Let me hear from you if you think the R's are innocent

[Jeana (DP)]

Just how familar are you with the case?

I guess I'm about as familiar with it as the rest of the membership here at Websleuths.

 

[sissi]

Yes UK guy, there is a hint here that the Barbie nightgown was not the one that was brushed cotton, but the shinier one that was the life sized doll's .

BTW why is it that everytime I find someone who is really interested in delving deeply into the possibility of an intruder as perpetrator, they disappear? Where is Red Chief? His account seems to be missing?

 

[UKGuy]

Yes UK guy, there is a hint here that the Barbie nightgown was not the one that was brushed cotton, but the shinier one that was the life sized doll's .

BTW why is it that everytime I find someone who is really interested in delving deeply into the possibility of an intruder as perpetrator, they disappear? Where is Red Chief? His account seems to be missing?

sissi,

Yes seems like its not clear cut on the Barbie Gown. I'm not sure where RedChief has gone maybe he is havng a rest, he has done a lot of posting.

Intruder as the perp has not been discounted to date, so it still has legs!

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

No member of the Ramsey family, or of Boulder for that matter, is the perpetrator.

It is possible to draw this conclusion from the properties of the ransom note.

 

[bensmom98]

No member of the Ramsey family, or of Boulder for that matter, is the perpetrator.

It is possible to draw this conclusion from the properties of the ransom note.

Could you please elaborate on this? I am very interested in what you are thinking?

 

[bensmom98]

BTW why is it that everytime I find someone who is really interested in delving deeply into the possibility of an intruder as perpetrator, they disappear? Where is Red Chief? His account seems to be missing?

Yes, RedChief certainly has made things interesting around here, hasn't he. Maybe he is on vacation. You don't think he has been suspended or something to that effect, do you? He could get pretty fiesty.

 

[Tricia]

I guess I'm about as familiar with it as the rest of the membership here at Websleuths.

DP, I would never consider accusing someone of being involved in the murder of their child unless I was absolutely sure. I am sure.

Without a doubt, if a special prosecutor was appointed heads would roll. The corruption and the "Good old boys" club in Boulder was in full swing during the Ramsey case.

RiverRat is one of the people I can count on one hand who know this case inside and out.

Like I said, there was much less evidence in the Peterson case than in the Ramsey case. Same with Darlie.

If you really go through all the evidence, look at how everything went down, you would be as appalled as we are. You may not have the same opinion as many of us do about who did it but you would be shocked just the same.

 

[Tricia]

Yes, RedChief certainly has made things interesting around here, hasn't he. Maybe he is on vacation. You don't think he has been suspended or something to that effect, do you? He could get pretty fiesty.

No, RedChief has not been suspended. That I know of. But remember, I only own the joint. hehe.

 

[BlueCrab]

I would never consider accusing someone of being involved in the murder of their child unless I was absolutely sure. I am sure.

Tricia,

Are you "absolutely sure" the mother was involved in the MURDER of her daughter, or merely involved in the COVERUP of her daughter's murder?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

You can safely draw several conclusions from the ransom note without going too far out on a limb.

Consider only that the ransom note was handwritten. This on its own is very significant. It actually indicates that the author may be foreign or live abroad.

You can say without any argument that whoever the perpetrator is doesn't want to get caught, so why risk leaving a handwritten note? In the event of capture, handwriting analysis may be the key testimony that sends the perpetrator away. Its very risky handwriting a note. Most kidnappers for ransom don't handwrite their notes. They use the phone, typewriter, etc.

One circumstance where it would be safe for the author to leave a handwritten note is if the author had confidence that his/her handwriting of the past, present, or future would for some reason not be subject to comparison.

The chances of the author having his/her handwriting spotted goes down with distance from Boulder. Ideally, if the author lives outside the US, and normally writes in another language, possibly even using another alphabet, then the chances of being spotted goes to nearly zero.

I'm concluding that a family member or Boulder resident, who was otherwise capable of the despicable deed, would lack the confidence needed to actually handwrite a ransom note.

 

[BlueCrab]

You can safely draw several conclusions from the ransom note without going too far out on a limb.

Consider only that the ransom note was handwritten. This on its own is very significant. It actually indicates that the author may be foreign or live abroad.

