IDIs On This Forum?

[BOESP]

I wonder if that bat was ever tested for marks, dents or something consistant with it being used to hit JB over the head with.

IMO..if it was ever tested, it would come up negative. For all we know, John could have taken the bat into the basement, rolled it around on the floor...and then placed it outside to make it look as if an intruder did it. And if the bat did not belong to the Ramseys...as they say... , and said that they had never seen it before... , then that means that the intruder brought it in with him. So, he climbs through a small window, carrying duct tape, cord...and now a baseball bat...and drops to the floor, and let me add...that he did all of this IN THE DARK. He had no flashlight...or else he would not have used the Ramsey's. WHAT sort of an intruder brings his own bat, but leaves his flashlight, that he will NEED TO SEE WITH, at home???? Intruder to himself: (before leaving his home, to commit the murder)...."Hmmmmmm....lets see. Now WHAT should I take, I have the tape and the cord, what else will I need? A baseball bat? A flashlight? Its going to be really dark in that house, and I will need to see. But I might need this baseball bat as a weapon, just in case John stumbles across me murdering his daughter. Ennie, Minnie, Mini, Mo....catch a tiger by his toe.....okay, I choose the bat. How will I see though? I guess that I will rummage through the Ramsey's drawers and see if they have one, and if the batteries don't work, I will find some of those too...and replace them. And if anyone hears me rummaging through the drawers, and confronts me...I will just use this baseball bat on them. I have NO idea how I am going to see when I crawl through that basement window, though....but, I will worry about that when I get there." .............And again...I say...

Excellent points, Ames, especially the part about if the Intruder wasn't afraid to bring the bat to the house why be afraid to take away as you leave. I've not seen anything about testing the bat but I would imagine it got checked.

 

[BOESP]

The only thing the perp needed to get rid of is the tape and cord. Either item isn't very conspicuous if JBR hasn't been found yet.

A baseball bat is way more conspicuous. So the baseball bat left outside the house, with fibers common to a basement item, is consistent with an intruders exit. The R's didn't have to leave, but an intruder did.

An intruder would also need a baseball bat or something like that in case of an interruption. To defend himself or themselves. The R's wouldn't have had to defend themselves against anybody.

Why wouldn't it be conspicuous to bring the bat to the home if it was conspicuous to take it from the home -- that doesn't calculate.

An attacker needs a lot of swing room to use a baseball bat. It would be tricky in that basement.

 

[BBB167893]

Find a filicide where the parent wrote of beheading their child. Good luck.

Wrote about it? My dear HOLDON, according to Ron Walker, there are parents who DID it!

Do you have a source on the pitch dark thing?

I got Fleet White.

Of course PR's a suspect, just not a very good one (not criminal enough, sorry).

Perhaps without realizing it, you just nailed it. Yes, the crime was not sophisticated.

Of course she was. Cord fibers in the bed suggest the cord was used to forcibly remove her from her bed. These fibers found in the bed are a problem for almost any RDI, because there's no scenario that places the cord in JBR's bedroom for any purpose.

Unless that's where it started.

Doesn't that rule out accidental death, I mean, if she was garroted or tied up with the cord while in bed?

Only if the person knew she was still alive.

How does cord fiber in the bed work with staging? Obviously it wasn't part of any deliberate staging. Was it accidental staging?

More likely just luck.

LE officials, trained in investigations, assigned to the JBR homicide, were quoted as saying 'sophisticated', weren't they?

Friend, do I have something for you. Give me some time.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Why wouldn't it be conspicuous to bring the bat to the home if it was conspicuous to take it from the home -- that doesn't calculate.

An attacker needs a lot of swing room to use a baseball bat. It would be tricky in that basement.

It wouldn't be conspicuous if the intruder had it under his coat when he brought it. Then the reason the intruder wouldn't take it away wasn't because it was conspicuous, but because then it could be linked to the crime.

p.s. take your time, SD

 

[BBB167893]

Time's up!

Special prosecutor Michael Kane (in response to Mary Keenan's statement that she supported the Carnes decision) stated: "First of all, the thing I was going to say is if Mary Keenan has reached this conclusion, she clearly has not reviewed her own file because I don’t want to get into a lot of specifics about this because of ethical reasons, but there are clearly in the police file answers to a lot of the things that the court said had never been established. I mean, I can give you-I don’t know where this came from that these were sophisticated knots. I don’t know that anybody had the opportunity to untie those knots who was an expert in knots, but the police department had somebody who fit that category and that was not the opinion of that person. These were very simple knots."

 

[BOESP]

It wouldn't be conspicuous if the intruder had it under his coat when he brought it. Then the reason the intruder wouldn't take it away wasn't because it was conspicuous, but because then it could be linked to the crime.

p.s. take your time, SD

If the bat was the weapon, it was still linked to the crime no matter where it was found, not to mention the potential for finding trace evidence on the bat. The idea is to get rid of the weapon where it can not be found, not leave it in plain view.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

If the bat was the weapon, it was still linked to the crime no matter where it was found, not to mention the potential for finding trace evidence on the bat. The idea is to get rid of the weapon where it can not be found, not leave it in plain view.

It was left in plain view like the garrote, left behind at the crime scene. The only things the intruder left with is the tape and cord, apparently. The bat would be easy to see and take some explaining if found on his person.

 

[Ames]

It wouldn't be conspicuous if the intruder had it under his coat when he brought it. Then the reason the intruder wouldn't take it away wasn't because it was conspicuous, but because then it could be linked to the crime.

p.s. take your time, SD

But he supposedly came through that small basement window...and now you have him wearing a coat?? This just gets weirder and weirder!!! Why didn't he just wipe the bat off, just like he did the flashlight and the batteries?? He took everything else that had to do with the crime.....supposedly....why didn't he take the bat? BETTER YET....why didn't he take the Ramsey's flashlight, so that he could see to make his get away? I personally think the bat had nothing whatsoever to do with anything....I believe that it may have been stored in the basement at some time, probably recently, and Burke and his friends had been playing ball with it. I don't think there is anything sinister about that bat.

 

[BOESP]

It was left in plain view like the garrote, left behind at the crime scene. The only things the intruder left with is the tape and cord, apparently. The bat would be easy to see and take some explaining if found on his person.

Holdon, just for the record, the above statement about the "intruder," tape and cord is speculation and can be misleading to readers who might think you are stating facts.

The very acts you list are a small part of what suggests to professionals the scene was staged. Intruder assailants are unlikely to act in the manner you describe. Also, if it was easy to smuggle the bat to the scene, it would be just as easy to smuggle it away from the scene and dispose of it somewhere way far away. If it can be seen going out, it can be seen going in. There is no greater or lesser likelihood of being caught coming or going with a bat if the bat was, as you said earlier, hidden under a coat.

 

[Ames]

It was left in plain view like the garrote, left behind at the crime scene. The only things the intruder left with is the tape and cord, apparently. The bat would be easy to see and take some explaining if found on his person.

Again...why didn't he wipe it off first...like he did the flashlight?? Why just drop it on the ground? Why not leave it in the house?

 

[Ames]

Holdon, just for the record, the above statement about the "intruder," tape and cord is speculation and can be misleading to readers who might think you are stating facts.

The very acts you list are a small part of what suggests to professionals the scene was staged. Intruder assailants are unlikely to act in the manner you describe. Also, if it was easy to smuggle the bat to the scene, it would be just as easy to smuggle it away from the scene and dispose of it somewhere way far away. If it can be seen going out, it can be seen going in. There is no greater or lesser likelihood of being caught coming or going with a bat if the bat was, as you said earlier, hidden under a coat.

I have often wondered how the IDI's explain their "intruders" get away. Did he drive a car, and have it parked somewhere? Did he ride his bike? Was he wearing inline skates? Did he have a skateboard? If he had a car parked somewhere, then he could have just taken that bat with him and tossed it somewhere. Imagine if you will....an intruder, who just wiped clean a flashlight...(AND batteries)...and left it on the counter.....in a dark house, that he is unfamiliar with...trying to get to the front door...or out the window from which he entered....all the while, carrying a bat. He would have been bumping into so much crap..he would have woke the neighbors. IMO

 

[UKGuy]

Time's up!

Lou Smit is the source that the knots were the work of a Sexual Sadist, someone who was skilled in knot tying, an expert no less!

THE GARROTE:

Smit's argument: The use of a garrote — constructed precisely and expertly by someone who knew what he was doing — says that the killer was a ``sexual sadist.'" Evidence indicates the garrote was made in the basement, strongly suggesting the killing happened there.

Unlikely weapon: Smit says he and others who have studied the issue know of no other case ``in the annals of crime'' where a parent garroted his or her own child.

Knowledge needed: The knot-tying of the garrote used on JonBenet shows special knowledge. The paintbrush was broken to create a perfect handle. ``It almost looks like a lawnmower starting (handle). . . . Somebody really knew what they were doing when they did it and somebody has done this before.''

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/news/article/0,1299,DRMN_3_4921727,00.html

.

 

[BOESP]

I have often wondered how the IDI's explain their "intruders" get away. Did he drive a car, and have it parked somewhere? Did he ride his bike? Was he wearing inline skates? Did he have a skateboard? If he had a car parked somewhere, then he could have just taken that bat with him and tossed it somewhere. Imagine if you will....an intruder, who just wiped clean a flashlight...(AND batteries)...and left it on the counter.....in a dark house, that he is unfamiliar with...trying to get to the front door...or out the window from which he entered....all the while, carrying a bat. He would have been bumping into so much crap..he would have woke the neighbors. IMO

One of the neighbors, if I remember correctly, stated to a detective that had someone been skulking around in the alley and Ramsey yard her dogs would have barked.

In the beginning when I was a full-fledged fence sitter I always thought if an Intruder did it he/she lived in or near the neighborhood within walking distance. The second thought was someone could have parked nearby or a block or more away and walked to the Ramseys, returned to the vehicle, then quietly drove away. If you are a kidnapper, you must have a way to transport the child, dead or alive. I quickly discounted the car version because kidnappers don't leave a dead body covered in evidence when a car is nearby, unless they are a kidnapper living in the neighborhood. Regardless, a kidnapper is going to remove the body, dead or alive. Their goal is money.

That leaves a pedophile and this has absolutely no markings of a true pedophile killing.

The note implies someone was angry with John. This crime doesn't fit that style either. (Check out some books on revenge killing for more info.)

Some believe someone who hated JonBenet killed her. That would suggest, to me, a younger person and probably a female. I can't see a young female prancing around in the dark at midnight and spending hours in the home and not leaving a pile of "Intruder" evidence, especially if she was accompanied by a "pal" (and young females will usually have an accomplice). It was an unsophisticated crime and an unsophisticated criminal would leave a lot of evidence behind (which, in my opinion they did but that evidence doesn't suggest an Intruder, in my opinion).

I've blabbed enough. Suffice it to say, the totality of the evidence and circumstances suggests someone who lived in the house and/or was a known guest participated in this crime. One or both adult Ramseys, and maybe Burke, know what happened. So, I'm no longer a fence sitter.

 

[Solace]

One of the neighbors, if I remember correctly, stated to a detective that had someone been skulking around in the alley and Ramsey yard her dogs would have barked.

In the beginning when I was a full-fledged fence sitter I always thought if an Intruder did it he/she lived in or near the neighborhood within walking distance. The second thought was someone could have parked nearby or a block or more away and walked to the Ramseys, returned to the vehicle, then quietly drove away. If you are a kidnapper, you must have a way to transport the child, dead or alive. I quickly discounted the car version because kidnappers don't leave a dead body covered in evidence when a car is nearby, unless they are a kidnapper living in the neighborhood. Regardless, a kidnapper is going to remove the body, dead or alive. Their goal is money.

