talk to LE for 4 months. Please. They knew everything that happened and weren't going to take a chance of slipping up under grueling interrogations.

I do not believe PR had a split personality, or that either parent had any mental illness or problems with rage, booze, pills, drugs. I do not believe this was a sex game or that JBR was intentionally killed, however, in their minds it became necessary to stop her suffering after the head blow to cover up the truth and hence, the elaborate mess of cording, the additional sexual injury, the dramatic RN and the hidden basement scene.

The first officers on the scene opined that something was not right about the whole situation, Arndt figured it out and knows what happened. FW has a pretty good idea of what happened too. He was there in the aftermath and nothing added up. The DA's investigator, Smit, who came out of retirement to 'investigate' did nothing but look for reasonable doubt and had to suspend both logic and science to create it. No other officer who had anything to do with the case agrees with him.

 

[Cranberry]

I would have to review what is known about the circumstances n which LHP’s name was first brought up, and exactly what was said about her before commenting on this.

I’m skeptical about the claim that, if RDI, the Ramseys intended to pin things on her, or anyone else that they knew would only end up being quickly and easily cleared. I think, if RDI, the Ramseys would have been more likely to want to point as far away from the house and themselves as possible, you know, over there… somewhere… no, no, a little further away, more more more…
…

AK

PR interview 4/97 re LHP, the ransom note handwriting and initially right away a lot of talking about her:

PR: . . .off the living room and trying to calm us down or something and uh, I think, I think John uh, by that time read and, that they wanted money or something and, and uh, he, I think he had called uh, Rod Westmoreland, our friend and our stock broker in Atlanta.
TT: Um hum.
PR: To see about getting that money together and uh, and I think two other, two ladies came that were social workers or something, came and uh, Linda Arndt came and some more policemen. Uh, and, oh, there uh, something in the note about they were going to call. I think it said they were going to call sometime in the morning. And Linda Arndt and some of the policemen were, they were going to set up uh, tape recording or something up in the TV room, phone back there. And they were, I think they were busy doing that and Father Rol came over and uh, praying that she would be all right and uh, uh I think initially right away we, we thought that um the cleaning lady was somehow was, you know, John mentioned that I had told him about that she had called and wanted that money and all that . . .
TT: Um hum.
PR: . . .and uh, I think I kind of looked at the writing and thought maybe it might have looked a little like hers or some, I don’t know, but I think they were rushing around and trying to find out where she lived and . . .
TT: Um hum.
PR: . . .uh, you know, there was a lot of talking about her and her, everybody, her family or something. And uh, and . . .
TT: Patsy, let me back you up just a little bit. Um, actually to the, to the very beginning of the morning. You and John woke up. (Inaudible) Did you have an alarm clock set or anything?
PR: Uh, I think he had it set, but I don’t think it went off. I think we woke up about, you know, I don’t remember it going off or anything.
TT: Okay.
PR: I think he just maybe might of, I don’t know how you can turn it off.
TT: Okay. So, John’s alarm I set.

 

[andreww]

According to the ransom note and the 911 call, if RDI, the Ramseys wanted the police to believe the opposite of what you say, they wanted the police to believe that their daughter had been kidnapped, iows, not in the house.

However, since the FBI and you think RDI, I guess “my” intruder’s plan worked.

But, seriously, if RDI, the Ramseys wanted the police to believe the opposite of what you say, they wanted the police to believe that their daughter had been kidnapped, iows, not in the house.
…

AK

For a smart guy you play dumb very well.

It's very frustrating that you ignore simple explanations over and over again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk