It sure sounds like someone told him something,doesn't it?
good thoughts,there does seem to be evidence of another plan to stage the body in a different location,as well as I believe their first plan was to get her out of the house.I think in the end they were to afraid to go through with it out of fear of being seen or caught...their tire tracks,shoeprints,etc.,could be found outside.It's been said they would never do that...well,killing is worse than putting her outside,and considering the way she was garroted/staged,I think they would have no problem doing that in order to save their behinds.I think that's the way the RN reads."We will call you tomorrow.." They placed the note so as to say they found it morning of the 26th..so TOMORROW means the 27th..that gives them a full day to pull off whatever plans they had..it buys them some time.And then the line 'if we monitor you getting the money early' buys them some time as well,in the other direction..so they had it 'fixed' timewise for either direction.ie-once they got her body out of the house,they would then be free to call LE whenever they wanted.As well as 'getting the money early' would account for them being seen outside the house in the early morning.But, ESP. that one line...'you will also be denied her remains for proper buriel',tells me that they definitely did plan to get her body out of the house at first.As far as WHY she was killed...'talking to a stray dog' 'she dies',etc,and then the R's called LE...I think that was their reasoning for those 'if you do this or that,she dies' lines...they DID contact LE,so therefore the 'killer' killed her.
I think that's why the RN was so long in the first place..they had all these things to account for,buy time for, and explain,as well as I think they(or at least JR anyway),attempted to set up Merrick and friends in it(ref. to the '2 gentlemen' and the 'use that good southern common sense of yours' line),and that's why it switches to JR's first name at the end,so it appears to be someone who knows him.
Anyway,that's just my take on it.
JMO8778,
It sure sounds like someone told him something,doesn't it?
For certain.
Ransom Note:
I tend not to use it, since it is part of the staging e.g. it is fake, so its evidential value is limited. But considering JonBenet's death as a sequence of events, it seems the ransom note was written prior to JonBenet being relocated to the basement.
I reckon after the dumping of her body outdoors was vetoed her killer(s) decided a bedroom assault was the most consistent scenario, so she was redressed, had her hair done up in ponytails, redressed in size-12's, and was probably intended to be wearing her barbie-gown, as part of the facade.
A lot turns on those size-12's since they can determine whether she was redressed in both the longjohns and size-12's at the same time, or the size-12's come after the longjohns are urine-soaked?
That is, from memory, there are no blood-stains on her longjohns, but there are on her size-12's. Now we know she was sexually assaulted while she was still alive, so this implies if she was wearing the size-6's then these would be blood-stained, and possibly any longjohns.
But there are no size-6's, and if she were not wearing any, for whatever reason, then the longjohns should be bloodstained, and assuming this is not the case, then JonBenet was redressed in those longjohns postmortem, with the urine-staining being a postmortem release, which is consistent with the assumptions.
again, reiterating, when were the size-12's placed on her, are they too urine-soaked or are they damp by osmosis, its currently an open question, and one not expanded upon in the autopsy report?
Its difficult to avoid the conclusion that her size-6 underwear were removed because they contained blood-stains and/or her killers semen, either of which would represent distinct evidence of a sexual assault, assuming the latter is incorrect e.g. she wore no size-6's, then the wiping down and cleanup along with the redressing in size-12's similarly hides the sexual assault, which we know predates the wine-cellar scenario indicating again that the
hiding of her sexual injuries were uppermost in her killer(s) mind during the staging?
So if JonBenet was killed accidently, why her sexual injuries, and why the attempt to conceal them, since placing them in plain view and leaving it up to the investigators to conlclude that the same nasty person who garroted her obviously sexually assaulted her, would appear to be an obvious staging option?
.