I still have an open mind as to how this happened and who did it

[Anyhoo]

I totally agree. And on a night like Christmas, many people ARE up late...cleaning up after holiday festivities, hosting parties, arriving home late from parties, etc. A neighbor DID report seeing what they described as "strange, moving lights" through the Rs kitchen window around midnight. I believe this was someone walking around with that flashlight, also found in the kitchen area.
For those who may have missed Kolar's latest discussion on Websleuths radio, he mentioned that there had been some testing done on the flashlight that linked it to the skull injury. He did not elaborate, but I have always felt the flashlight was used as the bludgeon, and it seems LE may agree.

My thought is that the flashlight was nothing more than staging to support the intruder theory. This is supported by the fact that the batteries inside the flashlight had been wiped for fingerprints. When you think about it, you realize there would be no reason to wipe the batteries other than to give support to the idea that this was a sneaky unknown intruder's flashlight. I also believe that the actual murder weapon would not have been left right there in plain sight, to be easily found by LE. I think that was removed from the house, whatever it was, along with other items. In fact, now that I think about it, using the flashlight in the house could have been part of the staging also, intending for it to be seen by one or more neighbors and reported to police.

 

[Amateur Novelist]

Were there any reports from the neighbors as to when the majority of the lights were turned off in the R house the night / morning JB was murdered? I thought that it was reported that they returned home around 8:30 PM and JB was immediately placed in her bed. JR helped BR put a toy together and then they went to bed. PR continued / finished packing for their trip(s) and then went to bed I think at around 10:00 PM. If that is what really happened...

If the lights were off by 10:00 PM, explain how a RDI theory would make sense of the observation concerning the house lights.

If JB wet her bed and PR had to change her, which led to a fit of rage, etc, I would expect that some lighting in the house would have been turned on. This likely would have occurred prior to any type of accident and probably would have stayed on for an assessment of the injury, perhaps part of the staging, etc.

If BR did something upstairs, it would also seem that the lighting in the house would be turned on to see what was done and to make an assessment on whether to go to the hospital, etc.

If this was RDI, it seems as though something would had to have happened almost immediately when they arrived home or what was done / staged would have to have been done almost entirely in the dark. That does not seem logical unless the murder occurred in the basement.

Perhaps this has been discussed ad nauseam in another thread or threads but I do not recall reading anything about the timing with regards to lighting.

Any thoughts or input concerning the lights / lighting that night? I realize that neighbors would not be monitoring lighting activity 24 x 7 but there were some reports of seeing flashlight activity. I think that I read that the lights were normally left on in the house but they were not that night.

 

[Anyhoo]

Were there any reports from the neighbors as to when the majority of the lights were turned off in the R house the night / morning JB was murdered? I thought that it was reported that they returned home around 8:30 PM and JB was immediately placed in her bed. JR helped BR put a toy together and then they went to bed. PR continued / finished packing for their trip(s) and then went to bed I think at around 10:00 PM. If that is what really happened...

If the lights were off by 10:00 PM, explain how a RDI theory would make sense of the observation concerning the house lights.

If JB wet her bed and PR had to change her, which led to a fit of rage, etc, I would expect that some lighting in the house would have been turned on. This likely would have occurred prior to any type of accident and probably would have stayed on for an assessment of the injury, perhaps part of the staging, etc.

If BR did something upstairs, it would also seem that the lighting in the house would be turned on to see what was done and to make an assessment on whether to go to the hospital, etc.

If this was RDI, it seems as though something would had to have happened almost immediately when they arrived home or what was done / staged would have to have been done almost entirely in the dark. That does not seem logical unless the murder occurred in the basement.

Perhaps this has been discussed ad nauseam in another thread or threads but I do not recall reading anything about the timing with regards to lighting.

Any thoughts or input concerning the lights / lighting that night? I realize that neighbors would not be monitoring lighting activity 24 x 7 but there were some reports of seeing flashlight activity. I think that I read that the lights were normally left on in the house but they were not that night.

