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

[reedus23]

Again, others are much much more knowledgeable than myself, but as far as I have been able to read, while everyone and their brother have offered their opinion as to whether or not the handwriting matches PR's, in actuality, there are only either 4 or 6 I think experts that analyzed it. My memory says that each and every one of those experts either ruled PR out as the author of the ransom note or said that it was more likely to not be PR's writing than it was her. The rest of the experts, in my very humble opinion, have an agenda (like those hired in civil suits, those hired/used by media). So, as a result, there are actually ZERO handwriting analysis that matches PR's handwriting to the ransom note writing. The paper in the house being the source is unquestioned as far as I know, but that does not point to PR to the elimination of all others.

The rest, I don't feel educated enough to answer.

 

[tovarisch]

In my past life I had had a glimpse on a millionaire`s life, being a “financial servant” for one up-rising young lady –millionairess, and had been occasionally in her circle of friends-millionaires. “Our” millionaires grew as mushrooms almost over the night; nevertheless they knew their sudden changes added some responsibilities that they followed strictly.

I do not want to point the finger, but I want to share my experience of having glimpse of lives of newly and quickly self-made millionaires. I will present it in the form of questions and answers. “Our” newly made millionaires:

Their houses - any broken windows, broken locks on the doors? None.

Do they have security systems on? Yes, at the night time it`s always on.
Do they answer at their own door? Preferably not.

Any lost keys? Sometimes, then it`s a real emergency, and locksmith called promptly to change the locks.

Do their phone numbers known to anybody? Forget it.

Do they live by themselves as a single family? No. Somebody always lives in, period.

Who lives with them? - Live in security guy(s), or they have security guy(s) who comes for day
-Live in or coming and going gouverneur for the child (children); the gouverneur speaks fluently English/French/ or both, if children small or difficult then it`s always “ live in “gouverneur
-Cook live in or coming
--Maid live in or coming

Who takes children to school and back? Anybody who volunteers? No, never. Security guy only. Every day. That`s his job.

Do they have open houses for masses during Christmas? I do not want even to imagine expressions of their faces if they offered this option.

Do their children sleep unattended, separated from parent by the floor or two? Parents might sleep on the separate floor, but children are always attended by the gouverneur or security or relative living in. Period.

Do anybody sleep in their children`s bed? Answer is -??????

Do anybody ever changed their small children`s underwear? Gouverneur or maid does. Any neighborous, friends? No, they won`t have a chance. Children are always attended.

Do they expose their children to the any contests? Yes, they will put their daughters in a classic ballet, no make ups allowed, sons in Japanese or Chinese sports. Who will take children to lessons? Security guy.

I do not want to point finger. Myself, I do not want to be a millionaire, ever. I love my simple life. But if you are happened to be a millionaire, you just know there is no “simple life” anymore. It’s always your choice, but if you worked so hard to become a self-made millionaire, you become responsible for the lives of your family members, especially children, who exposed to an immediate potential risk.

The way “our” millionaires live probably extreme, but safe.

The way Ramseys millionaires lived- other extreme, pointing down to negligence. I`m sorry, but after comparing…
That`s how I always felt, despite my sympathy to Ramseys for their loss.

I have a fantasy that GJ thinked the same way, and that`s what the indictment was about.

Now, let me tell real life anecdote. It`s not connected to the case, but it`s so funny, and it`s connected to the millionaire`s life. Once back in my country I invited my American friend, future husband, to a party of a millionaire S. It was held in the summer house of S., on the nature. Nice crowd of rich polite people , a lot of securities dressed in a civilian suits. Firework in the sky, hor`derves and drinks served. There were two sons of a millionaire S. at the party. Older son, very well educated in London 22 y. old, who spoke with my future husband fluent English, and 13 y. old younger son, Sasha, tall, all freckled red haired boy. I was surprised he was allowed, but later learned he was at the party with his gouverneur. After some time Sasha`s gouverneur approached my husband to practice his English, he said so. OK, they talked. Gouverneur`s English was perfect. Gouverneur was a young, 25-ish something guy. And what they had talked about, my husband told me after words. We still laugh, when remember that event. Gouverneur said he was” live in” educator, pretty well paid, but he knew soon he would lose his job. Why? Because, gouverneur said, father S. wanted to send us, Sasha and me to Paris this summer to improve Sasha`s French. My husband said- It`s great! What`s wrong? Governor sighted and said – Because no way I would go to Paris with Sasha. Sasha is a difficult boy and he told me already that he, Sasha would go there to special streets to meet special women. And I told Sasha- No, you won`t, you are too young, and I`m your educator, and I would not allow you, and we won`t go to see those women. And Sasha said- OK, I would go by myself, I have my own credit card! My husband said- Why don`t you tell Sasha`s father about his plans? Gouverneur`s said- I could not, father would bit hell out of Sasha, with the belt! He bit him before for different stuff, I just could not be part of Sasha`s punishment, I love little monster. I would just make some excuses for not going to Paris and I perhaps would lose my job.
I hope you have enjoyed this story. It`s a real one. My husband and me, we don`t know if the trip to Paris had ever took place.

 

[reedus23]

In fairness, while I am no where close to one, I have known many people who's lives were probably similar to the Ramsey's. While they all varied in how they handled matters, I can honestly say that about the only thing they all used was a cleaning lady to come in each day or however many times a week to clean/do laundry. Some had security systems. Some didn't. Some left doors unlocked and garage doors open. Some didn't. Some had broken doors or windows. Some didn't. None of them had security. While I don't know them and never personally met them, the only millionaires in my town that I know to have security are those in the public eye, such as athletes if they go out (not in their home) or entertainers. The run of the mill businessmen who made millions each year had no such thing. So I don't know if I would personally go so far as to say that not using the security system, not fixing a window and not having live in security amounts to negligence. I am sure the Ramsey's, in hindsight, wish they had done those things, but that doesn't mean they're negligent.

 

[Linda7NJ]

Wealthy people are just like everyone one else. Some are slobs & some aren't. Some raise their own children, some don't & hire help.
IMO the only thing every single one has is lawn service.
Most have a cleaning lady, but not all.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[lawstudent]

I never understand why people have such an issue with the R's being really cautious when it came to the police. They were not charged. They were only witnesses. But they were treated in PUBLIC by the police and the DA as if they were guilty. It was obvious that the powers that be were sending messages that they thought they were guilty. Of course, that takes the heat off the police to find the real killer.

They had attorneys and the attorneys are the ones you trust to guide and protect you. If the police really wanted info they should have just agreed all along to their terms. But it was the police who made it hard for them to talk without any cause to.

I don't know that the police should have agreed, necessarily, but if the Ramseys did not have useful information because they were not involved, then I agree that there was no real point in them talking and it was smart not to. If they were clearly hiding important stuff that could lead to finding JB's killer, then yeah, I'd be suspicious, whether or not they were suspects and were wise to lawyer up. But if you assume they were not involved, and things happened along the lines of what they said, or even if they were covering for their son, they simply had nothing useful to add to "get justice" for their daughter. People act like they were horrible for not "cooperating" if they were innocent, but that's only true if they had something that could have made a difference (particularly since JB was no longer missing, so it was less critical to them to give any possible bit of info). There is no point to being grilled by police over and over again if you have told them everything you know. Especially when you know she is already dead and nothing can be fixed, and you probably don't want to keep reliving it; the only logical input you have at that point is naming every slightly suspicious person you know to make sure it is not someone close to you who could hurt you again, since it seemed to be someone familiar with them. If they were baffled and there was no one who they felt strongly about, at that point I'd leave it up to the police to track down any connections and rule out who had an alibi etc.

I grew up in an upper-middle-class neighborhood, although I don't think as fancy as the Ramseys. I also worked as a tutor for the children of some families of probably comparable wealth to the Ramseys. I can definitely state that between lower middle class and super wealthy people, there's definitely not as much of a difference as people here seem to think. Lots of variety. I see more housekeepers at the apartment I live in than I did growing up - some people had them, but many did not. Most people had lawn/plow service, but there were a few who didn't (their yards always stood out!). Most raised their own kids and did all their own shopping etc. People had all different levels of expectations. As a tutor, I saw a lot more of the nanny/housekeeper aspect, even chefs, which was a first for me. But plenty of them did not. I've been to nice mansions with pets that hadn't been bathed in years. What people prioritize varies a lot. You really can't judge based on wealth - some people with no money are neat freaks and have a house that puts everyone else's to shame in that area. Some people have mansions full of junk.

 

[tovarisch]

Miilionaires are people like us, thinking and living the same way.

Not buying it, it`s idealistic view. I was talking about self-made millionaires, not born rich.

They are different and think differently. They are SHARP, the best word comes to my mind. They are RISK TAKERS and they evaluate their EACH move. EACH single move. Business or personal.

They invest in their children like crazy, it`s their MAIN investment.

I do not believe in millionaires with small children sleeping with the open doors at night.

Take a look at reality TV, life of celebrities or housewife’s of reach people. I know it`s boring show , but just for the education, take a look. This is somewhat true. And you don`t see all the scenes, all the people that provide them service and live in their household.

My examples were from millionaires who lived in a huge cities, 10 or more millions people, huge exposure to risk At least my observation is made on REAL facts I didn`t assume nothing, I SAW how they lived from INSIDE. That`s why I said- I would never trade my life with theirs.

 

[THE BUNK]

I never understand why people have such an issue with the R's being really cautious when it came to the police. They were not charged. They were only witnesses. But they were treated in PUBLIC by the police and the DA as if they were guilty. It was obvious that the powers that be were sending messages that they thought they were guilty. Of course, that takes the heat off the police to find the real killer.

They had attorneys and the attorneys are the ones you trust to guide and protect you. If the police really wanted info they should have just agreed all along to their terms. But it was the police who made it hard for them to talk without any cause to.

We have an issue with it because going to jail shouldn't be their primary concern.
Their primary concern should be making sure this psychopath that killed their daughter doesn't come back to kill another Ramsey family for not getting his $118,000. A problem they still face today.

 

[THE BUNK]

And for all they know, Someone could have stolen those items at a previous date and then wrote the note and brought it all back to point it to the R's.

Why bring back the notepad and the pen? What benefit does it serve? Just bring the note.

Why put the pen and pad back in their usual places? Why would he assume the Ramsey's didn't notice they were missing? Why would you even remember to bring the pen and pad with you?

The only advantage to stealing the pad before hand to write the ransom note is to
1. Incriminate Patsy Ramsey
2. The kidnapping and/or murder was supposed to happen at the time the pad was taken originally.

I'll buy #2, but not #1.

I do not think the Ransom Note mentions a specific date does it? That kind of goes against the ransom not being written more than a day in advance, doesn't it?

 

[chlban]

And for all they know, Someone could have stolen those items at a previous date and then wrote the note and brought it all back to point it to the R's.

Now see that is exactly the kind of thing where you are going to lose anyone truly on the fence or trying to take an ubiased look at the case. That is patently absurd.

As hard as it is to believe someone stayed in that house long enough to write the RN, It is at least, plausable. This, IMO, is not.

Someone risked breaking in and stealing those items. Because other than a break in you are back to someon who had access to the house and all of those people have been excluded. So, it was either someone without access, or someone who lived in that house.

They did not break in to steal a legal pad. Seriously.

 

[THE BUNK]

They did not break in to steal a legal pad. Seriously.

Especially since if Patsy noticed it missing that would tip them off that someone broke into their house.

Paper and pens are not expensive. The intruder could easily buy them from a 99 cents store and dispose of them later. Much like he did withe rope and the duct tape.

 

[THE BUNK]

Where did this killer hide all this time he was in the house?

His hiding place has to be in a location where he can know when the Ramsey's have arrived so he can prepare to keep silent and make sure there is no incriminating evidence left (like not putting the pad and pen back in the correct place!!!)

This guy ate nothing during this time? Didn't help himself to some of the Ramsey's fancy foods and drinks? Maybe steal some jewelry? Take some souvenirs? Leave potato chip wrappers or a soda can in his hiding place? Track mud all over the carpet? Nothing??? Piss in the guest bathroom?

Nothing? I guess this guy really liked writing notes and had a severe notepad and sharpie fetish.

 

[lawstudent]

We have an issue with it because going to jail shouldn't be their primary concern.
Their primary concern should be making sure this psychopath that killed their daughter doesn't come back to kill another Ramsey family for not getting his $118,000. A problem they still face today.

The reason to have attorneys though isn't just to avoid jail - that's way in the future. One major reason is to stop the police from flooding you with phone calls/appearances or to stop an interrogation. Even in cases where your liberty is not at stake (civil, debt collection etc.), if you tell police/another attorney to go through them, they have to do so.


I've known self-made millionaires, and I agree most are unusually sharp in many ways (however, most are *not* legal geniuses or aware of complex criminal nuances - they are sharp in their area of expertise and about managing money wisely). They are usually risk takers in some areas, but are also very conservative about certain things - definitely evaluate how they spend their money closely and who they associate with. And I don't know exactly how much the Ramseys are thought to have been worth, but it's not like tens of millions, is it? They didn't have the money of most big celebrities, they were more responsible than most reality show 'celebrities' who have the network financing their staff, which is why they need to be on the show, and they didn't live in the city. I've known many people who lived in houses worth about a million who left their doors open all the time - worked great until their kids' friends burglarized them. The ones I know who are obsessed with security grew up in rough circumstances where everyone locked their doors.

