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

[andreww]

Basically, yes. Because people COMMONLY round to the nearest large number. In this case, people would round down.

Read Shapiro's theory as to where that amount came from. Makes just as much sense.

 

[Mama2JML]

Really??? The note was written on the Ramsey's stationary because they had no other options at 2:00 a.m.!!! Did you expect them to go shopping for a pen, paper and garrotte kit??

I disagree, there were options galore. The RN, alone, was unnecessary, but who would have had the time, the gall, and the propensity to have personally handwritten 2.5 pages of tangible, measurable evidence? ...& no attempt to conceal what the note was written on and what it was written with?

The pen, the pad, the broken paintbrush, a remnant placed back in the paint tote; ALL actions counter-productive to a purpose of distancing the family from the crime.

And you think the body was on display?? It was in the most obscure place in the house and took at least four frigging searches to find!

There were plenty of options and many that were more 'obscure' than the killer's disposal location of choice.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

I disagree, there were options galore. The RN, alone, was unnecessary, but who would have had the time, the gall, and the propensity to have personally handwritten 2.5 pages of tangible, measurable evidence? ...& no attempt to conceal what the note was written on and what it was written with?

The pen, the pad, the broken paintbrush, a remnant placed back in the paint tote; ALL actions counter-productive to a purpose of distancing the family from the crime.

There were plenty of options and many that were more 'obscure' than the killer's disposal location of choice.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sure, the killer could have just left her in her bed with a crushed skull. But how would the Ramsey's explain that? The ransom note, the garrotte and everything else was done to send the police down a different path. The items that were used were used because that was all that was available.

Again, ask yourself "who would have had the time, the gall, and the propensity to have personally handwritten 2.5 pages of tangible, measurable evidence?" Its pretty clear to most people.

 

[tovarisch]

Really??? The note was written on the Ramsey's stationary because they had no other options at 2:00 a.m.!!! Did you expect them to go shopping for a pen, paper and garrotte kit?? And you think the body was on display?? It was in the most obscure place in the house and took at least four frigging searches to find!

Concerning the paper and pen, the same applies to the intruder, they had no time to go shopping .

But he (they) did not come empty handed.The killer`s kit was brought into the house with the killer: nylon cord, tape, big rope in the brown paper bag, torture tool, head wound tool, gloves.

They left the body at the crime scene, hidden behind the door. The body was hidden , but the ransom was displayed, I would say to the extreme of displaying, not even on the kitchen counter . They relied on the ransom very very much as a distraction from the thorough search, they needed time, nothing else. They have distracted everybody ALL RIGHT, for 8 hours.

 

[msvick66]

I'm a little confused with why someone is allowed to continually refute IDI and boost RDI on a thread that clearly states no RDI's posting. It doesn't say no RDI theories, though that applies here too, it says no RDIs posting period. But whatever. The fact that the body was not taken away from the house by the Ramseys before they called the cops when they had all the time in the world to do that if they were staging points away from them. And then there is that pesky DNA as well as the things used in the crime that were not in the house. If they took those things away, they could have taken the body away. She was dead long enough to be in rigor mortis, if they wanted to make it look like someone else did it and she was kidnapped, they would have taken her out of the house before calling 911. If she had never been found, the kidnapping would be believable.

I also think it is someone who knows them and hates John. I think they were planning to take her, but something went wrong. Possibly her scream or she woke up and she recognized the person. It's impossible to know all these answers until the killer is found.

I just listened to a podcast and that is why I'm posting. It was about serial killer Edward Edwards. This guy John Cameron has written a book entitled "It's Me." His book is alleging that pretty much every killing in N. America was perpetrated by Edwards, including Jonbenet. While the man clearly was a murderer and liked to play games, it's preposterous that he killed this many people. The man appeared on the old game show "To Tell The Truth". He also wrote a book and was a public speaker (Edwards). He did do some lovers lane type killings and Cameron is trying to prove he is the Zodiac. The podcast is on Blogtalk Radio. It's called "True Murder" and it's pretty good (the show in general). The host, Dan Zupansky, a true crime author, talks to other authors about their books. Cameron has a website, called ColdCaseCameron and several youtube videos where he guested. I certainly don't believe that Edwards killed Jonbenet or just about any of the crimes Cameron says he was involved in, but I thought you guys might find it entertaining nonetheless. I did. The True Murder podcast also has a lot of very good episodes. Some duds, but some very good ones to listen to if you are interested.

Anyway, I wondered if any of you have heard about this newest crazy suspect? Lol...

 

[msvick66]

Here's a link to the True Murder podcast if anyone is interested. Like I said, even though this episode with this guy doesn't wash, the show generally is pretty good. It has a lot of episodes.

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/dan-zupansky1

 

[icedtea4me]

Basically, yes. Because people COMMONLY round to the nearest large number. In this case, people would round down.

