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

[ScarlettScarpetta]

If you own a plane, you are by default not broke.

Do you know he owns a plane? How do you know? He married a fashion designer. It could be her money.. Not his.

 

[Anti-K]

Yes but either way it is IRRELEVANT because an intruder would have NO WAY of knowing the parents night habits with their kids unless they had stalked them.

Haven’t I been saying that the killer may have “stalked” the Ramseys?

The fact that you are focused on the semantics of this issue is baffling to me. It has nothing to do with anything.
.





Sorry but this is a nonsense counterpoint. As I said before. The intruder went all the way into the basement with the body and cornered themselves into a room with only a window as a means of escape.

You keep acting like "so what" it doesn't matter but have yet to address why you would think that someone who had so much premeditation in this case would take such a stupid risk in the middle of it.

After they got Jonbenet downstairs, at ANY POINT they could have been trapped with the body. The argument that they "could have had weapons" is a stupid argument in my opinion. You could have a machine gun with you and that's not going to do you a bit of good if the parents stayed on the third floor and called the cops.

It seems to me – I could be wrong – that you’re arguing the precautionary principle: if the killer premeditated this crime, then he must have considered the consequences of being trapped in the basement and the consequences of being trapped in the basement are so high that the killer would not take his victim to the basement.

I am saying that the precautionary principle does not apply because the risk was taken. We know that the killer would have been trapped in the basement if things had gone awry; regardless, the killer still took his victim to the basement.

I am saying that the killer considered the consequences, but that he believed that the benefit (fulfillment of desire/fantasy) outweighed the risk (small chance of being trapped in the basement), and that he ignored the precautionary principle.

I am saying that the killer believed, as many wrong-doers do, that he wouldn’t be caught. Everyone was sleeping, and they would stay sleeping and he’d do his deed and he’d slip away and none would be the wiser ‘til morning.
.

I admit to some confusion because you’ve also said that adding a second person to the mix could mitigate the risk, so, maybe you’re really arguing that if the killer premeditated this crime, then he must have considered the consequences of being trapped in the basement and the consequences of being trapped in the basement are so high that the killer would not take his victim to the basement unless he had an accomplice (what would an accomplice do? Where would they be positioned? What is the step-by-step?).
.

Why would someone call the police? If one or both parents woke up and discovered that Jonbenet was not in bed, they would simply go looking for her.
...

AK

 

[2 percent]

Maybe one of them was awake and walking around and maybe that someone was Jonbenet and maybe that’s how she came to be a victim. No?

Wait...
You've been saying the Ramseys were probably stalked. Now she was a victim of opportunity? How do you account for the RN then?

 

[Darly314]

I'm getting the sense that you are IDI by default because you can't envision the Ramseys as the murderer(s)/molester(s). Please don't imagine tone, I don't care. I'm just stating an observation, no value added.

It has been my experience that in sexual matters people don't really know each other at all. I couldn't tell you the normal details of the sex life of the people closest to me - frequency, who initiates, etc - and I most certainly couldn't tell you the kinks - fantasies, extras, etc. These are people I've known my whole life, who I've shared many things with...and they could tell you diddly squat about that part of me either.

Molestation is still very much a "family affair" (pardon my disgusting levity). I probably have known over 20 women who have been molested and only one of those cases came to legal action. All of the rest have stayed in the family.

I see no reason to assume that if John or Patsy were into this sort of sexual gratification it would be obvious or known outside their sexual partner(s).
*****************************************************************************

Good points; I am "IDI" by default as the DNA carries weight, with me. Also, the slow strangulation does not fit either parent. I can see a blow to the child resulting in the head injury, but not the strangulation. My opinion is subject to change. Leopold and Loeb planned for seven months, allegedly, yet were caught. Why have the parents eluded capture IF one or both did it? The grand jury recommendation is one thing, but Grand Juries hear only one side.

 

[otg]

According to reports he is basically broke. That could mean he is living as a normal middle of the road american, But he is in no way wealthy. Unless you have his financial statements to make a declarative statement that he is not broke is just your opinion. Many people appear to have more than they do but live on credit and loans. There is no way to tell.

I’m not sure which “reports” you’ve read about his financial status; so if you have information unavailable to the rest of us, please share it. I’ve only read an article (from way back when) that suggested he had found it necessary to scale back on his expenses (as in, he had to sell two of his three homes). Regardless, your stating that “he is in no way wealthy” is a far cry from stating he is “basically broke”. There is no sense in continuing this trivial discussion about someone’s finances that none of us have any idea about. My only point (which I will stand behind) was that a person who is “broke” isn’t able to continue paying rent for an airplane hangar to store his private airplane.

