Known rope in the house

[UKGuy]

Right.

And once again here we have the great conundrum.

DocG looks at the note and believes he sees John's handwriting for sure.
DeeDee looks at the note and believes she sees Patsy's handwriting for sure.

Several experts see John.
Several experts see Patsy.

Is everyone wrong? I say not exactly.
Is everyone correct? I say not exactly.

Enlarge. The. Note.

Whaleshark,
It looks to me as if JR and PR authored the ransom note together. I've seen no list of convincing examples, I'm just going on your enlargement.

But it looks like its another example of the Ramsey's colluding in the staging.

I reckon any theory that thinks JR acted alone with some kind of master plan is dead in the water!


.

 

[UKGuy]

Look, Whaleshark, I'm sorry if I come across as dissing you or belittling your ideas about this case, and I appreciate the fact that you're trying to keep an open mind. My problem isn't with you specifically, but with what I perceive to be a certain mindset about the case that's created an insurmountable barrier to prosecution, which means that a ruthless killer is going free and will probably continue to walk free for the rest of his life.

Sure, people don't always behave logically, so it's understandable for you to think that some other explanation for that 911 call might be possible. Such as, for example, that both Ramseys might be innocent. In a court of law, the Ramsey attorneys could easily get the case tossed out simply on the basis of that same phone call, by arguing that two people staging a phoney kidnapping would never have made the call, knowing the body of their victim was still in the house. And if the prosecution were to insist they had to be in on it together, then there'd be no alternative but to conclude they are innocent on the basis of that same phone call.

Also, if you want to argue that people don't always behave according to logic, then by the same token the defense could argue that an intruder must have been in the house despite all the very good reasons for logically concluding no intruder could have gotten in or out through those locked doors and no intruder would have had any logical reason to do what was done that night.

Sure, anything is possible, but that doesn't mean we toss out the entire criminal justice system on that basis, because on that basis every criminal would get off.

The bottom line on this case is that two people staging a kidnapping together are not going to call the police on themselves knowing the body of their victim is still hidden in the house waiting to be discovered -- and also handing them a patently phoney note written in their own hand, that could be used as evidence against them. I'm sorry, but even people capable of behaving irrationally are not THAT irrational. Not on this planet at least. So on the basis of the 911 call, which is an indisputable FACT of the case, either one of them is guilty and other is not -- or they are both innocent and an intruder was present. And if you want to argue for illogical behavior you can concentrate on THAT individual, whose behavior was about as illogical as you can get.

docg,

The bottom line on this case is that two people staging a kidnapping together are not going to call the police on themselves knowing the body of their victim is still hidden in the house waiting to be discovered -- and also handing them a patently phoney note written in their own hand, that could be used as evidence against them.

Yet they did. John instructed Patsy to diall 911, thats Patsy's testimony.

Why all this talk about irrationality? The R's exhibited entirely rational behaviour, they staged a crime scene, they included Burke to fake being asleep, and to fake amenesia when interviewed. They fabricated a version of events both prior to and after the discovery of JonBenet. They had their legal people up running the day JonBenet was found.

illogical behavior you can concentrate on THAT individual,

Well the R's illogical behavior paid off big time. They all walked away free!

Ramsey attorneys could easily get the case tossed out simply on the basis of that same phone call, by arguing that two people staging a phoney kidnapping would never have made the call, knowing the body of their victim was still in the house.

Why not? the R's rolled the dice, and it came up 6! The phoney kidnapping is actually a staged abduction, which the R's rationally considered a better bet than JonBenet found in whatever state she was initially left in.

With all the evidence referring to the R's colluding and staging together, a lone JDI theory is simply not credible, its been considered and found wanting.


.

 

[DeeDee249]

Whaleshark,
It looks to me as if JR and PR authored the ransom note together. I've seen no list of convincing examples, I'm just going on your enlargement.

But it looks like its another example of the Ramsey's colluding in the staging.

I reckon any theory that thinks JR acted alone with some kind of master plan is dead in the water!


.

I agree. I see JR as having input as to the content, but Patsy as physically writing it. Unless this has changed, from my readings I believe ONLY Patsy was NOT excluded as the physical author. I have not seen where JR was identified as a possible author based on handwriting samples.

 

[Chrishope]

...don't think so...The reason why teacher can recognize children's handwriting because it's written WITHOUT conceal and pretend in mind!...So, it would be wrong to compare the teachers ability to recognize 'as is' writing with the knowledge of 'forensic document examiners'.


In regards of RN, IMO, this evidence is one of the BEST evidences left for LE to solve this crime!

JMO

You're right, that's was a bad analogy. Teachers do recognize their students writing, in part, because it's not disguised.

 

[Chrishope]

Whaleshark,

I just want to get clear on what you think. Some of your posts were titled "John's handwriting underneath" or something to that effect.

But you also seem to think they co-authored.

So what I want to know is do you think they both actually did the writing, or did JR do the writing with PR contributing ideas? e.g. co-authors but only one doing the physical writing.

The next step to take is what you've already suggested. Cleaning up the RN to remove the added lines and squigles. That might give us a better idea who's handwriting it was before the alterations.

I don't think your contribution has been sufficiently appreciated, so let me say again, it's brilliant. We've all considered that the author probably altered his (or her) writing - who wouldn't? You have shown exactly how it was done.

My pov is that you have also shown that the handwriting we see -without magnification- doesn't look like anyone's handwriting. How could it? It's been altered.

 

[learnin]

Sure, people don't always behave logically, so it's understandable for you to think that some other explanation for that 911 call might be possible. Such as, for example, that both Ramseys might be innocent. In a court of law, the Ramsey attorneys could easily get the case tossed out simply on the basis of that same phone call, by arguing that two people staging a phoney kidnapping would never have made the call, knowing the body of their victim was still in the house. And if the prosecution were to insist they had to be in on it together, then there'd be no alternative but to conclude they are innocent on the basis of that same phone call.

Why does the 911 call prove Patsy and John, together, didn't stage a kidnapping? Isn't it possible they staged a kidnapping where the killer kills the child when finding the parents called police or before when he or she gets cold feet? After all, why does the ransom note writer belabor the point that the Ramseys are being watched; that if they contact, even a dog, she dies, etc.? It's clear the ransom note writer is emphasizing, more than anything, that John will cause the death of his daughter if he "grows a brain"., etc.

The bottom line on this case is that two people staging a kidnapping together are not going to call the police on themselves knowing the body of their victim is still hidden in the house waiting to be discovered -- and also handing them a patently phoney note written in their own hand, that could be used as evidence against them. I'm sorry, but even people capable of behaving irrationally are not THAT irrational. Not on this planet at least.

But, docG, if I understand your theory correctly, it has John writing a phoney note which he handed to police. Obviously, if there was no intruder, then, Patsy or John wrote the letter and thought they could disguise their handwriting well enough.

 

[DeeDee249]

I think the 911 call is exactly consistent with a staged kidnapping. What parent wouldn't call 911 upon finding a ransom note? ALL ransom notes likely say not to call police. I can't think of one parent who would actually follow that "order". Remember, she wasn't really kidnapped. Without the call to police, what would their next step be? Just tell people who wondered where she was that she was kidnapped? It would be unthinkable that parents of a kidnapped child would not call police. They had a dead child in the house. Dead people don't keep. They rot. At some point SOON they had to get her out of that basement. They couldn't just go on their trip without her. Without that 911 call, they had no other option.
They HAD to make that 911 call because it validated what they wanted people to believe- that she had been kidnapped. It also provided them with the perfect explanation of why she was killed - because they called 911. The 911 call fits perfectly into their plan, IMO.

What amazes me is that no one investigating the case seemed to make a big deal at the OTHER people called to the home that morning. I believe the FBI probably took this into account that morning, though. They studied the parents' behavior, saw all the friends they called over to a house that was supposedly being watched (which told the FBI the parents knew the house was NOT really being watched), looked at the 3-page note, and told police "you're going to be finding her body". They'd seen this before, believe me, and knew exactly what had happened: injuries to a child that proved fatal, then a staged kidnapping to deflect blame away from the family.

 

[Whaleshark]

Why does the 911 call prove Patsy and John, together, didn't stage a kidnapping? Isn't it possible they staged a kidnapping where the killer kills the child when finding the parents called police or before when he or she gets cold feet? After all, why does the ransom note writer belabor the point that the Ramseys are being watched; that if they contact, even a dog, she dies, etc.? It's clear the ransom note writer is emphasizing, more than anything, that John will cause the death of his daughter if he "grows a brain"., etc.



But, docG, if I understand your theory correctly, it has John writing a phoney note which he handed to police. Obviously, if there was no intruder, then, Patsy or John wrote the letter and thought they could disguise their handwriting well enough.

.... And this is where I start to have a few more probs with DocG's theory as well, and gets a little convoluted... He and I had words on following through on the details of the rest of this -- and he got rather annoyed with me -- he said that the note was for Patsy and friends of family benefit, to show them, but not for police, as he wouldn't want police to have the direct evidence of it, and therefore not potentially be able to detect his writing, that the paper was from the house, etc... so he would take the note with him, but make copy of it for the police, but burn or destroy/get rid of the original, but that he didn't have a chance to follow thru with his plan when Patsy called 911 - then all his plan fell through...

 

[Whaleshark]

Whaleshark,

I just want to get clear on what you think. Some of your posts were titled "John's handwriting underneath" or something to that effect.

Right, because the original letters appear to be his regular small handwriting under the disguising alterations, and otherwise changed letters and handwriting.

But you also seem to think they co-authored.

High probability, yes, if they are both trying to figure out what to do, decide to write a RN as explanation, are used to authoring things together already, and both collaborating on the best story, have multiple practice notes- words and distinct elements from both of them we can easily see. However, you know I do not have a theory set in stone of my own... It could be possible that John authored the whole thing originally, as she was doing other parts of cleaning, dressing, staging, then when she saw the note, disquised the letters accordingly. Or she may not have known about the incident in the beginning, if it was a BDI and JDI or JDI only initially, and she then gets told about accident, whatever... Could even be a PDI with her going to him frantically asking what to do, and they work on the note, if one does not like a BDI or JDI scenario.

And if I am considering they are collaborating, and I see her handwriting in addition to his, plus elements and verbiage styles of Patsy in the note, and not just John, and we know they authored things together anyway, it seems to fit and answer that part of the argument as well.

So what I want to know is do you think they both actually did the writing, or did JR do the writing with PR contributing ideas? e.g. co-authors but only one doing the physical writing.

I see John's handwriting originally. It's possible he did additional disguising, but it looks like another handwriting - Patsy's handwriting on top of it, at least in several parts. He may have looked at his obvious handwriting and did some of the disquising on top of it, but several are changed in such a way that show a lot of match up with Patsy's handwriting. If he could make his handwriting look so much like hers in the first place, he shouldn't have to disquise his original handwriting, and the other letters would not be discernible upon enlargement... But that's my assessment, and you asked... Others will argue otherwise, of course.

Having the handwriting and authoring be done by both of them though, by the way, does not eliminate all other scenarios and theories, except ones in which there is only one culprit and one knowledgeable originator of the note, I suppose.

The next step to take is what you've already suggested. Cleaning up the RN to remove the added lines and squigles. That might give us a better idea who's handwriting it was before the alterations.

Yes. Seriously need the best way to do this. May have to painstakingly identify the different layers and letter pieces with colors in Paint... Unless I had an awesome computer program or tool item that distinguish and differentiate each line and I could color and point out, separate, and take apart accordingly...

I don't think your contribution has been sufficiently appreciated, so let me say again, it's brilliant. We've all considered that the author probably altered his (or her) writing - who wouldn't? You have shown exactly how it was done.

Thanks for the sincere compliment. You and I have not always seen eye to eye, so it's nice when we can share an a-ha moment, or at least agree on an observation once in awhile. I think it speaks volumes to being able to even consider another possibility or viewpoint, and that making all the difference.

My pov is that you have also shown that the handwriting we see -without magnification- doesn't look like anyone's handwriting. How could it? It's been altered.

Yes.... And dare I say, perhaps most of the 'expert' assessments looked
at the note and letters at face value, in regular size, and may not have considered the need to enlarge it in such a way to make the distinction and determination between the letters, especially to even consider more than one - or dual - author(s), and/or writer(s) anyway. Plus, it helps to have insight into how the Ramseys operated, wrote things together, and presented themselves, to add that possibiity into the equation here... But I don't know - maybe some examiners used magnifying glasses and/or software and what have you. I've read a lot of the assessments, and they all have tools, knowledge, and specific criteria to arrive at their conclusions... And I definitely give credit where it is due...

Yet we still have just as many expert opinions for one side as the other.

And this might be why.

 

[dodie20]

I think the 911 call is exactly consistent with a staged kidnapping. What parent wouldn't call 911 upon finding a ransom note? ALL ransom notes likely say not to call police. I can't think of one parent who would actually follow that "order". Remember, she wasn't really kidnapped. Without the call to police, what would their next step be? Just tell people who wondered where she was that she was kidnapped? It would be unthinkable that parents of a kidnapped child would not call police. They had a dead child in the house. Dead people don't keep. They rot. At some point SOON they had to get her out of that basement. They couldn't just go on their trip without her. Without that 911 call, they had no other option.
They HAD to make that 911 call because it validated what they wanted people to believe- that she had been kidnapped. It also provided them with the perfect explanation of why she was killed - because they called 911. The 911 call fits perfectly into their plan, IMO.

What amazes me is that no one investigating the case seemed to make a big deal at the OTHER people called to the home that morning. I believe the FBI probably took this into account that morning, though. They studied the parents' behavior, saw all the friends they called over to a house that was supposedly being watched (which told the FBI the parents knew the house was NOT really being watched), looked at the 3-page note, and told police "you're going to be finding her body". They'd seen this before, believe me, and knew exactly what had happened: injuries to a child that proved fatal, then a staged kidnapping to deflect blame away from the family.

Thanks. I've never understood why so many people would expect the Rs to obey the ransom and not call the police. Of course they had to call 911. Even innocent parents wouldn't be expected to obey kidnappers without professional help. It's 1 thing to get money and pay off a kidnapper, but even without the murder, a huge crime had supposedly been committed, (Kidnap!!!), and the police had to be called. I don't know 1 single person who would try to wing something like this alone. IMO, the Rs not dumping the body, is the only deviation from a normal faked kidnapping. My guess is that because of their planned trip, they simply ran out of time, and unlike a lot of parents in these situations, they didn't have the luxury of days, to get all of their ducks in a row. Too many people would ask questions, and then put 2 and 2 together, when JB was finally reported missing. But honestly, this is 1 of the things that points to this being a 1 person show, IMO. They could have said they were too tired to travel, and would come the next day, and bought an extra 24 hrs to take care of business. But they didn't, so IMO, it looks like 1 of the Rs, was hiding the truth from the other. MOO

 

[Chrishope]

On calling the police.

I'd agree with those who say parents might call the police even when the note says not to. People do that.

But would they really want to call with the body in the house? I don't think they (him) got cold feet and decided not to dump the body. I think the plan to dump the body was interrupted. Whoever wrapped a cord around JBs neck and squeezed the remaining life out of her isn't squeamish about dumping a body. Nor do I believe there were any religious considerations vis-a-vis proper burial. Religion tends to frown on murder much more than improper burial.

IMO the idea that the Rs chose between 2 bad options - staging a kidnapping where the body would be found in the house, and staging a sex killing, is unbelievable. The better option was a kidnapping with the body dumped, and IMO it's the one the killer was clearly going for.

The note doesn't make just one short threat. It makes a threat in the first paragraph, then the entire 3rd paragraph consists of threats that JB will be killed if anyone is tipped off. It's clear to me the note is not intended for the police. It's intended for the non-killer parent.

