Would the Ramseys have left the house if JonBenet was never found?

[Smelly Squirrel]

I have always labled the ransom "letter" as a blueprint in order to show the reason to cops why there would be a dead JonBenet in the basement.

A ransom note would indicate the body is not there. It would indicate that the person is somewhere else.

Leaving after the body is found made sense, they could appear to be so heartbroken, so scared, so anxious that it would seem getting away from the house, the neighborhood, the entire town of Boulder would seem like something distraught parents of a murdered child would do.

Yeah, it makes sense if they didn't do it.

 

[Roy23]

A ransom note would indicate the body is not there. It would indicate that the person is somewhere else.



Yeah, it makes sense if they didn't do it.

I agree.

 

[BBB167893]

I agree.

Depending on how you look at it, it makes sense either way, you guys.

 

[BBB167893]

A ransom note would indicate the body is not there. It would indicate that the person is somewhere else.

I don't think you quite understand what azwriter is saying, Squirrel. The ransom note provides a reason for finding JB dead: the instructions in the note were very clear, unmistakably so. "Don't do s**t, or she dies." They violated the instructions, and she's dead.

It's not a big leap of imagination!

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

I don't think you quite understand what azwriter is saying, Squirrel. The ransom note provides a reason for finding JB dead: the instructions in the note were very clear, unmistakably so. "Don't do s**t, or she dies." They violated the instructions, and she's dead.

Nope, the note gives a reason for finding JB dead OUTSIDE THE HOME.

 

[BBB167893]

As a volunteer Emt, I have seen the way parents react to a Childs death, believe me it varies, but most fall on their child, or hold their child in some way, a lot of times they seem to try and drag them out of harms way. It's still their child the fact that they are dead doesn't seem to matter at the time. Unless a parents acts like Casey Anthony after their child is dead, I don't judge, did I judge Casey? Damn straight!

Hmm. I am curious, Junebug. Maybe you could help me with something. I have noticed that many IDIs are only too happy to forget their own statements when it comes to Casey Anthony. For years, IDIs have told us that:

1) You can't judge a person's behavior or reaction to their child's death;

2) And that only people with proven histories of violence, abuse and other criminals acts are capable of killing their children.

I've heard these assertions expressed by IDI as far back as I can remember (indeed, I was once a very big proponent of them!), including and especially from people who should know better.

Thus, my curiosity (and the wringer I unjustly put Roy23 through--and I apologize for that), stems from the idea that the jury in the Casey Anthony trial applied those very same precepts that IDI would have us believe puts the Ramseys above suspicion (to the point where SOME IDIs have complained that only a fool would consider the Ramseys suspects to begin with).

How do you reconcile those two divergent approaches?

Speaking as an RDI myself, it's not difficult for me at all to suspect the two equally. I will explain why, if you express an interest.

 

[BBB167893]

Nope, the note gives a reason for finding JB dead OUTSIDE THE HOME.

Try looking at it a different way, Squirrel.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

You mean, look at it illogically? No thanks.

If they, as killers, wanted to explain the dead body in the home, all they had to was stage a break-in. The end. A ransom note would only confuse matters (as indeed it has).

Notice also that there is no obvious entry point. So RDI says they staged a note, but didn't think to stage an entry.

 

[Whaleshark]

You mean, look at it illogically? No thanks.

If they, as killers, wanted to explain the dead body in the home, all they had to was stage a break-in. The end. A ransom note would only confuse matters (as indeed it has).

Notice also that there is no obvious entry point. So RDI says they staged a note, but didn't think to stage an entry.

He did try to stage an entry - with Lou Smit's help - the broken window in the basement theory. There's a whole discussion where John Ramsey thinks the 'intruder' was clever enough to put back a chair blocking the train room in which he says the intruder probably came in and out of - his own contradicted statements with him breaking the window, then not being the one to break it, then Lou Smit saying it was the intruder who used the window and suitcase to get in and out....

Whether an intruder wrote the note or not - JBR is still in the house. So, the argument used to say the note would explain why she is not there - doesn't hold water -she should not be left there whether the Ramseys OR an intruder did it, if there is a note.....