The other point (which I didn’t state, but should be obvious) is that by suggesting Lou Smit wasn’t paid off simply because John Ramsey didn’t have the money likewise suggests that if he did have the money, Smit could have been. (I don’t believe that.) I think Smit had enough integrity that he couldn’t have been “bought off”. I think Smit really believed in an intruder, or at least he believed that neither John nor Patsy killed JonBenet. I think he took his traveling slide show to the airwaves because he believed he was doing the right thing considering what he actually knew. (But don’t get me started on that -- this thread isn’t the place for it.)

Lou Smit's motives were justice for JBR. And nothing else. He was a good upstanding detective with an impeccable record.

Neither of us know what his motives were, so I won't speculate. But I agree with you on his record up to his involvement in the Ramsey case.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I’m not sure which “reports” you’ve read about his financial status; so if you have information unavailable to the rest of us, please share it. I’ve only read an article (from way back when) that suggested he had found it necessary to scale back on his expenses (as in, he had to sell two of his three homes). Regardless, your stating that “he is in no way wealthy” is a far cry from stating he is “basically broke”. There is no sense in continuing this trivial discussion about someone’s finances that none of us have any idea about. My only point (which I will stand behind) was that a person who is “broke” isn’t able to continue paying rent for an airplane hangar to store his private airplane.

The other point (which I didn’t state, but should be obvious) is that by suggesting Lou Smit wasn’t paid off simply because John Ramsey didn’t have the money likewise suggests that if he did have the money, Smit could have been. (I don’t believe that.) I think Smit had enough integrity that he couldn’t have been “bought off”. I think Smit really believed in an intruder, or at least he believed that neither John nor Patsy killed JonBenet. I think he took his traveling slide show to the airwaves because he believed he was doing the right thing considering what he actually knew. (But don’t get me started on that -- this thread isn’t the place for it.)



Neither of us know what his motives were, so I won't speculate. But I agree with you on his record up to his involvement in the Ramsey case.

The point is that JR did not and does not have the money he had before JBR passed. He is married to a very successful woman so all signs of wealth that you see are most likely coming from that.

 

[Darly314]

Sure, all of that could be true true about fiber evidence (or lack of) on the window, but it's unlikely to be true given the state of other evidence.

Why wipe that area and not others? Fibers were found in other areas of the basement, I think some of them haven't been matched to anything in the house.

Why would LE, specifically Smit, minutely examine debris debris and swipe marks on and around the window but ignore fibers? They wouldn't. Fibers weren't there.

Why withhold the evidence? Again, there is publicized fiber evidence from the basement already. Withheld evidence is usually used to gain an edge during the investigation. There's no apparent edge to withholding some fiber evidence and not other other in this case. But most importantly, Smit concentrated his time and effort on the window entry/exit theory so he would know the evidence associated with the window. He took that knowledge with him when he resigned. If it were withheld evidence he would have revealed it after resignation to bolster his intruder theory.

**********************************
The entire murder, and events thereafter, are unlikely. Why would any of the family remove only the fibers referenced? I know LE often holds evidence to match a suspect, when apprehended. Someone noted Karr was somehow proven not to have been Colorado, as the reason why he was cleared after his "confession". But I have read, in many sources, the DNA wasn't a match. References here are to "touch" DNA, I have also read there was blood on JonBenet Ramsey's underwear. Either way, DNA played into the release of Karr. And if one her family killed her, which one?

John Ramsey might withstand the pressure for years, but Patsy or Burke? Not as "likely".

 

[Anti-K]

Wait...
You've been saying the Ramseys were probably stalked. Now she was a victim of opportunity? How do you account for the RN then?

You’re the one who’s saying there was a high risk that someone would be awake, I’m just asking, what if that someone was Jonbenet? This neither contradicts nor changes anything else that I’ve said in anyway.

Have I been saying that the Ramseys were probably stalked, or have I been saying that they could have been stalked. Hmmmm...

How do I account for the ransom note? How can you ask this question? Good grief! See here: http://tinyurl.com/mugwrx3
...

AK

 

[2 percent]

You’re the one who’s saying there was a high risk that someone would be awake, I’m just asking, what if that someone was Jonbenet? This neither contradicts nor changes anything else that I’ve said in anyway.

That wasn't me.

Have I been saying that the Ramseys were probably stalked, or have I been saying that they could have been stalked. Hmmmm...

"Probably"..."could have"...hairs are being split here that are not necessary. The difference between the words is not appreciable enough to me for further definition.
The question was how you account for the ransom note in a victim of opportunity scenario.

How do I account for the ransom note? How can you ask this question? Good grief! See here: http://tinyurl.com/mugwrx3

As far as I can tell all of your theories of the ransom note assume it's premeditated.
"Daughter" is mentioned specifically in the ransom note.
So if JB was a victim of opportunity, one the molester/murderer came across while she was wandering the house, how do you account for a premeditated ransom note in a molestation/murder of opportunity?

 

[2 percent]

The point is that JR did not and does not have the money he had before JBR passed. He is married to a very successful woman so all signs of wealth that you see are most likely coming from that.

Articles do say she costumes stars in Vegas and Branson but we don't really know know if that makes her a ton of money. Neither Vegas nor Branson showcase A-list stars...maybe not even B-list.

We do know she claims he travelled for hours to see her every weekend for months while thy we're dating. I doubt she paid for that.

We also know they were vacationing at a Vero Beach resort when he proposed. Again, doubt she footed that bill herself.

Then we have the wedding at Castle Farms. Not cheap! I don't believe she had enough money to foot these bills and while I'm not a fan of John's, I doubt he'd let her pay his way either.

He may not be as wealthy but he still has money.

 

[Tawny]

Provide the links you're clearly getting his financial status information from.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Articles do say she costumes stars in Vegas and Branson but we don't really know know if that makes her a ton of money. Neither Vegas nor Branson showcase A-list stars...maybe not even B-list.

We do know she claims he travelled for hours to see her every weekend for months while thy we're dating. I doubt she paid for that.

We also know they were vacationing at a Vero Beach resort when he proposed. Again, doubt she footed that bill herself.

Then we have the wedding at Castle Farms. Not cheap! I don't believe she had enough money to foot these bills and while I'm not a fan of John's, I doubt he'd let her pay his way either.

He may not be as wealthy but he still has money.

She owns her own company. And what the heck does it matter what he has in the bank? Who cares????!

He lost his wife and his daughter. I don't think money makes that any better.

 

[Linda7NJ]

She owns her own company. And what the heck does it matter what he has in the bank? Who cares????!



He lost his wife and his daughter. I don't think money makes that any better.

He buried two daughters.

Personally, I couldn't care less what he has in the bank.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Chewy]

Is the topic going to stay on topic or are we going to continue with pointless gossip? Just curious?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

He buried two daughters.

Personally, I couldn't care less what he has in the bank.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thank you I forgot about his other dd. So he has buried three people he loved.


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

 

[Anti-K]

That wasn't me.



"Probably"..."could have"...hairs are being split here that are not necessary. The difference between the words is not appreciable enough to me for further definition.
The question was how you account for the ransom note in a victim of opportunity scenario.



As far as I can tell all of your theories of the ransom note assume it's premeditated.
"Daughter" is mentioned specifically in the ransom note.
So if JB was a victim of opportunity, one the molester/murderer came across while she was wandering the house, how do you account for a premeditated ransom note in a molestation/murder of opportunity?

You’re right; it wasn’t you who said that. Sorry for the confusion. Everyone here looks the same to me!
.

The difference between “probably” and “could have” is appreciable to me, and I think it should be to you, too! If you think these terms mean essentially the same thing then you’re going to make a lot of mistakes in interpreting what others are saying. Probably means “more likely than not;” while “could have” says nothing about probability.
.

I don’t think that Jonbenet was a victim of opportunity. I was being facetious.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Even though I was being facetious, I suppose I could try to answer the question.
Let’s suppose that one of my “premeditated” theories is true; for example: a killer wishing to create an enduring mystery; or, a kidnapping; or...

The killer enters the house. He is planning to go to Jonbenet’s room so that he can nab her. But, to his surprise Jonbenet is awake and walking around on the first floor. She’s looking at christmas presents or the christmas tree, or she’s eating pineapple, or she’s doing whatever. He nabs her then and there. In this way a premeditated target becomes a victim of opportunity.

Now, let’s say that the only crime premeditated was a burglary – theft.

The killer enters the home. He sees Jonbenet awake and walking around doing whatever. Maybe she sees him, or, maybe he just likes what he sees. Startled or inspired, he hits her with his flashlight. He takes her to the basement because he isn’t sure what to do with her. He molests and asphyxiates her. He molests her because he can, because of inexperience and curiosity, because he’s always wanted to try this, etc; and, he asphyxiates her to eliminate the risk of being identified should she survive the head blow.

He writes the ransom note after hiding the body. He writes it because he thinks he can take advantage of the situation and collect a ransom, or because he is ashamed and wishes to direct attention away from the sexual aspect of the crime, or because he wants to direct suspicion and investigation away from his “profession” and original purpose: burglary for theft; IOWs, misdirection. Etc.
...

AK

 

[2 percent]

She owns her own company. And what the heck does it matter what he has in the bank? Who cares????!

He lost his wife and his daughter. I don't think money makes that any better.

I doubt anyone really cares. Mainly because the discussion quickly moved away from the actual account balance to...um...personalities. And from that good points were made about John's current finances.
So I agree. We should leave it there.

 

[2 percent]

The difference between “probably” and “could have” is appreciable to me, and I think it should be to you, too! If you think these terms mean essentially the same thing then you’re going to make a lot of mistakes in interpreting what others are saying. Probably means “more likely than not;” while “could have” says nothing about probability.

I said I didn't need further definition. I didn't say I didn't know the difference.

 

[Chewy]

Haven’t I been saying that the killer may have “stalked” the Ramseys?

It seems to me – I could be wrong – that you’re arguing the precautionary principle: if the killer premeditated this crime, then he must have considered the consequences of being trapped in the basement and the consequences of being trapped in the basement are so high that the killer would not take his victim to the basement.

Why would that be my argument when the killer DID take the victim to the basement. :blushing:

I'm saying that it doesn't make sense to say that someone who highly premeditated the crime would take the risk. If the Intruder went to all that trouble to set up the ransom note and preplanned the mutilation of the body, then he'd not likely just "RISK IT" when it came to being detected.


This suggests a few things. One is that he didn't act alone. There could have been someone else in the house to write the ransom note and stay in the kitchen waiting to hear if the house awoke.

Having a weapon on hand would only make sense if you had the ability to use it. Meaning the second person would need to be waiting upstairs prepared to "act" if he heard people upstairs making noise.

I am saying that the precautionary principle does not apply because the risk was taken. We know that the killer would have been trapped in the basement if things had gone awry; regardless, the killer still took his victim to the basement.

Exactly. So that eliminates someone who premeditated the crime to the extent that you suggest in trying to write the note to "get the attention of the FBI"

I am saying that the killer considered the consequences, but that he believed that the benefit (fulfillment of desire/fantasy) outweighed the risk (small chance of being trapped in the basement), and that he ignored the precautionary principle.

I know you are and it doesn't make any sense. That's what I'm saying.

I am saying that the killer believed, as many wrong-doers do, that he wouldn’t be caught. Everyone was sleeping, and they would stay sleeping and he’d do his deed and he’d slip away and none would be the wiser ‘til morning.
.

Yep we've seen people do this many times. Adam Leroy Lane for example broke into a house and attacked a 16 year old girl while her parents were sleeping in the other room. The parents awoke and ran in to stop him. The mother held onto the blade of the knife in order to save her daughter. Turned out the guy was a serial killer.

But this was not a highly premeditated "I'm writing the ransom note to get the attention of the FBI" type serial killer. Those ones stalk their prey carefully and avoid detection.

I admit to some confusion because you’ve also said that adding a second person to the mix could mitigate the risk, so, maybe you’re really arguing that if the killer premeditated this crime, then he must have considered the consequences of being trapped in the basement and the consequences of being trapped in the basement are so high that the killer would not take his victim to the basement unless he had an accomplice (what would an accomplice do? Where would they be positioned? What is the step-by-step?)

.

Exactly. This is why I'm saying you need to spell it out step by step. Because it doesn't add up when you just jump around the theory like a pinball game. But you can deduct information about the chain of events that will lead you to a specific direction.


I think this is why so many people finally turned to RDI, because the more you look at how this thing was supposed to have gone down, the more it doesn't make sense.

If JBR was found in the basement garotted and dead, then it would make more sense to me that someone broke in and killed her. But that ransom note just doesn't make any sense.

.

Why would someone call the police? If one or both parents woke up and discovered that Jonbenet was not in bed, they would simply go looking for her.
...

AK

Because they heard them in the house. Because Burke said the man took Jonbenet to the basement. Any number of reasons. Like I said, John could have been looking for a baseball bat or golf club and trying to run down while Patsy was on the phone. I AM NOT SAYING THIS HAPPENED I'm saying the criminal would have no way of knowing it wasn't happening. Even if he shoots John in the basement, there are TWO OTHER PEOPLE in the house who could be on the phone with the police and catch the guy in the act.


