Known rope in the house

[txsvicki]

I'm not so sure that somebody wasn't planning to dump JB's body. For instance, if PR was involved in the murder but JR wasn't, she could have run out of time, so planned to dump the body after the cops left. One thing about Kolar's book, is that I no longer believe this was an accident in the heat of the moment. IMO, anybody who could stranglehold his/her daughter to death, or cover for someone who did, wouldn't have a problem with getting rid of the body. As a matter of fact, IMO, I strongly believe that getting rid of the body would be the plan. Again, hypothetically speaking, if PR was responsible, JR may have been suspicious, and knowing her habits, checked the basement. Once the body was brought up from the basement, all plans from PR to later dump the body, would be dashed. Some of the revelations from this book, have seriously thrown me for a loop. The 90 minute interval, changes everything. Also, IMO, I think there was very little, if any 'loving' undoing. If PR was covering for BR, I think she would have been more loving, llwand removed the garotte, among other things. IMO, her not doing these things points to her being angry and uncaring. She could write a ransom note for her son, but not unbind her daughter? IMO, she wrote the note to cover for herself only, and she left JB in such a horrible condition, because she planned to get rid of the body. All MOO.

That's exactly moo, except in her own little world the note could have been an attempt to try and get John out of the house more than thinking of cops right at that moment. Maybe even to get her and burke on the plane as scheduled with an extra big suitcase while John stayed there waiting for the call.

 

[Chrishope]

BBM

Maybe not probable, but why not possible?

In any of the RDI theories, the mind of the killer(s) would have had to have been so out of touch with reality, that I think that mind would have thought anything would be possible if they envisioned it so. Demented havoc would have been the ruling factors of thinking, not clear rational judgement.

If you don't like absolutes, let's say very nearly impossible.

DeeDee proposes a scenario in which there can be a retaliatory killing with the body in the house, but it depends on one or both Rs making some assumptions that aren't really justified.

I know you're fond of the idea that the Ramseys believed anything they wanted to believe. I don't hold with that philosophy. They (or one of them) were rational enough to try to stage (why didn't they just believe no one would notice JB missing?) so IMO they were rational enough to consider what the police were likely to do.

It was likely dogs would be brought in, and therefore likely the body would be found. Once the body is found in the house, there is no possibility it was a retaliatory killing.

For me the case is not about what's possible, if several unjustified assumptions were going through crazed minds. It's about what's probable, given well educated intelligent people who could make rational assumptions.

I believe DeeDee is right that the wording of the RN allows for JB to be found dead in retaliation for calling 911. I'm not sure this is what the author was really after, but the language does allow that interpretation. But I'm quite sure they were not trying to combine retaliatory killing and the body being found in the house. It just doesn't work, and the assumptions needed to imagine it would work are not warranted.

 

[midwest mama]

If you don't like absolutes, let's say very nearly impossible.

DeeDee proposes a scenario in which there can be a retaliatory killing with the body in the house, but it depends on one or both Rs making some assumptions that aren't really justified.

I know you're fond of the idea that the Ramseys believed anything they wanted to believe. I don't hold with that philosophy. They (or one of them) were rational enough to try to stage (why didn't they just believe no one would notice JB missing?) so IMO they were rational enough to consider what the police were likely to do.

It was likely dogs would be brought in, and therefore likely the body would be found. Once the body is found in the house, there is no possibility it was a retaliatory killing.

For me the case is not about what's possible, if several unjustified assumptions were going through crazed minds. It's about what's probable, given well educated intelligent people who could make rational assumptions.

I believe DeeDee is right that the wording of the RN allows for JB to be found dead in retaliation for calling 911. I'm not sure this is what the author was really after, but the language does allow that interpretation. But I'm quite sure they were not trying to combine retaliatory killing and the body being found in the house. It just doesn't work, and the assumptions needed to imagine it would work are not warranted.

The kidnapping scene created in the note provided a way to get intruders into the house, to do a crime. The note also established vengeance against John.

Though there were provisions for a ransom, and a method of completing a true kidnapping was laid out, the writer(s) of the note still had to allow for the damages to her body, so why not allow for one of the kidnappers to decide to be a pervert who wants to have a bit of fun, instead gets carried away and causes them to abandon the ransom avenue with the justification that killing JR's baby ended up being what he really deserved anyway? The kidnappers could have smugly left the crime scene, figuring they ended up doing even more damage than they had originally intended.

Kidnapping possibility provided by the note, but murder covered by the possibility of a crime of perverted rage. Which really was the actuality, after all.

Agree that either of the R's were capable of intellectual rationale that took them through the crime against JB. But my opinion is also that their DEAD DAUGHTER caused them both enough distress to allow for any short-term thoughts or actions that might not have been justifiable, under the pressure of having to come up with a plausible scenario during that night. Unless JB's death was premeditated, which could have allowed ample time to think through all the details more clearly. :moo:

P.S. My opinion remains that JR planned to dispose of the body.

 

[DIRK SCHILLER]

the first time I´ve heard about this crime, It was really odd that kidnappers would write a RN and killed the child, it does not make any sense for an intruder to do a kidnapping and killing the kid at the same time( I mean left the body in the house), pretty ridiculous in my opinion,
and what either do not just fit is that RN saying JB will be beheaded, what is already a very terrible punishment, and she was found covered with a blanket,
with heart drawn on hand,etc, kinda as if the murderer had wanted to protect her, take care of her,that´s the message I did get,neither a pedo nor a foreign fraction guy fit in that profile, IMO

 

[OpenMind4U]

the first time I´ve heard about this crime, It was really odd that kidnappers would write a RN and killed the child, it does not make any sense for an intruder to do a kidnapping and killing the kid at the same time( I mean left the body in the house), pretty ridiculous in my opinion, and what either do not just fit is that RN saying JB will be beheaded, what is already a very terrible punishment, and she was found covered with a blanket, with heart drawn on hand,etc, kinda as if the murderer had wanted to protect her, take care of her,that´s the message I did get,neither a pedo nor a foreign fraction guy fit in that profile, IMO

lol...the RN by itself is the most nonsense letter written in the history of ALL kidnapping cases in the WORLD!!! So, like you said, nothing makes sense from 'intruder' point of view in this case. And I still amazed how anyone could consider IDI theory at all???!!! ...thank you for your post!

 

[DeeDee249]

OK, but for that to work, they had to assume that the police would not search, or would do a poor job of searching (which in fact happened, but could they count on that ?) and they had to assume no dogs would be brought in. Why would they assume that?

The K9 unit was on standby at 7:30. Why it was never called in I don't know.

The scenario you suggest is possible, but only with the assumptions I've noted, and the one you noted - that the cops would read the note then rush out looking for kidnappers leaving the Rs alone, and no surveillance of the house. Does it really seem probable that they made such bad assumptions?

Who knows why the K-9 dogs weren't used. But at first, with a kidnapping being considered, they probably wouldn't have used the dogs in the home anyway. IMO, only if JB had been left to decompose in the home would the scent have alerted neighbors and police would have found her at that point with or without dogs.
I think the parents COULD have made such bad assumptions. The aftermath of the crime was such a maelstrom of panic, fear, grief mixed with adrenaline that not every decision or though was rational. I also believe at that time that the parents never thought about certain things: the too-big panties, that pineapple would be still identifiable and found in her digestive tract, whether the RN would be viewed as too long, whether it would seem strange that the body of a kidnapped child would be left behind in the house, or any of the other things that pop out at us but at the time would not have been considered by the parents as they rushed around "fixing" things. And they especially never thought that all these years later it would still be picked apart.

 

[Chrishope]

I think the dogs would have been brought inside. They'd need a scent, and one of the best places to pick up the scent is from the bedding.

The dogs provide valuable info, even if it were a real kidnapping case. Which way was she taken from her bedroom -down the "straight" stairs or the spiral stairs? Was she taken out the front door, or back? Does the scent stop at the curb in front of the house? If so that's probably where the get away car was parked. Did any neighbors notice a car parked there? Can they give a description? Is she buried in the backyard? Is she stuffed in a trashcan in the alley?

But even if the dogs were never brought inside, if clothing of JB's was brought outside to the dogs, they'd pick up the scent and know she's in the house.

The point about the dogs is that one would have to consider the very high probability of their use. The dogs, the cops searching, the FBI (doesn't almost everyone know that the FBI gets involved in kidnapping cases?) Then as Doc points out, what about surveillance of the Rs. They had to know they'd be prime suspects. IOWs, there's just about no chance at all that once the 911 call was made that the body would not be found, and no matter how panicked they had to know that. In fact, knowing these things is what made the panicky.

With the body in the house, there is no way she could have been killed as retaliation for calling 911. No matter how panicked the Rs were, they could not be so irrational that they actually thought someone would believe that an event that can only happen in the future had occurred in the past.

As Doc points out in the comments on his blog, even w/o the dogs, once the time for the ransom call comes and goes, with no call, the police are going to figure it's an inside job. At that point the house will be searched. And searched for evidence -e.g. a good, competent search.

There's no way around it. Once the 911 call is made, the body is going to be found. That negates any possibility she was killed in retaliation for calling 911. If the Rs had enough wits about them to realize the need for staging, they realized the 911 = finding the body.

The idea that she'd be killed in retaliation for not following the RN instructions only works in conjunction with dumping the body and the body is found later.

 

[OpenMind4U]

Chrishope, with your such a dedication and believes in DocG theory can you please answer the following questions:

- what would stop JR to 'get rid of the body' between 1:00am (JB estimated time of death) and 5:30am (time for PR comes down)? If anyone would see him driving during the night or PR would hear the garage door open - JR could always said that he wake-up during the night, heared some strange noices, found this RN, wants to start investigation himself....blah-blah-blah...Personnaly, I believe it would be the PERFECT excuse to leave the house quitely so 'kidnappers' wouldn't see him contacting anyone....

- what JR's reason to write such a looooooong, convoluted RN? Usually, it's PR who cannot stop talking. In each interviews, JR is drawn-back kind of guy...not PR. Plus, being CEO and not likes to talk on the phone - JR is very comfortable to give/write/ say the short orders. Regardless of the handwriting, I'm interesting to hear your answer to this specific question.

Thank you in advance.

 

[UKGuy]

But the faked scenario still has to be at least possible, if it is to be believed. A retaliatory killing with the body in the house isn't possible. As you say, the killing has to come after the police are called (and in a fake kidnapping it has to appear that she was killed after the police were called) With the body still in the house, it's obvious she was killed before the police were called.

The only way I can see to make that work is if her body is (fakely) returned to the house. But the Rs had to figure on the body being found once the 911 call was made.

Chrishope,
I agree. This is another example of using the ransom note to foretell events.

I doubt the R's would ever try that one out, they would be aware of Time Of Death approximations. So TOD could be determined as preceding the time the Foreign Faction were due to phone.

The ransom note is fake, bogus, staged, regardless of who wrote it. John or Patsy or both.

Its not intended to be read literally, its a dramatic projection of the R's staging mindset, not some step by step outline of an abduction process.

Proof of this lies in the outcome: no phone call, and JonBenet found in the wine-cellar.

.

 

[UKGuy]

Now I'm confused. Are you arguing for an intruder or for staging? If you are arguing that they staged an intruder of this type then why didn't they ever mention such a scenario? They would certainly have put the idea in Smit's head, but as you can see he confesses to being puzzled as to why the intruder didn't go through with the kidnapping. You present an interesting theory of what the Ramseys MIGHT have had in mind, but there's no evidence they actually did.

On the other hand, the evidence of a staged kidnapping by John that was foiled by Patsy's 911 call is all over the place. See my blog for the details.




You have completely misunderstood my purpose in quoting Smit. Just as you've totally misunderstood just about everything else I've written. If the Ramseys' intention was to stage an intruder who deliberately left the body in the house as part of a plan to make it look like she was out of the house and collect the ransom anyhow, then that would certainly have been reflected in Smit's response to Larry King's question. But it isn't. And since we see no other evidence the Ramseys ever mentioned such a possibility, your theory explains nothing.



If Patsy hadn't called 911 John would not have had to hand the note over to the police. I've already made that clear. He leaves it for Patsy to find because it's intended for Patsy, to discourage her from searching the house and frighten her into not calling the police.



Your saying you have a theory but are afraid of being sued? Interesting. Too bad. I'd like to learn what it is.

docg,

Now I'm confused. Are you arguing for an intruder or for staging?

Yes a staged intruder. Consider entry via the broken window, the suitcase placed to remove whatever, and JonBenet close by redressed and packaged alike a mummy.