 

[gramcracker]

he sold his business to Lockheed for 8 million; he was president of Access Graphics/a LH subsidiary which grossed a bit over one billion in sales in '96. his net worth back then was 6-7 million

 

[lawstudent]

he sold his business to Lockheed for 8 million; he was president of Access Graphics/a LH subsidiary which grossed a bit over one billion in sales in '96. his net worth back then was 6-7 million

Thank you. Of course they were wealthy, but it also has to be kept in mind that net worth includes the assets (planes, houses etc.), and then you have all the taxes he likely paid on the sale, if he got all the proceeds. I don't really think it makes much of a difference, because I've said I don't think wealth alone indicates much in the way of behavior/expectations, but it isn't like they were on the level of David Letterman or some of the 'original' Kennedys, who might have unusual sway with police, be the target of ransom demands, or be expected to have a full staff. That doesn't mean someone couldn't have targeted them for ransom (I don't believe that this was the true motive, but just saying), or they couldn't have influenced the local authorities. But I don't see it as an obvious thing.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

Thank you. Of course they were wealthy, but it also has to be kept in mind that net worth includes the assets (planes, houses etc.), and then you have all the taxes he likely paid on the sale, if he got all the proceeds. I don't really think it makes much of a difference, because I've said I don't think wealth alone indicates much in the way of behavior/expectations, but it isn't like they were on the level of David Letterman or some of the 'original' Kennedys, who might have unusual sway with police, be the target of ransom demands, or be expected to have a full staff. That doesn't mean someone couldn't have targeted them for ransom (I don't believe that this was the true motive, but just saying), or they couldn't have influenced the local authorities. But I don't see it as an obvious thing.

But you don't have to be as rich as the Kennedys to influence LE. Look at Steubenville, for instance, weren't the boys not arrested for raping their classmate b/c they were football players? You will find many cases where people get away with a crime b/c of who they know, not b/c they are multimillionaires. Anyway, the R's did have connections w/ top lawyers and the authorities.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/6502/6d/6deg.html

 

[Zzzz]

Now see that is exactly the kind of thing where you are going to lose anyone truly on the fence or trying to take an ubiased look at the case. That is patently absurd.

As hard as it is to believe someone stayed in that house long enough to write the RN, It is at least, plausable. This, IMO, is not.

Someone risked breaking in and stealing those items. Because other than a break in you are back to someon who had access to the house and all of those people have been excluded. So, it was either someone without access, or someone who lived in that house.

They did not break in to steal a legal pad. Seriously.

I must be misunderstanding the timeline. I can't understand why a murderer with a dead body in the house would risk sitting for a length of time and writing a useless ransom note when anyone getting up to go to the bathroom or get a glass of milk could see him. Did he write the note before JB died? Wouldn't he want to limit his time in a house with sleeping adults? IDIs please help me here I must be missing something obvious.

 

[aussiesheila2]

Miilionaires are people like us, thinking and living the same way.

Not buying it, it`s idealistic view. I was talking about self-made millionaires, not born rich.

They are different and think differently. They are SHARP, the best word comes to my mind. They are RISK TAKERS and they evaluate their EACH move. EACH single move. Business or personal.

They invest in their children like crazy, it`s their MAIN investment.

I do not believe in millionaires with small children sleeping with the open doors at night.

Take a look at reality TV, life of celebrities or housewife’s of reach people. I know it`s boring show , but just for the education, take a look. This is somewhat true. And you don`t see all the scenes, all the people that provide them service and live in their household.

My examples were from millionaires who lived in a huge cities, 10 or more millions people, huge exposure to risk At least my observation is made on REAL facts I didn`t assume nothing, I SAW how they lived from INSIDE. That`s why I said- I would never trade my life with theirs.

Love ALL your posts tovarisch. I just want to say re security - Boulder was considered a very safe environment back in the nineties. It's population was only around 90,000 and it had a higher than average proportion of well-educated and comfortably off people than the average American city and a lower than average crime rate. I don't think the Ramseys were negligent.

 

[Mama2JML]

I must be misunderstanding the timeline. I can't understand why a murderer with a dead body in the house would risk sitting for a length of time and writing a useless ransom note when anyone getting up to go to the bathroom or get a glass of milk could see him. Did he write the note before JB died? Wouldn't he want to limit his time in a house with sleeping adults? IDIs please help me here I must be missing something obvious.

I think he wrote the note prior to the murder, before the Ramseys returned from the Whites.

 

[Mama2JML]

John Andrew's bedroom provided a good view of the driveway and was in close proximity to JonBenét's room.

 

[midwest mama]

John Andrew's bedroom provided a good view of the driveway and was in close proximity to JonBenét's room.
View attachment 54741

So would it make sense to you if an Intruder wrote the note prior to the R's returning home AND he could have been holed up in JARs room because of a vantage point, he MOST LIKELY should have also known that JAR would not be in their home that evening? Else how would an Intruder know he could remain undetected in that room long enough for the family to retire completely before he made a move towards JB'S room. Doesn't this ask us to think an Intruder who would have been privy to personal Ramsey family Christmas season plans would therefore come from a circle of someone known to the R's? I doubt they would have shared their personal Christmas plans too far outside of a select few good friends, essential business acquaintances or very close friends of JAR from the area who might have sought to spend time with him during their school break.