On getting away with it.

Certainly the Rs didn't get away with it because their planning was so good and the staging was convincing.

Officer French met Sgt. Richenbach at the door, shortly after 6am. He'd already read the note. He told the Sgt "Something isn't right". The police knew immediately there was something hinky. So did the FBI. A timid and inept police force combined with obstruction of justice from the DAs office is why the Ramseys (or the one R that did the killing) got away with it.

WC staging. (We're getting far afield from rope in the house)

The WC doesn't seem to me to be staging. That is, it's not meant to look like a particular scenario. It doesn't look like a kidnapping because -there's the body. The kidnapper would have taken her, and even in the very improbable event that the kidnapping plan was abandoned, the kidnapper wouldn't redress, and wrap and hide the body. The WC is just a place to stash things; a body, a nightgown with blood, a doll -which would, if left out in sight, indicate JB had been down the basement.

 

[Chrishope]

Thanks. I've never understood why so many people would expect the Rs to obey the ransom and not call the police. Of course they had to call 911. Even innocent parents wouldn't be expected to obey kidnappers without professional help. It's 1 thing to get money and pay off a kidnapper, but even without the murder, a huge crime had supposedly been committed, (Kidnap!!!), and the police had to be called. I don't know 1 single person who would try to wing something like this alone. IMO, the Rs not dumping the body, is the only deviation from a normal faked kidnapping. My guess is that because of their planned trip, they simply ran out of time, and unlike a lot of parents in these situations, they didn't have the luxury of days, to get all of their ducks in a row. Too many people would ask questions, and then put 2 and 2 together, when JB was finally reported missing. But honestly, this is 1 of the things that points to this being a 1 person show, IMO. They could have said they were too tired to travel, and would come the next day, and bought an extra 24 hrs to take care of business. But they didn't, so IMO, it looks like 1 of the Rs, was hiding the truth from the other. MOO

Exactly. There was no real time pressure. It was their plane. They could cancel/postpone their trip with a phone call. They would need to call JAR/MR to tell them of the postponement, but that's easy enough.

 

[Chrishope]

Right, because the original letters appear to be his regular small handwriting under the disguising alterations, and otherwise changed letters and handwriting.

I think MWM in some of her posts saw JR's handwriting as well.

I have not had enough time to sit and look at it at length. Hoping to do so this weekend.

High probability, yes, if they are both trying to figure out what to do, decide to write a RN as explanation, are used to authoring things together already, and both collaborating on the best story, have multiple practice notes- words and distinct elements from both of them we can easily see. However, you know I do not have a theory set in stone of my own... It could be possible that John authored the whole thing originally, as she was doing other parts of cleaning, dressing, staging, then when she saw the note, disquised the letters accordingly. Or she may not have known about the incident in the beginning, if it was a BDI and JDI or JDI only initially, and she then gets told about accident, whatever... Could even be a PDI with her going to him frantically asking what to do, and they work on the note, if one does not like a BDI or JDI scenario.



And if I am considering they are collaborating, and I see her handwriting in addition to his, plus elements and verbiage styles of Patsy in the note, and not just John, and we know they authored things together anyway, it seems to fit and answer that part of the argument as well.

Can't ask for more open mindedness than that.

I see John's handwriting originally. It's possible he did additional disguising, but it looks like another handwriting - Patsy's handwriting on top of it, at least in several parts. He may have looked at his obvious handwriting and did some of the disquising on top of it, but several are changed in such a way that show a lot of match up with Patsy's handwriting. If he could make his handwriting look so much like hers in the first place, he shouldn't have to disquise his original handwriting, and the other letters would not be discernible upon enlargement... But that's my assessment, and you asked... Others will argue otherwise, of course.

I agree, if JR could alter his handwriting "on the fly" so to speak, there would be no discernable alterations.

I respect the work you've done, so don't take this as an attack. It seems to me that the "alterations" consist of small lines and squiggles (for lack of a better word) written on top of the original handwriting. Is it really possible to determine who's lines and squiggles they are? I can understand matching full handwriting once it's "undisguised", but matching lines and squiggles? I'm mindful that my own theory of the case might be coloring my perceptions, but it does seem rather difficult to match lines and squiggles, as opposed to fully formed letters.

You say some of the alterations make the writing match up with PR. If PR were doing the disguising wouldn't she be careful not to alter JR's writing to look like hers? It would place her in jeopardy. If JR made the alterations, and made them to make his writing look more like PR's, then we have a new level of "evil". Not only was he trying to save his butt, he was going to throw PR under the bus, if need be.

Having the handwriting and authoring be done by both of them though, by the way, does not eliminate all other scenarios and theories, except ones in which there is only one culprit and one knowledgeable originator of the note, I suppose.

Well, it does kind of eliminate "working alone" theories, be it JDI or PDI. Lot's of PDIs figure JR put the puzzle pieces together and valiantly helped cover up to save PR. And of course the JDI working alone theory would be toast if we could prove they worked together on the note.

Yes. Seriously need the best way to do this. May have to painstakingly identify the different layers and letter pieces with colors in Paint... Unless I had an awesome computer program or tool item that distinguish and differentiate each line and I could color and point out, separate, and take apart accordingly...

That would be great if you could do that. If it's possible to print an enlarged copy you could white-out the alterations, leaving the original writing. You could also white-out the original writing, leaving the alterations. This way would be an awful lot of manual work, but it would do the trick.

Thanks for the sincere compliment. You and I have not always seen eye to eye, so it's nice when we can share an a-ha moment, or at least agree on an observation once in awhile. I think it speaks volumes to being able to even consider another possibility or viewpoint, and that making all the difference.

It's one of the best insights I've seen in the several years I've followed the case. Maybe the best. Of all the people who have been "debating" here on WS all these years, you are the first to think of enlarging the RN.

Yes.... And dare I say, perhaps most of the 'expert' assessments looked
at the note and letters at face value, in regular size, and may not have considered the need to enlarge it in such a way to make the distinction and determination between the letters, especially to even consider more than one - or dual - author(s), and/or writer(s) anyway. Plus, it helps to have insight into how the Ramseys operated, wrote things together, and presented themselves, to add that possibiity into the equation here... But I don't know - maybe some examiners used magnifying glasses and/or software and what have you. I've read a lot of the assessments, and they all have tools, knowledge, and specific criteria to arrive at their conclusions... And I definitely give credit where it is due...

Yet we still have just as many expert opinions for one side as the other.

And this might be why.

With everything that's been leaked in this case, I'd suspect if the doc examiners enlarged the RN, we'd have heard about it. Not all of the examiners had the original, (only CBI?) but I think they all had physical copies. With a copy in hand it's natural to look for similarities and see if you can conclude that the writing is a match for someone. It's almost beneficial to be looking at it on a computer, then get struck with the idea to enlarge.

 

[UKGuy]

If you accept that John told Patsy to make that call and she made it of her own free will, that's tantamount to arguing for their innocence and accepting the intruder theory. You've hit on the precise reason why the case was never prosecuted, because Alex Hunter and [every DA who followed him would have realized the 911 call was inconsistent with a staged kidnapping. No judge would have allowed such a case to go to trial.

The handwriting "evidence" against Patsy is simply speculation, based on claims by a number of self-appointed "experts," claims that have been challenged by other "experts" and have never been verified. Take a look at Judge Carnes' decision and you'll see how easily she was able to dismiss all the "evidence" dredged up by Steve Thomas. It didn't fly then and it will never fly.



They did NOT stage a crime scene, not successfully anyhow. Once the police were called, thanks to Patsy, the staging was no longer staging, but simply an embarrassing mystery -- which clearly pointed to an inside job. John got off ONLY because he was "ruled out." There was never a case to be made against Patsy (again, see the Carnes decision). The handwriting "experts" were all over the place, and their opinions were not taken seriously by Carnes because what they were doing was junk science. The "fiber evidence" was easily explainable due to indirect contact and as for the rest, it's sheer speculation based on amateur profiling.



Yes, but that was ONLY because the real culprit was handed a "get out of jail free card" by incompetent "experts."



If you take a look at my blog, you'll find many appreciative comments from people who agree with me or at least see the value of what I've written.

Unfortunately forums like this tend to be populated largely by people whose minds were made up a long time ago and are resistant to change.

docg,
There are so many holes in your theory that I doubt they can be fixed.

You've hit on the precise reason why the case was never prosecuted, because Alex Hunter and [every DA who followed him would have realized the 911 call was inconsistent with a staged kidnapping. No judge would have allowed such a case to go to trial.

So why is John handing over a Ransom Note that evidences his direct involvement?

They did NOT stage a crime scene, not successfully anyhow.

A crime-scene was staged and it included JonBenet dressed as per the R's version of events, and Burke lying asleep in his bed.

John told FW I climbed in that window, he tells Lous Smit the same and anyone else who would listen. This was JR's alleged point of entry. JonBenet was left feet away in the wine-cellar, redressed, awaiting discovery.

It is a staged crime-scene, one that was planned in a rational manner, by both parents, their fibers are located on JonBenet's person where they should not be if they were innocent!

Unfortunately forums like this tend to be populated largely by people whose minds were made up a long time ago and are resistant to change.

Nope its your theory, its inconsistent and dogmatic.


.

 

[Chrishope]

docg,
There are so many holes in your theory that I doubt they can be fixed.

So why is John handing over a Ransom Note that evidences his direct involvement?


A crime-scene was staged and it included JonBenet dressed as per the R's version of events, and Burke lying asleep in his bed.

John told FW I climbed in that window, he tells Lous Smit the same and anyone else who would listen. This was JR's alleged point of entry. JonBenet was left feet away in the wine-cellar, redressed, awaiting discovery.

It is a staged crime-scene, one that was planned in a rational manner, by both parents, their fibers are located on JonBenet's person where they should not be if they were innocent!


Nope its your theory, its inconsistent and dogmatic.


.

Which is completely inconsistent with a kidnapping scenario.

 

[UKGuy]

On calling the police.

I'd agree with those who say parents might call the police even when the note says not to. People do that.

But would they really want to call with the body in the house? I don't think they (him) got cold feet and decided not to dump the body. I think the plan to dump the body was interrupted. Whoever wrapped a cord around JBs neck and squeezed the remaining life out of her isn't squeamish about dumping a body. Nor do I believe there were any religious considerations vis-a-vis proper burial. Religion tends to frown on murder much more than improper burial.

IMO the idea that the Rs chose between 2 bad options - staging a kidnapping where the body would be found in the house, and staging a sex killing, is unbelievable. The better option was a kidnapping with the body dumped, and IMO it's the one the killer was clearly going for.

The note doesn't make just one short threat. It makes a threat in the first paragraph, then the entire 3rd paragraph consists of threats that JB will be killed if anyone is tipped off. It's clear to me the note is not intended for the police. It's intended for the non-killer parent.

On getting away with it.

Certainly the Rs didn't get away with it because their planning was so good and the staging was convincing.

Officer French met Sgt. Richenbach at the door, shortly after 6am. He'd already read the note. He told the Sgt "Something isn't right". The police knew immediately there was something hinky. So did the FBI. A timid and inept police force combined with obstruction of justice from the DAs office is why the Ramseys (or the one R that did the killing) got away with it.

WC staging. (We're getting far afield from rope in the house)

The WC doesn't seem to me to be staging. That is, it's not meant to look like a particular scenario. It doesn't look like a kidnapping because -there's the body. The kidnapper would have taken her, and even in the very improbable event that the kidnapping plan was abandoned, the kidnapper wouldn't redress, and wrap and hide the body. The WC is just a place to stash things; a body, a nightgown with blood, a doll -which would, if left out in sight, indicate JB had been down the basement.

Chrishope,

Certainly the Rs didn't get away with it because their planning was so good and the staging was convincing.

Oh yes they did. The proof is recorded everyday they wake up free, at liberty with no court case for JonBenet.

The kidnapper would have taken her, and even in the very improbable event that the kidnapping plan was abandoned, the kidnapper wouldn't redress, and wrap and hide the body.

Of course not thats why its called staging. JonBenet was, by the R's own version of events, against her will relocated from her bedroom down to the basement, i.e. an abduction!

All three R's colluded in the staged crime-scene, so any consideration that John was acting alone is pure fantasy. Its a theory thats dead in the water!

.

 

[UKGuy]

Which is completely inconsistent with a kidnapping scenario.

Sure, only on Planet Chrishope as it orbits Planet Docg.



.

 

[Chrishope]

Sure, only on Planet Chrishope as it orbits Planet Docg.



.

On planet earth, a body, in the house, indicates strongly that no kidnapping took place. The body seriously detracts from the believability of a kidnap scenario. At least on this planet.

 

[Chrishope]

The RN states that JB is already being held -the clear implication is that she's held off premises, not in the WC.

What we're concerned with is not the technical fact that moving her from her bedroom to the basement is, in itself, a kidnapping. What we are concerned with is that the girl has not been removed from the house, as per the claim in the note.

Clearly the note is an attempt to stage a kidnapping for ransom scenario. In such a scenario, the body should not be in the house. Finding the body makes it obvious enough that no such scenario took place.

We might conjecture a "kidnapping gone wrong" ala Mary Lacy, et. al., but it's not very convincing. We might, as Learnin suggests, hypothesize a scenario in which the kidnapping was abandoned at the last minute -staged, to appear to have been abandoned at the last minute. I think Doc has already dealt with the reasons that scenario is unlikely.

What we seem to be dealing with is a RN which sets out a kidnapping for ransom scenario, and claims JB has already been taken, and, by the time the RN is read, is being held off the premises. Finding the body pretty much destroys the scenario outlined in the RN, and contradicts the claims made in the note.

To most reasonable minds this would cast doubt on the idea that the killer wanted the body found in the house.

 

[UKGuy]

The RN states that JB is already being held -the clear implication is that she's held off premises, not in the WC.

What we're concerned with is not the technical fact that moving her from her bedroom to the basement is, in itself, a kidnapping. What we are concerned with is that the girl has not been removed from the house, as per the claim in the note.

Clearly the note is an attempt to stage a kidnapping for ransom scenario. In such a scenario, the body should not be in the house. Finding the body makes it obvious enough that no such scenario took place.

We might conjecture a "kidnapping gone wrong" ala Mary Lacy, et. al., but it's not very convincing. We might, as Learnin suggests, hypothesize a scenario in which the kidnapping was abandoned at the last minute -staged, to appear to have been abandoned at the last minute. I think Doc has already dealt with the reasons that scenario is unlikely.

What we seem to be dealing with is a RN which sets out a kidnapping for ransom scenario, and claims JB has already been taken, and, by the time the RN is read, is being held off the premises. Finding the body pretty much destroys the scenario outlined in the RN, and contradicts the claims made in the note.

To most reasonable minds this would cast doubt on the idea that the killer wanted the body found in the house.

Chrishope,
Both you and docg make the same classic mistake of using staged forensic evidence to make inferences within some theory.

Just because the RN states there has been an abduction, it does not follow that it is so. Your interpretation is too literal. Not least because an intruder may have planned it this way, i.e. JonBenet was never intended to leave the house, but the intruder was going to try and collect on the ransom demand!

Finding the body pretty much destroys the scenario outlined in the RN, and contradicts the claims made in the note.

So what? The intruder rolled the dice hoping to collect on the ransom demand, and he lost out!

What we are concerned with is that the girl has not been removed from the house, as per the claim in the note.

The RN is staged artifact, why should anyone believe it. The RN was a diversionary tactic not a grand strategy that allowed no exception.

All three Ramsey's colluded in the staged abduction of JonBenet, there was no lone JDI scenario.

Just accept it since I will continue to post the facts, not future possibilities contingent on some theory.


.