On the other hand, the evidence of a staged kidnapping by John that was foiled by Patsy's 911 call is all over the place.

Patsy said John told her to dial 911!

your theory explains nothing.

Its a valid alternative to yours based on the same evidence, but since the premise is false, i.e. RN is kosher, then everything else is suspect, just like your lone JDI theory which is total pants!

If Patsy hadn't called 911 John would not have had to hand the note over to the police.

So why does he need it to begin with? Why does he not simply tell Patsy he has recieved a phone call from a Foreign Faction, and he is leaving to attend to their demands, so that JonBenet can be safely returned?

Why run the risk of Patsy dialling 911 on the spot, not withstanding mastermind JR neglecting to be present when she reads the RN?

Never mind JR running the risk of leaving his writing for all and sundry to analyse on the RN!

Your theory is inconsistent with the known facts. I do not know why you continue to promote it, your inability to recognize this, simply reduces your credibility to those who are knowledgeable with the JonBenet case.

Your saying you have a theory but are afraid of being sued? Interesting. Too bad. I'd like to learn what it is.

This much I can say, is that it is original, based on fact, assumes conspiracy, inter-generational abuse, a pedophile ring involving some of the high society in Boulder. It explains stuff in BR and JB's life that other theories do not. Other theories including your own simply focus exclusively upon the Ramsey household.

.

 

[UKGuy]

Good point! The dogs would have been used outside the house, not inside.

But it's important to keep two key facts in mind:

1. The Susan Smith case was fresh in everyone's mind, certainly in the mind of JonBenet's killer, and also in the mind of law enforcement officers throughout the USA. Regardless of any ransom note, and any sympathy for the Ramseys as victims, they would also have been regarded as potential suspects for sure.

2. The note mentions a certain phone call, remember? And that phone call never came, and never would come.

So, putting 1 and 2 together, it's not difficult to realize that sooner or later that house was going to be turned upside down, dogs or no dogs. And the comings and goings of the Ramseys were going to be carefully monitored, guaranteed. If both John and Patsy were in on this together, they would certainly have understood very well that any attempt to hide the body in the house was NOT going to work. Once the police were called, that body was going to be found and of course that's exactly what happened.

docg,
mmm, you are making stuff up again.

they would certainly have understood very well that any attempt to hide the body in the house was NOT going to work.

You docg cannot know what was in the minds of the R's, you have no access to their thoughts.

The R's might have had two strategies running in parallel i.e. one where she is found and the other where she is not!

When she is not found the R's may have decided to fly interstate ASAP heading for South America. As per John's initial attempt to arrange a flight out of Colorado!

The body was hidden, not to evade detection, but to simulate an abduction, there is a distinction!


.

 

[OpenMind4U]

skip...

The body was hidden, not to evade detection, but to simulate an abduction, there is a distinction!.

Perfectly correct!

 

[Chrishope]

Chrishope, with your such a dedication and believes in DocG theory can you please answer the following questions:

- what would stop JR to 'get rid of the body' between 1:00am (JB estimated time of death) and 5:30am (time for PR comes down)? If anyone would see him driving during the night or PR would hear the garage door open - JR could always said that he wake-up during the night, heared some strange noices, found this RN, wants to start investigation himself....blah-blah-blah...Personnaly, I believe it would be the PERFECT excuse to leave the house quitely so 'kidnappers' wouldn't see him contacting anyone....

- what JR's reason to write such a looooooong, convoluted RN? Usually, it's PR who cannot stop talking. In each interviews, JR is drawn-back kind of guy...not PR. Plus, being CEO and not likes to talk on the phone - JR is very comfortable to give/write/ say the short orders. Regardless of the handwriting, I'm interesting to hear your answer to this specific question.

Thank you in advance.

I would not say I'm dedicated to Doc's theory. It's the only theory that actually makes sense.


JR can't risk dumping the body between 1am and 5:3Oam because PR might wake up and realize he's gone. When she realized JBR is gone she'll know JR had something to do with it.

The long note is for two reasons. First is the old writer's saying "I didn't have time to make it short". Editing takes time. Second, many elements of the note are for explaining elements that JR needs. The entire 3rd paragraph for example is just one threat after another -designed to scare the reader into following the instructions. The second paragraph is the instructions, and while they seem unnecessarily detailed, they tell the reader that the ransom deliver will be exhausting - IOWs JR will be gone quite a while -because he needs to dump the money where it will never be found, or maybe destroy it. The RN also tells the reader the call will come "tomorrow" which I take to mean the 27th. Thus if JR can get PR/BR out of the house and staying with friends, he has all day to finish his staging and dump the body. The first paragraph tells PR that the kidnappers are a foreign faction, (which I find unbelievable in the extreme) and I suppose PR is supposed to believe it has something to do with Lockheed-Martin activities and that L-M security people will help JR handle it -another reason not to call the police. The first paragraph also contains the first threat, something along the lines of -If you want to see her in 1997 follow our instructions to the letter. This is meant to make PR read the instructions.

Another way to look at it is to ask the opposite question -why didn't JR write a very short RN? If JR (and/or PR) actually wanted the police to find the body in the house, a very short RN would have sufficed. The long RN doesn't tell us why the kidnapping plan was supposedly abandoned, so it provides no benefit for such a plan. It does provide a benefit if the plan is to dump the body.

 

[Chrishope]

docg,
mmm, you are making stuff up again.


You docg cannot know what was in the minds of the R's, you have no access to their thoughts.

The R's might have had two strategies running in parallel i.e. one where she is found and the other where she is not!

When she is not found the R's may have decided to fly interstate ASAP heading for South America. As per John's initial attempt to arrange a flight out of Colorado!

The body was hidden, not to evade detection, but to simulate an abduction, there is a distinction!


.

IMO finding a body is a very very poor way of simulating an abduction. The obviousness of how poor an abduction scene this creates is overwhelming.

 

[dodie20]

docg,

Yes a staged intruder. Consider entry via the broken window, the suitcase placed to remove whatever, and JonBenet close by redressed and packaged alike a mummy.


Patsy said John told her to dial 911!


Its a valid alternative to yours based on the same evidence, but since the premise is false, i.e. RN is kosher, then everything else is suspect, just like your lone JDI theory which is total pants!


So why does he need it to begin with? Why does he not simply tell Patsy he has recieved a phone call from a Foreign Faction, and he is leaving to attend to their demands, so that JonBenet can be safely returned?

Why run the risk of Patsy dialling 911 on the spot, not withstanding mastermind JR neglecting to be present when she reads the RN?

Never mind JR running the risk of leaving his writing for all and sundry to analyse on the RN!

Your theory is inconsistent with the known facts. I do not know why you continue to promote it, your inability to recognize this, simply reduces your credibility to those who are knowledgeable with the JonBenet case.


This much I can say, is that it is original, based on fact, assumes conspiracy, inter-generational abuse, a pedophile ring involving some of the high society in Boulder. It explains stuff in BR and JB's life that other theories do not. Other theories including your own simply focus exclusively upon the Ramsey household.

.

a high society pedophile ring? A couple of things you can almost always count on in missing kids cases, are the out of state sightings at Walmart or Denny's, and the rumors of pedophile rings. They very rarely pan out. In this case, if I understand the evidence, JB was digitally penetrated, so it doesn't seem like an adult male rapist was responsible. What kind of pedophile ring, would combine digital penetration with head bashing, and then murder the victim? I don't think so, but anything is possible...But if something like this happened, I think the neighbors would have heard or seen something. moo.

 

[UKGuy]

a high society pedophile ring? A couple of things you can almost always count on in missing kids cases, are the out of state sightings at Walmart or Denny's, and the rumors of pedophile rings. They very rarely pan out. In this case, if I understand the evidence, JB was digitally penetrated, so it doesn't seem like an adult male rapist was responsible. What kind of pedophile ring, would combine digital penetration with head bashing, and then murder the victim? I don't think so, but anything is possible...But if something like this happened, I think the neighbors would have heard or seen something. moo.

dodie20,
I do agree, it sounds sensationalist, but there are good grounds for assuming a pedophile ring existed.

I'm not saying the ring killed JonBenet, what I'm suggesting and can demonstrate if required, is that the pedophile rings existence made it imperative that JonBenet was killed.

.

 

[UKGuy]

The phone company keeps records. He can't claim he received a phone call unless he actually received one, sooner or later the police would check. And as soon as he said anything about JonBenet being kidnapped he'd be running the same risk of Patsy dialing 911 on the spot.



If you see the testimony of the suspects as known facts, then yes my theory is inconsistent with "the facts."



And, of course, you have evidence to back up this theory? Or is it pure speculation, as are other theories of that sort I've read?

The phone company keeps records. He can't claim he received a phone call unless he actually received one, sooner or later the police would check. And as soon as he said anything about JonBenet being kidnapped he'd be running the same risk of Patsy dialing 911 on the spot.

Oh my, what a thought. Does your theory not rely on John recieving a similar call for a ransom demand then leaving on this pretext to dump JonBenet outdoors?

And, of course, you have evidence to back up this theory? Or is it pure speculation, as are other theories of that sort I've read?

Sure I have the evidence, thats why I have considered it. If you give it more than your own individual focus, you have to consider why the R's would kill their own child, remember they had an opportunity to dial 911, so JonBenet could recieve medical attention.

So if you reckon Patsy was compelled to dial 911 to report an abduction, why not a plea for medical treatment?

There is slightly more to the JonBenet case than is presented in the media which is constrained by risk of litigation. Can I refer you to absence of any Christmas footage of the R's Christmas day as a hint!


.

 

[UKGuy]

Yes, but to solve the case we need to at least make the attempt. And it has to be based both on the facts and clear inferences from those facts. Fact: we have what is obviously intended to be seen as a ransom note. Inference: since there was no kidnapping it's clearly a fake, part of a failed attempt to stage a kidnapping. Aside from diehard Ramsey supporters, I doubt anyone following the case would take exception to what I just wrote. But apparently you do. Removing the body from the house and then calling the police is consistent with a staged kidnapping. Calling the police while the body is still in the house is NOT consistent with a staged kidnapping. It's that simple. To suggest that the Ramseys might have been so foolish as to hope they could inconspicuously get the body out of the house after the police were called is simply ingenuous. To suggest they were hoping the police would be thinking of a kidnapper hoping to collect a ransom without removing his victim from the house is equally ingenuous. All they needed to do was remove the body and THEN call the police. But they didn't. Which tells us something went wrong with the plan.

Sure, anything is possible. And by the same token one could argue for an intruder after all. Because we have no way of knowing what such an individual might have been thinking either. And on that same principle every criminal with a smart lawyer could get off, because yes anything is possible. Unfortunately for such criminals the justice system is based on fact, logic and common sense, not mind reading, which is what YOU are attempting, not me.



To simulate an abduction. By hiding the body in the basement of their own home. What sort of "abduction" do you have in mind? And how could simulating such an abduction work for them?

docg,

Yes, but to solve the case we need to at least make the attempt. And it has to be based both on the facts and clear inferences from those facts.

Sure, not simply clear but valid inferences, and unfortunately inferring stuff from the ransom note is not valid, since it is patently fake, and can serve a multiple of purposes, not least a staged abduction.

To simulate an abduction. By hiding the body in the basement of their own home. What sort of "abduction" do you have in mind? And how could simulating such an abduction work for them?

It works to explain away the death of JonBenet!

The staging does not claim to be foolproof, or offer an undeniable representation of JonBenet's death.

It certainly obscures, obfucates, masks, hides, whatever really did happen to JonBenet.

And that is how an abduction would work for the R's.

simples.




.

 

[UKGuy]

IMO finding a body is a very very poor way of simulating an abduction. The obviousness of how poor an abduction scene this creates is overwhelming.

Chrishope,
I agree, so would most reasonable people. Yet the R's expected to be arrested, to face a jury of twelve honest people, so they had to have in place an alternative explanation for JonBenet's death.

So the failed abduction was their response, we can criticise it, lambaste it for its obvious inanity. Yet in a court of law we have to show that it was staged, no so easy.

Lou Smit demonstrated how popular the IDI is, most people cannot think how parents might collude to kill their own child?


.

 

[Chrishope]

Chrishope,
I agree, so would most reasonable people. Yet the R's expected to be arrested, to face a jury of twelve honest people, so they had to have in place an alternative explanation for JonBenet's death.

So the failed abduction was their response, we can criticise it, lambaste it for its obvious inanity. Yet in a court of law we have to show that it was staged, no so easy.

Lou Smit demonstrated how popular the IDI is, most people cannot think how parents might collude to kill their own child?


.

Doubtfull