Even with JBR left in the house, Patsy Ramsey said it still looked like a kidnapping to her - even when confronted with the fact that the FBI said it was not that and asked her what she thought of it. She said that since there was a note that it looked like a kidnapping to her - not an assault and murder of her child, even though JBR was still in the house, and murdered, and no one called for money, etc. That was the intention. If there is no note, there has to be a reason for her to be dead in the house. What are the options? Why would an intruder only kill JBR and no one else, nothing else is stolen nor ransacked - just JBR killed. No one was supposed to see or hear anything. So what is left? If there is no note, there is no reason for her to dead, and the family is automatically implicated. There has to be a note. There has to be an explanation.

 

[UKGuy]

You mean, look at it illogically? No thanks.

If they, as killers, wanted to explain the dead body in the home, all they had to was stage a break-in. The end. A ransom note would only confuse matters (as indeed it has).

Notice also that there is no obvious entry point. So RDI says they staged a note, but didn't think to stage an entry.

Smelly Squirrel,
Ah, but you evade the facts. The Ramsey's did dial 911 and claim JonBenet had been kidnapped.

They were not attempting to explain a dead body, there was not one available at this point.

By employing the Ransom Note, which is staging, and not part of the primary crime-scene, the Ramsey's were distancing themselves from her death!

You make the classic error of using the staged crime-scene evidence as part of your theory.

I can suggest to you that the Ransom Note was staged by the intruder so to allow more getaway time!

But we all know there was no intruder, never has been, and nobody has ever produced any evidence to connect anyone from outside the Ramsey house to JonBenet's death.


.

 

[azwriter]

I don't think you quite understand what azwriter is saying, Squirrel. The ransom note provides a reason for finding JB dead: the instructions in the note were very clear, unmistakably so. "Don't do s**t, or she dies." They violated the instructions, and she's dead.

It's not a big leap of imagination!

Thank you Super Dave for trying to explain my post about the purpose of the "letter."

You get it. Patsy alerted police that a kidnapping had taken place. That got cops to the house. She had to have some way of saying to authorities: "Hey we can't find our child." It was mandatory that cops be involved. The Ramsey's (whether they killed the child or not) could not go on with life without their daughter. She had to be accounted for dead or alive. Where was she?

Finding the body proved there was no kidnapping, the child was not taken. But a ransom letter, something cops could work from certainly would shed some light as to why there is a dead child in the basement. A crime had to be set up somethow. Suspicion had to be raised.

Let's pretend there was no ransom "letter." Pasty calls and says "We can't find our daugher." Cops arrive and questions begin of the Ramseys as to when they noticed their daughter missing. Had they searched the house? Where did they search? Would JonBenet leave the house on her own?

The body is found, possibly by the police. No letter posing a kidnapping and what happens: It's a mystery. An unsuspecting dead body makes it appear more likely to cops that it was an inside job, someone in the immediate family, the only known people in the house that night, had something to do with the crime. Especially when there did not appear to be a entry or exit made from the house. The Ramseys had to give cops actual proof that they had nothing to do with their daughter's death. That began with a ransom letter IMO.

The kidnapping "letter" was a phony. It shows a lot of threats and the actual amount of money to satisfy getting their child back, but very little on how to accomplish the trade: money for the safe return for the child.

I appreciate your help Super. I guess that's why you're called Super.

jmo

 

[BBB167893]

You mean, look at it illogically? No thanks.

Oh, forgive me, Squirrel. I forgot that IDI would have us believe that a rushed, seat-of-the-pants cover-up by two agitated amateurs is supposed to be a model of structured efficiency.

If they, as killers, wanted to explain the dead body in the home, all they had to was stage a break-in. The end. A ransom note would only confuse matters (as indeed it has).

Notice also that there is no obvious entry point. So RDI says they staged a note, but didn't think to stage an entry.

This looks like a job for SuperDave!

Squirrel, I've heard that argument a million times. Number one, you're right about a ransom note confusing matters. I think that was the whole POINT. The more confusion, the better. But more than that, the idea that just staging an entry would explain all that needed explaining has numerous problems. For one thing, how to do it. It wouldn't look very good if JR had been seen smashing open his own window at 1:00 AM.

 

[BBB167893]

He did try to stage an entry - with Lou Smit's help - the broken window in the basement theory. There's a whole discussion where John Ramsey thinks the 'intruder' was clever enough to put back a chair blocking the train room in which he says the intruder probably came in and out of - his own contradicted statements with him breaking the window, then not being the one to break it, then Lou Smit saying it was the intruder who used the window and suitcase to get in and out....

Yeah, the Ramseys' own story is that this person was some kind of evil genius right out of a Batman comic book.