So this risk taking gives us important information. And so does the ransom note. The note being written in the house is ALSO a risk. It also indicates things in the note that let us know they knew John Ramsey, at least who he was. So that suggests careful stalking, not random serial killer psycho breaks in.



A. It could have been two people (I lean towards this)

B. It could have been two TEENAGERS. That's something I was thinking of the other day. These "risks' and "craziness" of the ransom note seem to point to a very childish mindset. But the phrase "fat cat" isn't something a teenager would likely use. So I'm not sure.

C. It could have been someone who knew how to get in and out of the house. Since the window ledge shows no fibers it is unlikely that someone dragged themselves out of the window.


IMO my theory is leaning towards neighbors who said they heard the scream. I've pointed this out as well but it's been ignored.

The womans husband said he heard the metal dragging on cement sound. At this point that detail wasn't revealed to the public (I don't think) but I find it really odd that his "sound" that he retracted, matched the staging of the window with the suitcase under it, as if someone climbed out the window and opened the metal grate.

That strikes me as very odd. It's also odd that they moved away right after the crime which is a common pattern for guilty criminals. It could be they were planning on kidnapping her and really going for the ransom and they thought the Ramseys wouldn't call the police and would instead give in to the ransom. And that's why the ransom says she will be "delivered" "picked up" because they figured by the second day she'd be decomposing in the basement and they'd be in the free and clear.

IMHO I think it's worth considering.

Here are some quotes of what MS said she heard that night. Her extremely detailed statement is not something that I would think a person would just say and retract or make a mistake about. It's VERY detailed. Who says something like this and just "retracts" it??? She also had her husband saying things that were very detailed.

If people want to argue that MS was just trying to "get attention" it doesn't add up that her husband would also involve himself in her delusion. Why would BOTH of them say the same story and then retract it. I have stated before that I think it's strange that hearing the scream gives them a quasi alibi. If they were "hearing the scream" in their bedroom then they wouldn't be "at the scene."

Melody Stanton, one of the Ramsey's neighbors (living less than 100 feet away), awoke abruptly from a deep sleep - the prior stillness of the Boulder night has been pierced by the harrowing scream of a child (for her brother Burke, now 12, to save her from being killed, experts say.

When a child is attacked by a parent, she has to turn to an ally she can trust. And we know JonBenét was close to Burke and trusted him. Patsy has told police that JonBenét had a habit of going into her brother's room during the night, but according to the book Perfect Murder, Perfect Town, Burke admitted that he pretended to be asleep that morning about the time his mother called 911).

She assumed it was somewhere between midnight and 2:00 a.m., but didn't look at the alarm clock. The scream lasted three to five seconds (it was a little girl screaming," recalls Stanton, 52. It was the longest, most horrible scream I have ever heard in my entire life. It sent shivers down my spine. I could tell the sound was coming from the Ramsey house and I knew instantly it had to be their little girl, JonBenét". The next morning, while police still thought the 6-year-old beauty queen had been kidnapped, Stanton told them about the heart-rending cry that rang through the Ramsey house and stopped as abruptly as it started.

(Melody momentarily had at the time wondered what to do, but thought that surely the parents would hear and come to the child’s rescue. Although still bothered by the scream and the thought that a child had been injured, she stayed awake and listened for any other noises for five to ten minutes, but heard absolutely nothing after that - no cars, no voices, no footsteps, so she eventually went back to sleep). This time has since been corroborated as the app. time of the skull fracture suffered by JonBenet, a skull fracture so severe that it would have ended the little girl's life had she not been strangled. Three neighbors have gone on-record giving depositions of hearing this scream at app. midnight. The Ramsey's have always claimed they heard no such (scream). How could this possibly be?

from here (note this site is a RDI site)
http://someoneisgettingawaywithmurd.../stanton-one-of-ramseys-neighbors-living.html

I'm going to leave this here as well just for research purposes. What I also find really strange about this is that MS never reported it to the police anyway. She told her friend and the friend called the police.

On December26, 1996, between 12:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m. she woke from sleep, heard a child's scream that lasted 3 to 5 seconds. Melody's bedroom was on second floor facing the Ramsey house. Her neighbor, Diane Brumfitt reported the incident to the police. Thomas Chat 05-13-2001 said; Four other neighbors heard no screams, Four other nighbors heard no scraping sound
Stanton's Four Stories;
1) She heard nothing,
2) She heard a scream,
3) Was negative energy,
4) Heard 2 days before

You have a husband and wife who both report hearing something that night and NO ONE else did. Very very suspicious IMO.