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

[lawstudent]

I am amazed at the ruthlessness that child killers have. That they have no problem at all being so brutal to young children.

Not all of them are ruthless, though. Depends on their reasons for killing. Obviously, most people who randomly murder children are sexual predators. Not all of them enjoy hurting the child though. Obviously, any act of child molestation is a harmful and some would say violent act, but only some of them enjoy injuring or killing a child. This has never struck me as the action of a sexual predator, except for maybe a teen who has never done something like that before. Maybe he meant to keep her for a long time and thought he could throw suspicion off his trail by trying to make it look financially motivated. But I don't really see how the head bash fits in. He does it to shut her up, thinks she's dead, but acts out the fantasy before he leaves? Is that the typical theory?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Not all of them are ruthless, though. Depends on their reasons for killing. Obviously, most people who randomly murder children are sexual predators. Not all of them enjoy hurting the child though. Obviously, any act of child molestation is a harmful and some would say violent act, but only some of them enjoy injuring or killing a child. This has never struck me as the action of a sexual predator, except for maybe a teen who has never done something like that before. Maybe he meant to keep her for a long time and thought he could throw suspicion off his trail by trying to make it look financially motivated. But I don't really see how the head bash fits in. He does it to shut her up, thinks she's dead, but acts out the fantasy before he leaves? Is that the typical theory?

I spent some time tonight looking at the animals that kill kids. Samantha runnion was strangled. Amber Hagerman had her throat slit. Jon benet was strangled by a rope. There is a connection it seems with the throat and child killers. Somer Thompson also strangled.
a hideous thing to all have in common but I think it sets it apart from a parental killing. They seem to be either the result of abuse, Or detached killing...

I hope I am making sense.

 

[lawstudent]

When I look at the facts in this case, I see nothing that points to the guilt of any of the R's. Not one of them.

I have tried to see it and for me, It is just not there.

I see lots that points to someone else.

Even looking at it objectively, it's hard for me to shake the feeling they were involved, no matter how hard I try. But I am also not comfortable with any alleged theory put for as to why they did it. I can't think of any theory that makes sense, Ramsey or intruder. It drives me crazy. The focus on the Ramseys has been so overwhelming and negative that it's hard to look beyond them, and I feel so horrible if it was all untrue. But I pride myself on my ability to step back and take the unpopular view, and I still can't shake my suspicion of them.

 

[lawstudent]

I spent some time tonight looking at the animals that kill kids. Samantha runnion was strangled. Amber Hagerman had her throat slit. Jon benet was strangled by a rope. There is a connection it seems with the throat and child killers. Somer Thompson also strangled.
a hideous thing to all have in common but I think it sets it apart from a parental killing. They seem to be either the result of abuse, Or detached killing...

I hope I am making sense.

Yes, you make sense. I think strangulation tends to be a sexual thing, and sometimes the result of panic because it doesn't require a weapon. It also is a very personal act of rage and shuts the person up. That's why you see strangling in domestic violence situations a lot. Almost always men - I definitely think it's connected to control, whether sexual control or other kinds.

Smothering is more common when mothers intentionally kill kids - detached, easy, non-violent.

If she was just strangled, I'd be pretty convinced it was an intruder. The problem is that if it did come after the head bash, it could be staging by the Ramseys. Or, it could be living out a fantasy once the intruder thought she was dead. But it doesn't seem anyone intended to strangle her - it seemed to be something that happened once she appeared dead.

 

[2 percent]

Im not sure how this applies to my post.. You asked how they got in.

My sadist response was to another poster, BTK was mentioned, which is where you inserted yourself in the subject.

There is just not one kind of killer, or one kind of abuser.

Again, I don't play the edges. In my experience people just aren't unique enough to always assume the exception over the truth.

Just because someone was not caught for the crime does not mean they did not commit any other crime. There are a ton of unsolved cases all over the country.

Lost :waitasec:

 

[2 percent]

I wouldn't say this crime was particularly sadistic - it was pretty neat and clean, and she was knocked out quickly.

I feel like I'd be convinced someone close to me did this if I were John Ramsey, and live in constant paranoia. That's one of the things that makes me somewhat suspicious of the IDI theory. The ransom note is just so weird.

Seriously everyone...I wasn't the one that said it was a sadist. Another poster theorized leaving the body was a terror campaign, which pretty much translates to intimidation, clearly not evident in this case. Or sadism where the killer gets off from making the family live through the horror. Again, clearly not the case since nothing has shown up at a later date, like clippings of the crime or souvenirs, to torment.

I repeat, this was not my theory, as a reading of posts will show.
I think this murder was an escalated event. Always have said that, always will.

 

[Mama2JML]

Seriously everyone...I wasn't the one that said it was a sadist. Another poster theorized leaving the body was a terror campaign, which pretty much translates to intimidation, clearly not evident in this case. Or sadism where the killer gets off from making the family live through the horror. Again, clearly not the case since nothing has shown up at a later date, like clippings of the crime or souvenirs, to torment.

BBM
That isn't exactly what I said, and your translation of my thoughts is incorrect.

I repeat, this was not my theory, as a reading of posts will show.
I think this murder was an escalated event. Always have said that, always will.

Nor is it an accurate reflection of my opinion...

"An escalated event." I don't necessarily disagree, but I really don't know what you mean. Can you elaborate please?

 

[Anti-K]

Even looking at it objectively, it's hard for me to shake the feeling they were involved, no matter how hard I try. But I am also not comfortable with any alleged theory put for as to why they did it. I can't think of any theory that makes sense, Ramsey or intruder. It drives me crazy. The focus on the Ramseys has been so overwhelming and negative that it's hard to look beyond them, and I feel so horrible if it was all untrue. But I pride myself on my ability to step back and take the unpopular view, and I still can't shake my suspicion of them.

It’s okay to be suspicious of them. It’s okay to consider them as suspects. Put them on the list. They’re on my list. But, they’re far enough down on it that I don’t think much of them anymore.

I can’t think of any RDI theory that makes sense, but RDI could still be true. I can think of a few IDI theories that make some sense, but they could all be wrong.

IDI’s suspect is DNA-man. The ransom note is his work. These are (some of) the things that tell us that he – an unidentified suspect - exists.

Since we do not have an identified suspect we can only guess at theories, but unlike RDI, we have no one to test these theories against. i think sense will only come once the killer is identified and investigated.
...

AK

 

[Mama2JML]

AK, will you please post some of your Mindhunter/John Douglas "trivia"? ...and your invitation theory?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Even looking at it objectively, it's hard for me to shake the feeling they were involved, no matter how hard I try. But I am also not comfortable with any alleged theory put for as to why they did it. I can't think of any theory that makes sense, Ramsey or intruder. It drives me crazy. The focus on the Ramseys has been so overwhelming and negative that it's hard to look beyond them, and I feel so horrible if it was all untrue. But I pride myself on my ability to step back and take the unpopular view, and I still can't shake my suspicion of them.

I hear you. They are in the house so there is an assumption of involvement. I also have things that I don't like about things they did that irritate me.

This case has taken me 17 years to look at it all and come to a conclusion that fits the facts and evidence.
I have to stick to facts to find my way.

My biggest problem in this case is the hatred of the R's. I think it clouds the facts. Clouds the truth. They are an easy couple to not like. Some people don't like them because they had money. Some people don't like them because of the pageant stuff. Some think P was nuts.

But none of that adds up to murder.

I think the best place to look for suspects is that pageant crowd. I still don't think that was looked at enough or thoroughly. It is a hot bed for pedophiles.

I think there is so much here that points away for the family.

I wish so many mistakes were not made in the beginning. I think we really would have had an answer now.


Forgive the autocorrect. Tapatalk has a mind of its own.

 

[Anti-K]

AK, will you please post some of your Mindhunter/John Douglas "trivia"? ...and your invitation theory?

Okay. I won’t have time today but maybe later on in the week (tomorrow?) – I’ve been re-writing some of it lately and things are a bit scattered right now; plus, I haven’t had much time to read or post lately....
...

AK

 

[2 percent]

"An escalated event." I don't necessarily disagree, but I really don't know what you mean. Can you elaborate please?

I don't talk about it much and don't discuss the case on this site, but some on here know my brother in law disappeared 3 1/2 years ago. His disappearance was what I consider an escalated event.

Jr had had drug and alcohol problems most of his life but he had been sober for 5 years before his disappearance. During his substance abuse problems he had been in a serious accident which permanently affected his leg and since his job required some dexterity, the leg problems limited him.

But for those 5 years he was sober he had steady freelance work. But then the work dried up, he took a drink and re-injured his bad leg which further limited his mobility and ability to get a job. Everyone knew he was drinking again, but only the family knew that when he started pad locking the garage or shed that it meant he was using drugs again.

He was last seen parked on the side of the road drinking. He has never been found but his vehicle was. It was in a rocky, mountainous area he would not have been able to navigate with his bad leg. His wallet, keys, pants and a gun were found in his vehicle. The vehicle was wedged on a boulder, something Jr would never have done.

Why I consider this an escalating event is because circumstances escalated to create a situation that probably would not have naturally evolved without the stressors. If Jr had not started drinking again, he wouldn't have hurt his leg worse. If work hadn't dried up, he probably wouldn't have started drinking and doing drugs again. If he hadn't begun abusing again, he probably wouldn't be missing under what are very suspicious circumstances. I know I'm being simplistic...like I said, I don't like discussing the case. I hope you are getting my point.

I JBR's death was an escalated event too.
The sexual assault was the Main Event that night and as a result of something that happened during that assault, JBR was killed. I know that sounds like I consider accidental death as a possibility but I don't. The sex game was dangerous so at the very least the sexual assault on her deliberately put her life in danger.

So we have a sexual assault which resulted in a death. We have staging and evidence tampering as a result of the death. I don't believe the death would have occurred if not for the sexual assault. And obviously the evidence tampering and staging wouldn't have occurred unless there had been an unexpected death. In other words, things escalated based on each step events took that night.

 

[THE BUNK]

Yes, you make sense. I think strangulation tends to be a sexual thing, and sometimes the result of panic because it doesn't require a weapon. It also is a very personal act of rage and shuts the person up.

Most auto-erotic asphyxiation fetishes are done using hands and a plastic bag.
Remember that a garrote runs the risk of cutting into the skin and causing bleeding for both the victim and perpetrator.

Someone with such a specific sexual desire would have brought his own garrote specifically made for this type of fetish. He would not trust that the Ramsey's would have the necessary material for the garrotte. Nor would he waste valuable time trying to make the garrotte when the plain rope or his hands would be good enough.

 

[THE BUNK]

I don't think money was the motive. I think he wrote (& wrote & wrote) because he had the time, he was probably chemically dependent (meth, heroine, IDK), OCD, narcissistic, and fascinated by all things crime.

Who needs more money than a drug addict? $118,000 should buy you plenty of heroin.

 

[THE BUNK]

OCD, narcissistic, and fascinated by all things crime

OCD - Your trying to use OCD to explain the overstaging and repetition in the ransome note. There are better explanations for that.
Saying your right, though.....OCD would limit the suspect list severly. Should not be difficult to find an OCD sufferer amongst the Ramsey's acquaintance.

This criminal shows a very poor understanding of crime, IMHO. One of us could have done a far better job and left less evidence. I don't think this person had the slightest knowledge of how a crime is committed.

Narcissistic? Did the killer ever once use the word "I" in the ransom note? I think only in reference to saying he was a "representative" to the foreign faction. A narcissist would have have used less "we" and more "I". Compare the Zodiac letters to this note. Zodiac is in love with the word "I".

 

[Mama2JML]

I don't talk about it much and don't discuss the case on this site, but some on here know my brother in law disappeared 3 1/2 years ago. His disappearance was what I consider an escalated event.