That leaves a pedophile and this has absolutely no markings of a true pedophile killing.

The note implies someone was angry with John. This crime doesn't fit that style either. (Check out some books on revenge killing for more info.)

Some believe someone who hated JonBenet killed her. That would suggest, to me, a younger person and probably a female. I can't see a young female prancing around in the dark at midnight and spending hours in the home and not leaving a pile of "Intruder" evidence, especially if she was accompanied by a "pal" (and young females will usually have an accomplice). It was an unsophisticated crime and an unsophisticated criminal would leave a lot of evidence behind (which, in my opinion they did but that evidence doesn't suggest an Intruder, in my opinion).

I've blabbed enough. Suffice it to say, the totality of the evidence and circumstances suggests someone who lived in the house and/or was a known guest participated in this crime. One or both adult Ramseys, and maybe Burke, know what happened. So, I'm no longer a fence sitter.

Hi,

I agree and your post was very interesting to read as usual. I love the way you put things together. Always a great read.

 

[Ames]

One of the neighbors, if I remember correctly, stated to a detective that had someone been skulking around in the alley and Ramsey yard her dogs would have barked.

In the beginning when I was a full-fledged fence sitter I always thought if an Intruder did it he/she lived in or near the neighborhood within walking distance. The second thought was someone could have parked nearby or a block or more away and walked to the Ramseys, returned to the vehicle, then quietly drove away. If you are a kidnapper, you must have a way to transport the child, dead or alive. I quickly discounted the car version because kidnappers don't leave a dead body covered in evidence when a car is nearby, unless they are a kidnapper living in the neighborhood. Regardless, a kidnapper is going to remove the body, dead or alive. Their goal is money. <SNIPPED>

You remember correctly...


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 Ramseyhome. 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."

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Lou Smit is the source that the knots were the work of a Sexual Sadist, someone who was skilled in knot tying, an expert no less!


http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/news/article/0,1299,DRMN_3_4921727,00.html

.

Perp is an expert and has done it before?

I believe it.

You don't go from jaywalking to brutal child murder overnight. The murder even has a hint of professional to it, because the head bash prevented her resuscitation (crimelibrary.com 'Bob Crane')

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

But he supposedly came through that small basement window...and now you have him wearing a coat?? This just gets weirder and weirder!!!

What was the temp outside that day/night, and then please explain how 'wierd' a coat would've been.

 

[Ames]

What was the temp outside that day/night, and then please explain how 'wierd' a coat would've been.

Pretty sure that it was bone chillin' cold. But, how could he have crawled through that tiny little window, while wearing a coat...when John, said himself, that when he crawled through it, after locking himself out of the house, he stripped down to his underwear, he didn't want to get caught on anything on the window sill.

 

[DeeDee249]

Perp is an expert and has done it before?

I believe it.

You don't go from jaywalking to brutal child murder overnight. The murder even has a hint of professional to it, because the head bash prevented her resuscitation (crimelibrary.com 'Bob Crane')

Sure you can. For every repeat killer there is a FIRST time. Actually, when parents kill their children, it is almost always the first and only time they commit murder.
In the right circumstances, you can have seemingly good parents commit a crime like this. This was not a premeditated attack. This was a rage attack or abuse gone horribly wrong. JBRs parents did not intend to end Christmas Day by killing their daughter.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Sure you can. For every repeat killer there is a FIRST time. Actually, when parents kill their children, it is almost always the first and only time they commit murder.
In the right circumstances, you can have seemingly good parents commit a crime like this. This was not a premeditated attack. This was a rage attack or abuse gone horribly wrong. JBRs parents did not intend to end Christmas Day by killing their daughter.

Any RDI scenario fails to characterize this murder.

'...a crime like this' as you put it, has never happened before, according to FBI Robert Ressler: "I've never in 35 years seen anything like this, its totally bizarre".