Your first mistake is in believing the Ramsey's testimony about what happened and when. You ask how RDI makes sense when you assume what the R's say is true? In that case it probably doesn't make sense. You have to throw out all of that disinformation for RDI to make sense.

 

[CherCher]

As I stated, it's an explanation. A poor explanation, but an explanation nonetheless. The Ramseys were the people with the dead body in their house. They were the only ones who needed an explanation for why it is there. It doesn't matter that it's not a good explanation. The last thing any intruder/murderer would want to do is admit they were at the scene of the crime, which is essentially the only purpose the ransom note serves in this case.



I've read many IDI theorists reasons for the note. What I'm saying is that none of them make any sense. Not one of them explain why an intruder would leave a ransom note and a body they never attempted to remove from the home. Other than the note, there's no evidence that anyone ever attempted to kidnap JonBenet. Other than the note, there's no evidence that anyone other than the Ramsey family was ever in the home that night.

The note does nothing that can possibly benefit an intruder. The sole purpose for the note is to explain that someone else was in the home and that person is responsible for her murder, and by extension, the other crimes that were committed . If an actual intruder came into the home, molested and killed JonBenet, I'm fairly certain they wouldn't want to announce that they done it. They didn't wake anyone up. They weren't caught going into or out of the home. No evidence was left that has identified them. If not for the note, there's no reason for anyone to believe anyone other than John, Patsy, Burke and JonBenet Ramsey was ever in the home that night. A prowler who was so careful to leave no other evidence of being inside the home wouldn't make such a major slip-up as writing, much less leaving, such a note. The idea that it was written and left inside the home by an intruder is preposterous.

The note does everything to benefit the Ramsey family. It was their house the dead body was inside. It was their house that contains no other evidence that anyone else was there. Without the note, Jon and Patsy Ramsey would both have been arrested immediately upon JonBenet's body being discovered, whenever it came to be discovered.

No call came from a kidnapper. She wasn't actually kidnapped. To get to the basement from her bedroom, she passed by doors that exited the house. It's blatantly obvious there was never a kidnapper.

Yup. My opinion has always been that PR and JR, (and I'm not sure who did what) were of the opinion that they were too far up the "social ladder" in Boulder to ever be suspected of any complicity in their daughter's death.But they couldn't do anything once she was dead. There had to be an explanation for her disappearance.

I think they were so cocky as to think that if they called 911 and police showed up, the police would immediately be dispatched from their home on a search for their daughter.

Many years ago (back in 1984) in NJ not far from where I live a man was convicted of the murder of his wife. He was an upper middle class man and was sure he could get away with the murder because he was, in his own words, "beyond reproach".

The RN, in my opinion, was the Ramsey's way of saying "up yours" to the onslaught they knew would come.

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

Yup. My opinion has always been that PR and JR, (and I'm not sure who did what) were of the opinion that they were too far up the "social ladder" in Boulder to ever be suspected of any complicity in their daughter's death.But they couldn't do anything once she was dead. There had to be an explanation for her disappearance.

I think they were so cocky as to think that if they called 911 and police showed up, the police would immediately be dispatched from their home on a search for their daughter.

Many years ago (back in 1984) in NJ not far from where I live a man was convicted of the murder of his wife. He was an upper middle class man and was sure he could get away with the murder because he was, in his own words, "beyond reproach".

The RN, in my opinion, was the Ramsey's way of saying "up yours" to the onslaught they knew would come.

ITA, Cher....perhaps you are referencing Robert Marshall of the Toms River area....my ole' stomping ground?

 

[CherCher]

ITA, Cher....perhaps you are referencing Robert Marshall of the Toms River area....my ole' stomping ground?

Yes ATOH, that's the one I was thinking of. The man left a "telephone footprint" of his crime, and that was the only reason he was convicted. That, and the "powers that be" in OC NJ at that time weren't convinced by his story. Thank Goodness the DA in this case was a regular guy and not just a friend to the wealthy.