Jr had had drug and alcohol problems most of his life but he had been sober for 5 years before his disappearance. During his substance abuse problems he had been in a serious accident which permanently affected his leg and since his job required some dexterity, the leg problems limited him.

But for those 5 years he was sober he had steady freelance work. But then the work dried up, he took a drink and re-injured his bad leg which further limited his mobility and ability to get a job. Everyone knew he was drinking again, but only the family knew that when he started pad locking the garage or shed that it meant he was using drugs again.

He was last seen parked on the side of the road drinking. He has never been found but his vehicle was. It was in a rocky, mountainous area he would not have been able to navigate with his bad leg. His wallet, keys, pants and a gun were found in his vehicle. The vehicle was wedged on a boulder, something Jr would never have done.

Why I consider this an escalating event is because circumstances escalated to create a situation that probably would not have naturally evolved without the stressors. If Jr had not started drinking again, he wouldn't have hurt his leg worse. If work hadn't dried up, he probably wouldn't have started drinking and doing drugs again. If he hadn't begun abusing again, he probably wouldn't be missing under what are very suspicious circumstances. I know I'm being simplistic...like I said, I don't like discussing the case. I hope you are getting my point.

I JBR's death was an escalated event too.
The sexual assault was the Main Event that night and as a result of something that happened during that assault, JBR was killed. I know that sounds like I consider accidental death as a possibility but I don't. The sex game was dangerous so at the very least the sexual assault on her deliberately put her life in danger.

So we have a sexual assault which resulted in a death. We have staging and evidence tampering as a result of the death. I don't believe the death would have occurred if not for the sexual assault. And obviously the evidence tampering and staging wouldn't have occurred unless there had been an unexpected death. In other words, things escalated based on each step events took that night.

Thank you for sharing. I hope (and I'll pray) your story has a happy ending. ...somehow. I don't really know what to say, but I know nothing I might conjure up would really matter. I am so sorry. You have my genuine, heart-felt sympathy. :heartbeat:

I will respond to the remainder of your post later today. I have a few domestic obligations to tend to @ the moment, but I think I understand your POV re: an escalation of events in the JBR case...

 

[Linda7NJ]

Most auto-erotic asphyxiation fetishes are done using hands and a plastic bag.

Remember that a garrote runs the risk of cutting into the skin and causing bleeding for both the victim and perpetrator.



Someone with such a specific sexual desire would have brought his own garrote specifically made for this type of fetish. He would not trust that the Ramsey's would have the necessary material for the garrotte. Nor would he waste valuable time trying to make the garrotte when the plain rope or his hands would be good enough.

Really? Iirc most cases I'm aware of hands, belt, tie, or scarf had been used. Plastic bag?
Shiver... The fetish is scary and so bizarre. IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[THE BUNK]

So we have a sexual assault which resulted in a death. We have staging and evidence tampering as a result of the death. I don't believe the death would have occurred if not for the sexual assault. And obviously the evidence tampering and staging wouldn't have occurred unless there had been an unexpected death. In other words, things escalated based on each step events took that night.

Keep in mind that the Ransom note has to be written BEFORE the Ramsey's arrive at home. Why write a ransom note before if it's a sexual assault? You can still sexually assault Jonbenet AND collect a ransom. They are not mutually exclusive.

 

[THE BUNK]

Really? Iirc most cases I'm aware of hands, belt, tie, or scarf had been used. Plastic bag?
Shiver... The fetish is scary and so bizarre. IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are we talking about the fetish or sexual attacks based on the fetish?

I remember seeing something where using the plastic bag was popular in Japan for the fetish.

In terms of sexual attack, hands, belt and tie are probably used more often.

 

[THE BUNK]

Sadists who torment survivors are one of the most predictable predictable patterns. They aren't satisfied with tormenting just once.

Which leads to the most glaring question...Why has this intruder never attempted to write more letters or make any threat calls to the ramsey's?
Why no taunt letter to the police about how they will never catch him?

Why stop at Jonbenet why not try to make the Ramsey's life even more miserable? Why not try to burn their house down? Why not try to kill Burke too? Why not send sadistic pedo pictures to Patsy?