What do you mean "Basically, yes"? It is either exactly the same or it isn't. Imagine, if you will, a cashier is scanning the items you wish to purchase. He tells you "Your total comes to exactly $118.11" and you hand him $118. He says "You still owe 11 cents." You reply "No, I don't because $118 is exactly the same amount as $118.11."

 

[msvick66]

I've combed through this thread for a few days. It would be nice to be able to develop intruder theories and fully discuss them on the intruder thread. Unfortunately, no one can seem to really do that because they are too busy arguing with people refuting the intruder theory in general so they can prove their point that only the Ramsey's could have done it. All the energy is spent bickering with RDIs. I have no interest in reading or especially posting on the dozens of RDI threads as I don't believe any of them to be correct. I don't need to argue with them in order to try and change their minds to see my conclusions as the right one. This is supposed to be IDI only with no RDIs posting here. It is junked up with this constantly, and no one who wants to go over intruder ideas ever gets a chance to really go with it for arguing with RDI people telling people they are wrong. If you are so confident in your theory, then why do you have to come here and "prove" to people they have it wrong? It's supposed to be against the rules of the thread, but it seems not to matter. Justifying it by saying you are staying in the parameters by challenging theories is just an excuse to shove the RDI has to be right down the throats of people who do not want to hear it or discuss it, since they have heard it all before. Why is it so important to convince people that a Ramsey was involved? If you are so sure, then there is no reason to continue talking about it.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

There is no room for RDI here. Please feel free to discuss your thoughts. I just tune out the posts that don't belong and wait for clean up.

For me it is simple. There is nothing that conclusively proves it was the Ramseys. And we have DNA that belongs to a man who is not a Ramsey in her underwear mixed with hers. That to me is all it takes. That DNA is in CODIS and so it is accepted and valid.

There are many things that bother me about this case and I so wish we could go back to the very first moments and have a good cop there who knew what they were doing and I think this whole case is solved by now.

 

[msvick66]

I agree Scarlett. I have really enjoyed your posts and Mama's as well. This is the only case that I have ever heard where DNA is trashed as being irrelevant, an artifact or attributed to a factory in Taiwan. If that is possible, then it should be possible with every case and they need to throw it out and give all the people in prison who were convicted by it a new trial. I've always wondered what would have happened if JB's body had been found early that morning and how long she had been dead. The time of death is general I suppose, and not conclusive. She was in rigor mortis at 1 pm or so, that was when she was found, correct? I've wondered how long she was dead at 5 or 6 am. I even considered before that the intruder may have still been in the house when Patsy awoke, heard the commotion and killed her then. That would still have let 7 hours or so pass, and rigor starts when? Probably unlikely, but as I said, different ideas for discussion like this is what I would like to see going on, rather than constant posts by people saying things to implicate the Ramseys despite it being an IDI thread.

Another thing I've wondered about is what would have happened if the Ramsey's had followed the instructions of the ransom note, and not called 911 and all their friends. What if he had her tied up down there, hidden away and was close by? It seemed to me they definitely did not want the police called. The ransom note writer I think expected that they would not do that. Would they have called? Were they watching the house? I don't discount that two people were involved, but the ransom note seems to imply that there was more than one person almost deliberately. If you read it, the person slips back into using "I" several times, as if they are trying to make it sound like more than one when it isn't.

It seems important that the writer keeps using the name John as well. The so-called practice note started with addressing both of them, and changed it to just John. That seemed to me that the person has something against John, but not Patsy, like they decided not to bring her into it. Does he know them, and has a soft spot for Patsy? Or just doesn't have anything against her? Why the change of heart on that? I think it's important.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I agree Scarlett. I have really enjoyed your posts and Mama's as well. This is the only case that I have ever heard where DNA is trashed as being irrelevant, an artifact or attributed to a factory in Taiwan. If that is possible, then it should be possible with every case and they need to throw it out and give all the people in prison who were convicted by it a new trial. I've always wondered what would have happened if JB's body had been found early that morning and how long she had been dead. The time of death is general I suppose, and not conclusive. She was in rigor mortis at 1 pm or so, that was when she was found, correct? I've wondered how long she was dead at 5 or 6 am. I even considered before that the intruder may have still been in the house when Patsy awoke, heard the commotion and killed her then. That would still have let 7 hours or so pass, and rigor starts when? Probably unlikely, but as I said, different ideas for discussion like this is what I would like to see going on, rather than constant posts by people saying things to implicate the Ramseys despite it being an IDI thread.

Another thing I've wondered about is what would have happened if the Ramsey's had followed the instructions of the ransom note, and not called 911 and all their friends. What if he had her tied up down there, hidden away and was close by? It seemed to me they definitely did not want the police called. The ransom note writer I think expected that they would not do that. Would they have called? Were they watching the house? I don't discount that two people were involved, but the ransom note seems to imply that there was more than one person almost deliberately. If you read it, the person slips back into using "I" several times, as if they are trying to make it sound like more than one when it isn't.

It seems important that the writer keeps using the name John as well. The so-called practice note started with addressing both of them, and changed it to just John. That seemed to me that the person has something against John, but not Patsy, like they decided not to bring her into it. Does he know them, and has a soft spot for Patsy? Or just doesn't have anything against her? Why the change of heart on that? I think it's important.