Your "ole stomping ground"? Are you from NJ?

 

[Amateur Novelist]

Your first mistake is in believing the Ramsey's testimony about what happened and when. You ask how RDI makes sense when you assume what the R's say is true? In that case it probably doesn't make sense. You have to throw out all of that disinformation for RDI to make sense.

Okay, I will ask this a different way. Were the observations from outside sources concerning the lighting consistent, from a timing perspective, with the R's accounts? Again, maybe this has already been established, but what time did the lights go out? Whether you believe RDI or IDI, the main lights for the house were tuned off at some point. I can research this myself based on what information is available, but I was hoping that someone who knows this case better would already know.

 

[CherCher]

Okay, I will ask this a different way. Were the observations from outside sources concerning the lighting consistent, from a timing perspective, with the R's accounts? Again, maybe this has already been established, but what time did the lights go out? Whether you believe RDI or IDI, the main lights for the house were tuned off at some point. I can research this myself based on what information is available, but I was hoping that someone who knows this case better would already know.

What do YOU think?

 

[FreeSafety36]

Okay, I will ask this a different way. Were the observations from outside sources concerning the lighting consistent, from a timing perspective, with the R's accounts? Again, maybe this has already been established, but what time did the lights go out? Whether you believe RDI or IDI, the main lights for the house were tuned off at some point. I can research this myself based on what information is available, but I was hoping that someone who knows this case better would already know.

I don't recall any neighbors saying anything about what time the lights went out that night at the Ramsey home.

Depending on which account the Ramsey's gave that you look into, the returned home from the White's sometime between 8:30 and 10:00....and no, they didn't give that as an approximation, in one interview they said between 8:30 and 9:00, in another they said between 9:30 and 10:00.

As Anyhoo said, we can't believe anything that comes from the Ramsey's...and to my knowledge, no neighbor has stated a time that they noticed the lights going out.

 

[Mama2JML]

Okay, I will ask this a different way. Were the observations from outside sources concerning the lighting consistent, from a timing perspective, with the R's accounts? Again, maybe this has already been established, but what time did the lights go out? Whether you believe RDI or IDI, the main lights for the house were tuned off at some point. I can research this myself based on what information is available, but I was hoping that someone who knows this case better would already know.

Per ST, a neighbor (Diane Brumfit) noticed a safety light wasn't on @ the SE corner of the residence and thought it unusual. Another neighbor (Scott Gibbons) noticed a light in the butler's pantry around midnight. As well, this neighbor considered it out of the norm.

 

[Anti-K]

<quote>
At about midnight, Scot Gibbons, a neighbor, looked out his kitchen window towards the Ramsey&#8217;s house and saw a light on in the kitchen area. Sometime later, Adam Fermeire. Another neighbor, who was up watching TV, said he didn&#8217;t notice anything strange through the windows facing the Ramsey&#8217;s house.

Diane Brumfitt, another neighbor told Detective Barry Hartkipp on December 31 that on Christmas night she did not see light on at the southeast corner of the Ramsey&#8217;s house, though there had been a safety light in that so=pot for years. She remembered thinking that it was unusual. <unquote>
PMPT; p. 170 &#8211; 171
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

As I stated, it's an explanation. A poor explanation, but an explanation nonetheless. The Ramseys were the people with the dead body in their house. They were the only ones who needed an explanation for why it is there. It doesn't matter that it's not a good explanation. The last thing any intruder/murderer would want to do is admit they were at the scene of the crime, which is essentially the only purpose the ransom note serves in this case.

It’s not just a poor explanation, it’s a contradictory explanation. And, yes it matters if it’s a good or a poor explanation because poor explanations are usually not believed.

I've read many IDI theorists reasons for the note. What I'm saying is that none of them make any sense. Not one of them explain why an intruder would leave a ransom note and a body they never attempted to remove from the home. Other than the note, there's no evidence that anyone ever attempted to kidnap JonBenet. Other than the note, there's no evidence that anyone other than the Ramsey family was ever in the home that night.

The note does nothing that can possibly benefit an intruder. The sole purpose for the note is to explain that someone else was in the home and that person is responsible for her murder, and by extension, the other crimes that were committed . If an actual intruder came into the home, molested and killed JonBenet, I'm fairly certain they wouldn't want to announce that they done it. They didn't wake anyone up. They weren't caught going into or out of the home. No evidence was left that has identified them. If not for the note, there's no reason for anyone to believe anyone other than John, Patsy, Burke and JonBenet Ramsey was ever in the home that night. A prowler who was so careful to leave no other evidence of being inside the home wouldn't make such a major slip-up as writing, much less leaving, such a note. The idea that it was written and left inside the home by an intruder is preposterous.

You seem to be making an Argument from Personal Incredulity.

The note does everything to benefit the Ramsey family. It was their house the dead body was inside. It was their house that contains no other evidence that anyone else was there. Without the note, Jon and Patsy Ramsey would both have been arrested immediately upon JonBenet's body being discovered, whenever it came to be discovered.

The note did not benefit the Ramseys. It cast suspicion upon them because 1) there was no kidnapping, 2) the note is written using Ramsey materials 3), the note seems to have been written in the house, and 4) the suspicious nature of the note (unusual demand, unusual length, etc). some might include as 5) linguistics, etc...

No call came from a kidnapper. She wasn't actually kidnapped. To get to the basement from her bedroom, she passed by doors that exited the house. It's blatantly obvious there was never a kidnapper.

There was no kidnapper. The note is a lie.
...

AK

 

[DeDee]

I don’t know that anyone (ID) thinks that “this was just some random perp who had no knowledge of the Ramsey's at all.”

Some IDI think the perp was an insider, and some think he was a stranger who “watched” the home and his victims (the Ramseys) for a period of time before committing the crime.

It has not been established that 118 is a reference to Mr Ramsey’s bonus amount. It has also been speculated that 118 could be a reference to psalm 118. If the 118 is a reference to psalms, than the reference to the bonus amount becomes coincidence; so, both could be coincidence. In either case it is not reasonable for a Ramsey to make such a reference as this would be self-incriminating.

Here are a few other 118 coincidences: 118 is the number of victim case studies used as formation for “Sexual Homicides: Patterns and Motives.” A book written in part by FBI Profiler (don’t try to grow a brain) John Douglas. This number is repeated many times in the book and is also mentioned in the Douglas, Olshaker 1995 book “Mindhunter.” Interestingly, between pages 137 -166 of “Mindhunter” four killers are discussed in this order: S on of Sam; B tk; T railside Killer; C armine Calabro. S.B.T.C

118 is also the running time for the movie Silence of the Lambs. In this movie the head of the FBI’s Behavioral Science Unit is named Jack Crawford. A character supposedly modeled after retired FBI profiler and “Mindhunter” co-author (it is up to you now) John Douglas

118 is also the number of Kojak (tv series) episodes aired. 118 is the number of The Untouchables (tv series) episodes aired.

If you drive 60 miles per hour, then it will take you 118 minutes to drive 118 miles. Many highways have an Exit 118. 1:18 is the scale used for Hotwheels (and many other toy vehicles).

A mathematically minded person might recognize 118 as nontotient; a world traveler might recognize it as directory assistance in several European countries and as the emergency number in several other countries.

The “Wilderness Skills Series” offers “Bush Knots,” 118 minutes of knot tying for the beginner (on dvd or video).
118 could have had significance for the killer or it could have been used simply because it was an unusual number.
….

AK

New Year Greetings, Anti-K.

118 is the number of victim case studies used as formation for “Sexual Homicides: Patterns and Motives.” A book written in part by FBI Profiler (don’t try to grow a brain) John Douglas. This number is repeated many times in the book and is also mentioned in the Douglas, Olshaker 1995 book “Mindhunter.” Interestingly, between pages 137 -166 of “Mindhunter” four killers are discussed in this order: S on of Sam; B tk; T railside Killer; C armine Calabro. S.B.T.C

If true, I find this fact, that you refer to as a coincidence, to be highly significant.

The reference to 118 and S.B.T.C. could be right here in JD's book. Why didn't he figure that out when he was hired by the Ramsey's?

The writer enjoyed creating the fictitious RN.

This crime scene could have been weeks in the planning in order to create as many false clues as possible via the suitcase, the bloomers, the ransom amount, et al.

 

[Hexe]

The note did not benefit the Ramseys. It cast suspicion upon them because 1) there was no kidnapping, 2) the note is written using Ramsey materials 3), the note seems to have been written in the house, and 4) the suspicious nature of the note (unusual demand, unusual length, etc). some might include as 5) linguistics, etc...

Yes, but could have they known all of that when they were writing the note? They weren't the experienced criminals nor the experienced cops. They were just a middle aged couple, getting their limited knowledge from the tv and books, and they were in an emotional turmoil and most probably also panic. I don't think they were thinking very clearly that night. And if you are dumb enough to not destroy your pen and your paper you used to write a note from the alleged intruder, well, you are certainly dumb enough to make many other blunders.

Anyway I think they assumed that the police would not stay in their house for long, chasing imaginary kidnappers, and allowing them to smuggle JonBenet's body out.

I found an interesting tidbit on the ACandyRose page:

NE Book Page 128:

Steve Thomas: "So the morning of the 26th do you recall checking all the doors, and they were locked?"

John Ramsey: "I believe I checked all the first-floor doors, yeah. I did go out once. I went out to the door that leads into the garage to see if it was locked becaue there's a bunch of boxes piled in front of it and you couldn't get to it from the inside of the garage. So I did, infact, go out of the house once, which would have been for, you know, half a minute."

Aaaawwkay. Someone tells me why John Ramsey was checking the garage door from the outside, if there were the boxes piled up on the inside of them? It would be enough to pop into the garage and check f these boxes were undisturbed. If yes nobody got through it. So what actually was he doing there?



By the way, someone was asking about the lights in the Ramseys house that night, here's what I found on ACandyRose site
http://www.acandyrose.com/crimescene-discovery.htm

04-18-2000 Steve Thomas, "JonBenet, Inside the Ramsey Murder Investigation"

Page 45:

"While the house search went on, other cops fanned out to canvass the neighborhood and conduct more interviews. A resident directly to the south reported that the light was off in the southeast corner sunroom of the Ramsey home and thought that was odd because it was the only time she was aware in th3e past few years that it did not burn all night. A neighbor to the north would say that the butler kitchen lights were on around midnight and considered that unsual since it was the first time he had noticed that light being on in the Ramsey home. A third neighbor, to the west, said that her dogs, who barked at anyone walking in the alley, just as they did when the police officer came to question her, made no noise Wednesday night."

 

[Amateur Novelist]

<quote>
At about midnight, Scot Gibbons, a neighbor, looked out his kitchen window towards the Ramsey’s house and saw a light on in the kitchen area. Sometime later, Adam Fermeire. Another neighbor, who was up watching TV, said he didn’t notice anything strange through the windows facing the Ramsey’s house.

Diane Brumfitt, another neighbor told Detective Barry Hartkipp on December 31 that on Christmas night she did not see light on at the southeast corner of the Ramsey’s house, though there had been a safety light in that so=pot for years. She remembered thinking that it was unusual. <unquote>
PMPT; p. 170 – 171
...

AK

Thanks for the information. Too bad Scott Gibbons did not see the writer of the note in action. I expect that it would have taken a while to write the RN.

 

[FreeSafety36]

It&#8217;s not just a poor explanation, it&#8217;s a contradictory explanation. And, yes it matters if it&#8217;s a good or a poor explanation because poor explanations are usually not believed.

The note is contradictory no matter who wrote it. The fact remains that no one other than the Ramsey's needed to make up a reason why JonBenet was no longer alive.

You seem to be making an Argument from Personal Incredulity.

Oh, I am incredulous, as I'm unwilling to believe that just because something can be thought up, it merits serious consideration. One can theorize that the gunman from the grassy knoll committed this crime and left no evidence at either crime scene, doesn't mean I'll consider it an actual possibility.

The note did not benefit the Ramseys. It cast suspicion upon them because 1) there was no kidnapping, 2) the note is written using Ramsey materials 3), the note seems to have been written in the house, and 4) the suspicious nature of the note (unusual demand, unusual length, etc). some might include as 5) linguistics, etc...

and we're back where we started from...

I see no reason to believe that the Ramsey's would be good at committing a crime, then staging the scene to make it look like someone else did it; so the fact that the cover up was poorly done doesn't change the fact that practically every single bit of evidence points toward RDI, including the cover up itself. They didn't have a lot of time, and as a result, hastily threw together and carried out a plan. We could go on forever about how bad of a plan it was, but we're sitting here 17 years later and no one has been charged, so whether good, bad or in-between, it has proven effective.

EDIT to add: how can you say the note doesn't benefit the Ramsey's? Take the note out of the equation. The Ramsey's wake up the morning of the 26th and JonBenet is inexplicably missing. Once she's found murdered in the basement with no sign that anyone else was in the house that night, the Ramsey's will be placed under arrest. The note is the only thing that implies anyone else was in the house. That's why it benefits the Ramsey's, it provides them with a suspect that isn't them.

There was no kidnapper. The note is a lie.
...

AK

Exactly, I agree 100%. There was no kidnapper. It was a poorly designed ruse to attempt to deflect attention from the real perpetrators of the crime...but again, it worked on enough people to keep the criminal(s) from being prosecuted.

 

[Junebug99]

If JBR was sexually abused prior to the night she died, anyone with a lick of sense would know that would be discovered during the autopsy. Chronic sexual abuse in a child that young is obvious. If the R's did it and knew she was being abused, they would have dumped the body at some point.

If it was accident why would any parent use a garrote to finish their child?

Since they claimed no prior knowledge of sexual molestation, wouldn't it have been easier to say JBR woke up, went to her bathroom tripped and hit her head? If they were questioned about previous abuse, they could deny any knowledge.

But instead, they choked her with garrote, stuck tape over mouth and left her in the basement, then decided to write a ransom note that could further incriminate them?

It would have made much more sense and it's much more logical, if they were going to invent some BS story, make it short and simple. Call 911 and report your daughter had fallen would have been much easier and less incriminating. The Ramsey's are not dumb.

 

[DeDee]

If JBR was sexually abused prior to the night she died, anyone with a lick of sense would know that would be discovered during the autopsy. Chronic sexual abuse in a child that young is obvious. If the R's did it and knew she was being abused, they would have dumped the body at some point.

If it was accident why would any parent use a garrote to finish their child?

Since they claimed no prior knowledge of sexual molestation, wouldn't it have been easier to say JBR woke up, went to her bathroom tripped and hit her head? If they were questioned about previous abuse, they could deny any knowledge.

But instead, they choked her with garrote, stuck tape over mouth and left her in the basement, then decided to write a ransom note that could further incriminate them?

It would have made much more sense and it's much more logical, if they were going to invent some BS story, make it short and simple. Call 911 and report your daughter had fallen would have been much easier and less incriminating. The Ramsey's are not dumb.

If JBR was sexually abused prior to the night she died

No, respectfully, it is not an if, Junebug. The autopsy report is clear to indicate signs of healing from previous abuse. Additionally, the congested vaginal opening was twice the size it should have been for a 6yof.

If the R's did it and knew she was being abused, they would have dumped the body at some point.

Quite interesting you mention dumping the body of JonBenet bc I feel if JDI, that child's body would NOT EVER be found. John is a completest. Defeat is unacceptable.

If it was accident why would any parent use a garrote to finish their child?