Whether an intruder wrote the note or not - JBR is still in the house. So, the argument used to say the note would explain why she is not there - doesn't hold water -she should not be left there whether the Ramseys OR an intruder did it, if there is a note.....


Even with JBR left in the house, Patsy Ramsey said it still looked like a kidnapping to her - even when confronted with the fact that the FBI said it was not that and asked her what she thought of it. She said that since there was a note that it looked like a kidnapping to her - not an assault and murder of her child, even though JBR was still in the house, and murdered, and no one called for money, etc. That was the intention. If there is no note, there has to be a reason for her to be dead in the house. What are the options? Why would an intruder only kill JBR and no one else, nothing else is stolen nor ransacked - just JBR killed. No one was supposed to see or hear anything. So what is left? If there is no note, there is no reason for her to dead, and the family is automatically implicated. There has to be a note. There has to be an explanation.

Whaleshark, you just nailed it.

 

[BBB167893]

Smelly Squirrel,
Ah, but you evade the facts.

You sound surprised!

By employing the Ransom Note, which is staging, and not part of the primary crime-scene, the Ramsey's were distancing themselves from her death!

Well said, sir. Not just from a psychological standpoint, either. The ransom note makes it so that the whole WORLD is a suspect! PLUS, the ability to claim victimhood. "Why are you cops bothering us. THIS person said they did it. Why aren't you looking for them?"

 

[BBB167893]

Thank you Super Dave for trying to explain my post about the purpose of the "letter."

You're welcome, azwriter, but somehow I doubt it will do much good!

You get it. Patsy alerted police that a kidnapping had taken place. That got cops to the house. She had to have some way of saying to authorities: "Hey we can't find our child." It was mandatory that cops be involved. The Ramsey's (whether they killed the child or not) could not go on with life without their daughter. She had to be accounted for dead or alive. Where was she?

Finding the body proved there was no kidnapping, the child was not taken. But a ransom letter, something cops could work from certainly would shed some light as to why there is a dead child in the basement. A crime had to be set up somethow. Suspicion had to be raised.

Let's pretend there was no ransom "letter." Patsy calls and says "We can't find our daugher." Cops arrive and questions begin of the Ramseys as to when they noticed their daughter missing. Had they searched the house? Where did they search? Would JonBenet leave the house on her own?

The body is found, possibly by the police. No letter posing a kidnapping and what happens: It's a mystery. An unsuspecting dead body makes it appear more likely to cops that it was an inside job, someone in the immediate family, the only known people in the house that night, had something to do with the crime. Especially when there did not appear to be a entry or exit made from the house. The Ramseys had to give cops actual proof that they had nothing to do with their daughter's death. That began with a ransom letter IMO.

Let me return the thanks, azwriter. Could not have said it better myself! Without the ransom note, all you have is a dead girl in her own house with sexual injuries. That doesn't leave a whole lot of suspects. But the ransom note gives you the whole WORLD to choose from! Plus, it allows the Ramseys to play victims. Can't you just imagine them in front of a jury? "This person said they killed our daughter, so why didn't the police look for him?" In this way, the Ramseys are "victimized" twice: first by the piece of cr** who killed JB, then by the big bad cops.

I appreciate your help Super. I guess that's why you're called Super.

That's one reason! LOL!

 

[Peazzzer]

MY answer to the question is yes. Imoo Jonbenets death was just an end to Patsys dream and the end of John and the boys nightmare.

 

[runsdeep]

MY answer to the question is yes. Imoo Jonbenets death was just an end to Patsys dream and the end of John and the boys nightmare.

they just wanted plain-ol out of the house period! tried to leave before she was found and tried to leave immediately upon the finding.

 

[Squishified]

they just wanted plain-ol out of the house period! tried to leave before she was found and tried to leave immediately upon the finding.

That was one of the only things the authorities did RIGHT that day--making sure the R's stayed in Boulder. Can't believe how fast they wanted to get out of there.

 

[runsdeep]

if that were my child, i would not leave the house until child found, and would not leave the house with my dead child still there.

 

[celticthyme]

Haven't been on this thread for a while. A great thread, and good way to look at the situation from a different perspective. What it made me think of, is that if they had NOT written the ridiculous ransom note, and taken the body outside of the home and dumped it somewhere . . . ( which I understand they could just not do), they might actually have gotten away with it. Well they got away with it anyway, but it then would have appeared like an actual kidnapping. No kidnapper threatens to take a child, then kills the child and leaves it in the home. Makes no sense.