The DNA is the key in this case. It is absolutely the one thing that points to an answer.
If they had followed the directions and not called police people would say that points to them. They are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
That Ransom note is something to me that was meant to scare patsy and John to death. I think they knew they were going to kill her and that note was only about buying them time.

 

[msvick66]

Yes, I agree on the DNA. The ransom note is all we have to speculate about though, until the DNA is matched conclusively to a suspect. I just don't know if I believe they planned to kill her inside the house, however. I figure they couldn't get her out of the house and something went wrong. If the note was written before the murder, it seems to indicate they did plan to take her. I have other theories that I cannot get into here, as we aren't allowed to accuse anyone but the Ramseys, even though they have been cleared.

 

[Muy Curioso]

I am confused too. There are hundred of forums where they can post, and we can, If we want, discuss. But they insist to post here. It is a nuisance, and I think they should leave this forum, and if not, the moderators should take action. The rules are very, very clear.

Has anyone seen any post of mine in RDI forum?

THIS IS A INTRUDER FORUM ONLY.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I can not imagine living through something like this.

 

[Muy Curioso]

Another thing I've wondered about is what would have happened if the Ramsey's had followed the instructions of the ransom note, and not called 911 and all their friends. What if he had her tied up down there, hidden away and was close by? It seemed to me they definitely did not want the police called. The ransom note writer I think expected that they would not do that. Would they have called? Were they watching the house?

Well, they could have carried $ 118,000. Half of the note is an attempt for Ramesy´s not to call the police.

 

[msvick66]

True. If they really thought they might be able to get money and it has to be in smaller bills, it has be an amount that you can conceivably carry. The note goes on and on about not calling anyone. The first thing they did was call the police and everyone. I just wonder if the fact that they left her dead in the house was part of the plan all along, or it messed everything up and they aborted their attempt to get the money. We can't tell this because we don't know if they would have called for instructions had the Ramsey's not called 911. I think that we have to run down all the possible scenarios and see where they go and how practical they are. When I mentioned not accusing anyone, I'm talking about speculating about possible suspects that are out there and whether they could be involved. We can't do that, so it kind of cripples the IDI discussion somewhat. We can't put hypotheticals out there that are attached to known people. I'm not completely satisfied that everyone who is close to the Ramseys or was ever considered was tested for DNA, I'll say that much.

 

[inspector rex]

True. If they really thought they might be able to get money and it has to be in smaller bills, it has be an amount that you can conceivably carry. The note goes on and on about not calling anyone. The first thing they did was call the police and everyone. I just wonder if the fact that they left her dead in the house was part of the plan all along, or it messed everything up and they aborted their attempt to get the money. We can't tell this because we don't know if they would have called for instructions had the Ramsey's not called 911. I think that we have to run down all the possible scenarios and see where they go and how practical they are. When I mentioned not accusing anyone, I'm talking about speculating about possible suspects that are out there and whether they could be involved. We can't do that, so it kind of cripples the IDI discussion somewhat. We can't put hypotheticals out there that are attached to known people. I'm not completely satisfied that everyone who is close to the Ramseys or was ever considered was tested for DNA, I'll say that much.

But when the mother called the police, the child had already been dead for several hours. So there is no doubt that if there was a plan to hold her for ransom, it had already changed to murder.

 

[msvick66]

What I mean is that they placed the ransom note upstairs, then they took her down to the basement. Did they plan to take her out of the house but couldn't get out the window? Or did the scream cause them to kill her down there? Or possibly she woke up and it was someone she was familiar with so they killed her? They are afraid someone heard them, and they hide her in that room and just exit through the window in a panic. They don't go back upstairs and retrieve the note.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

What I mean is that they placed the ransom note upstairs, then they took her down to the basement. Did they plan to take her out of the house but couldn't get out the window? Or did the scream cause them to kill her down there? Or possibly she woke up and it was someone she was familiar with so they killed her? They are afraid someone heard them, and they hide her in that room and just exit through the window in a panic. They don't go back upstairs and retrieve the note.

I think they just wanted to get out of there. I don't they cared about the note.

 

[Mama2JML]

What I mean is that they placed the ransom note upstairs, then they took her down to the basement. Did they plan to take her out of the house but couldn't get out the window? Or did the scream cause them to kill her down there? Or possibly she woke up and it was someone she was familiar with so they killed her? They are afraid someone heard them, and they hide her in that room and just exit through the window in a panic. They don't go back upstairs and retrieve the note.

The ransom note may have been left on the spiral staircase just before the killer retreated. Reportedly, the butler's pantry door was unlocked and, according to a neighbor, appeared to be ajar early that morning; the 26th. An unsourced baseball bat, with fibers consistent with those from the basement carpet, was located just feet away from this potential exit/entry, which may account for Mr. Stanton's testimony about hearing a sound similar to metal on concrete.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk