Intruder theories only - RDI theories not allowed! *READ FIRST POST* #2

[tovarisch]

I want to proceed to the second motive on the list- pedophile. This one could be the possible motive, and the most difficult to point anybody particular as the main suspect. Because, my opinion, so many adult males were obsessed with poor little JonBenet, it`s terrifying. And I`m not even talking about the wide circle of people, I `m talking for example December 23, narrow circle, when JonBenet all dressed, and big holiday was going on, she was crying quietly somewhere in the corner.
Even looking at the December 23 circle of people, everybody looks like in Agatha Christie`s novel, every and each one of guests could be the one. Santa, weird fan of JonBenet, Grand-pa, who jumped on the first available plane after the event, brother Andrew, according to his fellow students could not help but talked about JB all the time, Mr. White, accused of suspicious behavior by housekeeper Linda P. I don`t know if gardener was there, but he knew how her leg muscles were nicely shaped. Is it Agatha Christie or what ? And how to eliminate any of them? They all were there, on 23-rd. She was crying that evening. She was expecting secret Santa visit on 25-th. Could it be connected ? Crying and he- "Don`t cry, Santa will visit you with nice presents, just stop crying. I promise. Keep it secret". Could it be that her crying made him realize he was in danger of exposure and he made his plan?

And to add to this trouble more, we need to add everybody from the far circles, which could amount to a big number of adult males.

The theory of pedophile is possible, but in my opinion if it was a pedophile crime, not necessary he had been in the house on the night of the crime. I would think quite opposite, he would stay behind, masterminding and waiting. Possibly waiting for JonBenet had been delivered to him as a Christmas present for himself. Or, pedophile would want to simply kill her, realizing that his sexual movements towards JB could be exposed soon by her. He could hire criminals.

I know I have not said anything new.

My frank opinion- it was more in the crime, than pedophile kidnaping went wrong, because of 118,000 number. That what I wanted to emphasize, why pedophile mentioned 118,000? Was he-- envy of John`s success-- pedophile?

 

[UKGuy]

I want to proceed to the second motive on the list- pedophile. This one could be the possible motive, and the most difficult to point anybody particular as the main suspect. Because, my opinion, so many adult males were obsessed with poor little JonBenet, it`s terrifying. And I`m not even talking about the wide circle of people, I `m talking for example December 23, narrow circle, when JonBenet all dressed, and big holiday was going on, she was crying quietly somewhere in the corner.
Even looking at the December 23 circle of people, everybody looks like in Agatha Christie`s novel, every and each one of guests could be the one. Santa, weird fan of JonBenet, Grand-pa, who jumped on the first available plane after the event, brother Andrew, according to his fellow students could not help but talked about JB all the time, Mr. White, accused of suspicious behavior by housekeeper Linda P. I don`t know if gardener was there, but he knew how her leg muscles were nicely shaped. Is it Agatha Christie or what ? And how to eliminate any of them? They all were there, on 23-rd. She was crying that evening. She was expecting secret Santa visit on 25-th. Could it be connected ? Crying and he- "Don`t cry, Santa will visit you with nice presents, just stop crying. I promise. Keep it secret". Could it be that her crying made him realize he was in danger of exposure and he made his plan?

And to add to this trouble more, we need to add everybody from the far circles, which could amount to a big number of adult males.

The theory of pedophile is possible, but in my opinion if it was a pedophile crime, not necessary he had been in the house on the night of the crime. I would think quite opposite, he would stay behind, masterminding and waiting. Possibly waiting for JonBenet had been delivered to him as a Christmas present for himself. Or, pedophile would want to simply kill her, realizing that his sexual movements towards JB could be exposed soon by her. He could hire criminals.

I know I have not said anything new.

My frank opinion- it was more in the crime, than pedophile kidnaping went wrong, because of 118,000 number. That what I wanted to emphasize, why pedophile mentioned 118,000? Was he-- envy of John`s success-- pedophile?

tovarisch,
Sometimes in novels its not one of the main suspects who end up as the perpetrator but someone on the periphery. If the RN is real then whomever authored it must have prior knowledge regarding the $118,000, and that might have been a Ramsey business associate, possibly even a contractual agent, in their terms a Foreign Faction, so possibly the mystery pedophile was employed by JR himself?

.

 

[andreww]

One question, if you were writing a ransom note, why on earth would you say who you are?

It's as ludicrous as this...

Dear mr & mrs Ramsey

We are. Small group of neighbors that live across the street and we have your daughter.


Kidnappers don't do that. The only reason the author felt comfortable mentioning the Foreign faction is because it doesn't exist. The FBI took one look at the note and knew it was fake. Here we are almost 20 years later and people are still theorizing about the SFF, the $118,000, and SBTC.

Good job Patsy, mission accomplished.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

The "bonus" wasn't really a bonus; it was deferred compensation, AND the net amount (~$118,220 +/- some change) was paid, in full, February of 1996.

Bonus or not, you aren't answering the question. Who, besides the Ramsey's would know that amount, given that it was not paid in one lump sum?

I think I can safely say that besides a few access payroll employees, the Ramsey's were probably the only people on the planet that knew that figure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mama2JML]

Bonus or not, you aren't answering the question. Who, besides the Ramsey's would know that amount, given that it was not paid in one lump sum?

I think I can safely say that besides a few access payroll employees, the Ramsey's were probably the only people on the planet that knew that figure.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It was paid in one lump sum ~11 months before the murder.

 

[Chelly]

It was paid in one lump sum ~11 months before the murder.

I've been trying to find that payout date. Do you have a link? All I have is that according to Steve Thomas, John Ramsey had "recently received" the $118,117.50 bonus.

 

[Global Justice Ops]

One question, if you were writing a ransom note, why on earth would you say who you are?

It's as ludicrous as this...

Dear mr & mrs Ramsey

We are. Small group of neighbors that live across the street and we have your daughter.


Kidnappers don't do that. The only reason the author felt comfortable mentioning the Foreign faction is because it doesn't exist. The FBI took one look at the note and knew it was fake. Here we are almost 20 years later and people are still theorizing about the SFF, the $118,000, and SBTC.

Good job Patsy, mission accomplished.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because there are thousands of groups overseas who have unethical practices.

If I wrote the ransom note and said "I am an angry man with very bad intentions..." it would not help the Police one bit in finding me...because there are a lot of angry men with bad intentions in America.

Just like there are thousands of street gangs, organized crime groups, cults, clubs, and groups of bored teenage friends who think they are invincible. The group types I just listed exist here in the States and abroad. It is not something that can help Police pinpoint certain individuals.

 

[andreww]

Because there are thousands of groups overseas who have unethical practices.

If I wrote the ransom note and said "I am an angry man with very bad intentions..." it would not help the Police one bit in finding me...because there are a lot of angry men with bad intentions in America.

Just like there are thousands of street gangs, organized crime groups, cults, clubs, and groups of bored teenage friends who think they are invincible. The group types I just listed exist here in the States and abroad. It is not something that can help Police pinpoint certain individuals.

Okay, if you think the ransom note is legit, why was both Ramsey's first thought "maybe the housekeeper did it"? Never once did John say it could be this or that foreign group. They immediately started looking at the hired help and friends right? So even they, from the very outset did not take the note seriously. So if one is to not take the section about being a "small foreign faction" seriously, why take any part of that note seriously? Well the answer is they didn't. They called cops and friends without mentioning the threat of beheading. They never questioned why the supposed kidnappers hadn't called by the deadline. They were oblivious to the note because it was all BS that they had concocted. This is all 100% undeniable, and unlike the very weak forensic evidence, points right at the Ramseys.

ETA, actually a lot of the weak forensic evidence points at the Ramseys as well.

 

[tovarisch]

Okay, if you think the ransom note is legit, why was both Ramsey's first thought "maybe the housekeeper did it"? Never once did John say it could be this or that foreign group. They immediately started looking at the hired help and friends right? So even they, from the very outset did not take the note seriously. So if one is to not take the section about being a "small foreign faction" seriously, why take any part of that note seriously? Well the answer is they didn't. They called cops and friends without mentioning the threat of beheading. They never questioned why the supposed kidnappers hadn't called by the deadline. They were oblivious to the note because it was all BS that they had concocted. This is all 100% undeniable, and unlike the very weak forensic evidence, points right at the Ramseys.

ETA, actually a lot of the weak forensic evidence points at the Ramseys as well.

The human logic and reasoning has laws and pattern, regardless if you are just a person or train investigator. You fist start looking in your inner circle, it`s unconscious direction of your brain. You start with the simple. Housekeeper Linda P. asked for the loan two days before. She first one to jump in your conscious, she was the latest memorable event, concerning the money asking.
John later said many times that he felt that it might be related to his business.

 

[Mama2JML]

I've been trying to find that payout date. Do you have a link? All I have is that according to Steve Thomas, John Ramsey had "recently received" the $118,117.50 bonus.

http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-ransom-vs-bonus.htm


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

The human logic and reasoning has laws and pattern, regardless if you are just a person or train investigator. You fist start looking in your inner circle, it`s unconscious direction of your brain. You start with the simple. Housekeeper Linda P. asked for the loan two days before. She first one to jump in your conscious, she was the latest memorable event, concerning the money asking.
John later said many times that he felt that it might be related to his business.

You are making excuses for him. Someone leaves a letter saying we did it and its because of your business, and your first thought is "maybe its the housekeeper"? I'm not buying that at all.

If this case has taught me anything its that rich people can say anything, and no matter how bizarre it is, there will always be a segment of the population that will believe them. If the Ramsey's were simple trailer park yokuls, would you still be buying that cockamamie story?

 

[Global Justice Ops]

They were asked who had access to the house and responded by saying their housekeeper did. And she had recently requested money from them. That would be something that I would tell the police officers if my daughter was kidnapped.

 

[midwest mama]

Very true. As RDI as I have become over the years, I still WANT TO learn one day that it was an intruder (though I believe would have to have been known to the R's) who so heinously killed JB. I do not want to think for one second that any beautiful 6 yr. old child like her would have shown such a horrendous physical attack causing her death at autopsy, let alone the opinions of chronic sexual abuse perpetrated upon her.

Recently, I took another look at the psychic sketch, that is called "sketchman" online, and while some say it has an uncanny resemblance to JMK, I couldn't help but notice how much it resembles the photos of Mervin Pugh. It was said that he had appeared somewhat inebriated during his first police interview, and that the best alibi he has is that he fell asleep in the recliner watching TV and was not sharing sleeping quarters with LP at the time JB was murdered. Supposedly, he did provide the requested forensic samples, which did not incriminate him, though the candyrose website does not have this documented about him, while it does show LP's tests as recorded.

IIRC, another person once referred to him as Merv the Perv.....hmmmm. Again, here I am looking at yet another reason to confuse myself over who really killed such a beautiful child.:gaah:

 

[Chelly]

http://www.acandyrose.com/s-evidence-ransom-vs-bonus.htm


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thank you.

 

[tovarisch]

You are making excuses for him. Someone leaves a letter saying we did it and its because of your business, and your first thought is "maybe its the housekeeper"? I'm not buying that at all.

If this case has taught me anything its that rich people can say anything, and no matter how bizarre it is, there will always be a segment of the population that will believe them. If the Ramsey's were simple trailer park yokuls, would you still be buying that cockamamie story?

1.Living in the trailer is not a diagnosis.
2.Being rich is not diagnosis.
3.Background history is a diagnosis.
You making assumption about #1 and #2 without applying #3. Very wrong.

I do not care where anybody lives, but I will apply #3, first thing to do.
Then I look at the modern technology forensic facts. White male DNA in three places on the body: fingernails, on the outer pants, on the inner pants mixed with JB`s blood. Right in the blood spot. Not half inch right or left of the blood spot, but right in the blood.
Trailer or mansion. Unidentified DNA.

Are you serious that you do not believe in modern forensic technology ? WE do.

 

[andreww]

1.Living in the trailer is not a diagnosis.
2.Being rich is not diagnosis.
3.Background history is a diagnosis.
You making assumption about #1 and #2 without applying #3. Very wrong.

I do not care where anybody lives, but I will apply #3, first thing to do.
Then I look at the modern technology forensic facts. White male DNA in three places on the body: fingernails, on the outer pants, on the inner pants mixed with JB`s blood. Right in the blood spot. Not half inch right or left of the blood spot, but right in the blood.
Trailer or mansion. Unidentified DNA.

Are you serious that you do not believe in modern forensic technology ? WE do.

Not saying I don't believe modern forensics, but we have a little girl who wasn't adverse to letting strangers help her go to the bathroom. She had a large circle of playmates, and a mother who couldn't even tell you when the last time she ate, washed her hands or bathed. That IMO leaves the DNA open to speculation. Is it even relevant to this case? You and nobody else can say that for certain. But the note and the Ramsey's actions are all facts. They are 100% relavent and they point at the Ramsey's.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mama2JML]

Not saying I don't believe modern forensics, but we have a little girl who wasn't adverse to letting strangers help her go to the bathroom. She had a large circle of playmates, and a mother who couldn't even tell you when the last time she ate, washed her hands or bathed.

Strangers? Your comment may be based on something Nedra supposedly said, but it seems to be a bit of an exaggeration.

According to Patsy, JonBenét bathed on Christmas Eve before an evening church service. Of course, she may have later come into contact with a stranger whose DNA was innocently deposited in at least three (incriminating, IMO) locations.

Hopefully, we will one day have a DNA match so that we can be presented with a scientifically sound explanation.

That IMO leaves the DNA open to speculation. Is it even relevant to this case? You and nobody else can say that for certain.

Relevance is subjective. The totality of evidence in this case certainly includes the RN and the behaviors/actions of POIs, but it also includes the forensic DNA. (...& prints, hairs, fibers, experts' analyses, etc.)

But the note and the Ramsey's actions are all facts. They are 100% relavent and they point at the Ramsey's.

...in your opinion. I disagree.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Global Justice Ops]

There is a developing form of technology that allows scientists to use DNA to create a facial composite of a person. It's called a genetic mug shot and has shown to be something that might be heavily relied on in the future. There is still a lot of work to be done in various scientific fields to perfect it but NOTHING has so far appeared that shows it is impossible. One day when the technology is fine-tuned we might be able to see the face of the unknown male who left that DNA there.

That genetic mug shot can be shown to all witnesses, persons of interests, residents of Boulder, and there is a good chance someone who will recognize that person.

It's already coming close. Imagine what can happen in the future. This composite was created based on the DNA of a Californian women. Note the hair style is impossible to know from DNA. But color is.

 

[andreww]

Strangers? Your comment may be based on something Nedra supposedly said, but it seems to be a bit of an exaggeration.

According to Patsy, JonBenét bathed on Christmas Eve before an evening church service. Of course, she may have later come into contact with a stranger whose DNA was innocently deposited in at least three (incriminating, IMO) locations.

Hopefully, we will one day have a DNA match so that we can be presented with a scientifically sound explanation.

Relevance is subjective. The totality of evidence in this case certainly includes the RN and the behaviors/actions of POIs, but it also includes the forensic DNA. (...& prints, hairs, fibers, experts' analyses, etc.)

...in your opinion. I disagree.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So JB last bathed on the afternoon of the 24th. That leaves almost 2 days where that DNA could have been placed on her. You may wan't to take in to account that her body may have been wiped down. If a towel or rag with someone else DNA on it was used, could that have transferred the DNA to JB? And have we ever seen a thorough analysis of the DNA? Do we know that all the samples collected are from the same person? For a fact, not just internet rumours?

All Im saying here is that the DNA samples are sketchy to begin with. They aren't semen apparently. There is no way to tell when they got there, so we can't even be sure that they are relevant to this case. So to try and use them as the determining factor to incriminate or clear anybody is just ludicrous. Its just not there and probably never will be. So you need to look at the other evidence and decide from that.

Bottom line is that a Grand Jury listened to evidence for months and decided that the Ramseys did play a role in this case. Although the reccomendations fell short of charging them with murder, probably because all the witnesses lied or aided in the coverup, and there was absolutley no way of determining who did what.

You don't think that the Ramseys and their Lawyers knew exactly what the Grand Jury recommendations were? Yet they lied again, telling the public that the GJ had exonerated them. They never sat for interviews with journalists that weren't hand picked. In short, they never have and never will answer the tough questions.

So you can believe what you like, I'm not buying it.

 

[DeeDee249]

So JB last bathed on the afternoon of the 24th. That leaves almost 2 days where that DNA could have been placed on her. You may wan't to take in to account that her body may have been wiped down. If a towel or rag with someone else DNA on it was used, could that have transferred the DNA to JB? And have we ever seen a thorough analysis of the DNA? Do we know that all the samples collected are from the same person? For a fact, not just internet rumours?

All Im saying here is that the DNA samples are sketchy to begin with. They aren't semen apparently. There is no way to tell when they got there, so we can't even be sure that they are relevant to this case. So to try and use them as the determining factor to incriminate or clear anybody is just ludicrous. Its just not there and probably never will be. So you need to look at the other evidence and decide from that.

Bottom line is that a Grand Jury listened to evidence for months and decided that the Ramseys did play a role in this case. Although the reccomendations fell short of charging them with murder, probably because all the witnesses lied or aided in the coverup, and there was absolutley no way of determining who did what.

You don't think that the Ramseys and their Lawyers knew exactly what the Grand Jury recommendations were? Yet they lied again, telling the public that the GJ had exonerated them. They never sat for interviews with journalists that weren't hand picked. In short, they never have and never will answer the tough questions.

So you can believe what you like, I'm not buying it.

We already do know that the coroner confirmed that she WAS wiped down, at least in her pubic area and her upper thighs. I would also think that anything that was used to wipe her down (such as a towel, JR's wool shirt) would transfer DNA that had been on it, as well as fibers. Her body was found to have dark (possibly dark blue) fibers such as could have come from a towel. I have never seen whether the home was checked for towels that matched those fibers. We also know JR had a navy terry bathrobe that was found in the den. I have never seen where that robe was tested to see if it matched those fibers. But if I were investigating, I certainly would have.
JR's dark wool Israeli-made shirt was taken as evidence, I believe, because police found fibers matching that shirt with fibers found INSIDE the crotch of her panties (where they couldn't have landed unless he handled the panties). Carrying her upstairs, holding her around the waist, would NOT have transferred these fibers to the inside of panties that were UNDER the longjohns. L
Lying was the name of the game for the Rs and their team. Lie, blame, deflect.