OTOH, for Patsy to leave her child's body in the moldy hellhole would be fine as a kidnapping scene with a body in the house is sensational. The unnecessary garrote at the end of that child's throat is sensational. The RN is in a class of its own.

Those size 12 bloomers are hysterical, especially if JonBenet wanted to be dressed in them at least since the time after arriving home from the White's. If so, the thermal outerwear bottoms had to also be worn to keep the size 12 panties held in place. Otherwise, the too-large panties would drop to her knees.

Meaning, Patsy's baby was dressed in angelic white clothes. She was dressed in the:

• white star shirt she wore to the White's
  
• size 12 Wednesday bloomers from the wrapped and opened package for cousin Jenny
  
• white longjohn thermal bottoms from her bathroom drawer that helped keep the 12s pulled up that were both soiled at TOD with urine also the panties were now stained w/ blood droplets

if they were going to invent some BS story, make it short and simple

The RN is a fascinating fictitious work by the crafty and creative PR. It would be her shining glory moment to show how cleverly she could stump them all by implicating many. Patsy must have simply adored a good mystery.

 

[Venom]

If JBR was sexually abused prior to the night she died, anyone with a lick of sense would know that would be discovered during the autopsy. Chronic sexual abuse in a child that young is obvious. If the R's did it and knew she was being abused, they would have dumped the body at some point.

If it was accident why would any parent use a garrote to finish their child?

Since they claimed no prior knowledge of sexual molestation, wouldn't it have been easier to say JBR woke up, went to her bathroom tripped and hit her head? If they were questioned about previous abuse, they could deny any knowledge.

But instead, they choked her with garrote, stuck tape over mouth and left her in the basement, then decided to write a ransom note that could further incriminate them?

It would have made much more sense and it's much more logical, if they were going to invent some BS story, make it short and simple. Call 911 and report your daughter had fallen would have been much easier and less incriminating. The Ramsey's are not dumb.

And how would they explain a skull fracture the length of her skull? They'd be able to tell if the fracture came from a blow or a fall.
They likely were in a panic that night and didn't have the time/mental state to do a better job.

 

[Anyhoo]

If JBR was sexually abused prior to the night she died, anyone with a lick of sense would know that would be discovered during the autopsy. Chronic sexual abuse in a child that young is obvious. If the R's did it and knew she was being abused, they would have dumped the body at some point.

If it was accident why would any parent use a garrote to finish their child?

Since they claimed no prior knowledge of sexual molestation, wouldn't it have been easier to say JBR woke up, went to her bathroom tripped and hit her head? If they were questioned about previous abuse, they could deny any knowledge.

But instead, they choked her with garrote, stuck tape over mouth and left her in the basement, then decided to write a ransom note that could further incriminate them?

It would have made much more sense and it's much more logical, if they were going to invent some BS story, make it short and simple. Call 911 and report your daughter had fallen would have been much easier and less incriminating. The Ramsey's are not dumb.

It is my understanding that signs of sexual abuse were found during the autopsy. The Ramsey's did not want to dump the body, for various reasons, so they did not even attempt to.

If it was accident why would any parent use a garrote to finish their child? This is a good question, one of the first good questions you have asked, IMO. This question has occurred to me and I am sure every thinking RDI person on this forum. It is my understanding that the head bash came first and the strangulation came second. If that is the case, then I do not have an answer to your question. It has been suggested by some that the strangulation was staging to cover up for the head bash, but I find that to be inconceivable. I cannot see any parent, no matter how conniving, strangling their daughter to death as staging. To me, the answer lies elsewhere. The strangulation may have come first and the head bash second. If the head bash was staging for an accidental strangulation I could see that. But, if the head bash came first and the strangulation second, then it casts doubt on the entire theory that the head bash was accidental, as myself and many other RDI have come to believe. It would instead indicate that both the head bash and the strangulation were purposeful, with the intent and purpose to kill JBR.
To me that would add a whole new dimension to the case but would still fall under RDI.