You can say without any argument that whoever the perpetrator is doesn't want to get caught, so why risk leaving a handwritten note? In the event of capture, handwriting analysis may be the key testimony that sends the perpetrator away. Its very risky handwriting a note. Most kidnappers for ransom don't handwrite their notes. They use the phone, typewriter, etc.

One circumstance where it would be safe for the author to leave a handwritten note is if the author had confidence that his/her handwriting of the past, present, or future would for some reason not be subject to comparison.

The chances of the author having his/her handwriting spotted goes down with distance from Boulder. Ideally, if the author lives outside the US, and normally writes in another language, possibly even using another alphabet, then the chances of being spotted goes to nearly zero.

I'm concluding that a family member or Boulder resident, who was otherwise capable of the despicable deed, would lack the confidence needed to actually handwrite a ransom note.

Holdontoyourhat,

That's a pretty interesting analysis. IOW, if the writer really was a member of a small foreign faction he'd be out of the country in a little while, so why worry about being traced down as a result of handwriting.

I wonder if any of the 29 members of the Asian Pacific American Coalition at CU left the country shortly after JonBenet was murdered? APAC itself closed its doors just weeks after the crime.

BlueCrab

 

[KatherineQ]

It seems to me, plain as day, that ransom note is a lie.

Small foreign faction? What could be more "lying" language than that? Why say that, if that's what they are - why identify themselves that much? If they literally were trying to steal that child for money, they would give no identifying information. Small foreign faction my big toe.

The whole tone of the ransom note is a lie, from the purposeful misspellings to the use of the word "we". This was ONE person.

I don't think the writer had any intention, ever, of collecting any money. I think he intended to kill her in a sexually sadistic manner, and try to attract attention away from himself by using the terms foreign faction, and asking for money. Then, I think he was unable to get her out of the house so he killed her there and the ransom note was for naught.

He wasn't trying to get money, obviously. Obviously. Otherwise, he would have done whatever it took to get her out of the house. He was trying to torture and kill her.

What would the "we" others do, when this one guy shows up and said oh sorry I didn't get her out of the house, I tortured and killed her and left her there. But I did succeed in leaving a ransom note. SHEESH. FORGET IT.

It's a lie.

 

[BlueCrab]

Small foreign faction? Why say that, if that's what they are - why identify themselves that much?

He was trying to torture and kill her.

KatherineQ,

I agree the ransom note was full of ridiculous contradictions, but IF the writer(s) did indeed represent a small foreign faction and they were trying to send a sick message to America by brutally torturing and killing a high profile child beauty queen who was the daughter of a rich capitalist, they would have had to (1.) identify themselves and (2.) identify the cause, or the message would never get out. The killer(s) did both of these things.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

The placement of the note is as significant as its content.

The note was placed between JonBenet and the rest of her family, in a position where it could not be missed. This placement assured the note would be found before JonBenet.

So, the ransom note was not for naught. I think its placement stopped the Ramseys from otherwise finding JonBenet early. Without the note, I believe the Ramseys would have searched their house top to bottom before bothering the police, upon finding their 6 year old missing from her bed.

If the Ramseys found JonBenet earlier, possibly even as early as the middle of the night, they would have reported the murder to police. That's a bad thing for the killer(s) trying to drive out of town on empty dark roads.

Consider the note content and its placement a delay tactic, and its truths and its lies become more apparent.

I'll conclude that the note placement and much of its content were mostly a delay tactic designed to preclude any road tactics by police, in the event a family member came downstairs in the middle of the night looking for, and finding, JonBenet. The note effectively prevented a house search, and caused the disappearance of JonBenet to be interpreted as a kidnapping for ransom that would require a careful response over hours and hours. The note did not prevent the police from being called, but by the time they were notified, the killer(s) were out of the area.

 

[sissi]

The placement of the note is as significant as its content.

The note was placed between JonBenet and the rest of her family, in a position where it could not be missed. This placement assured the note would be found before JonBenet.

So, the ransom note was not for naught. I think its placement stopped the Ramseys from otherwise finding JonBenet early. Without the note, I believe the Ramseys would have searched their house top to bottom before bothering the police, upon finding their 6 year old missing from her bed.

If the Ramseys found JonBenet earlier, possibly even as early as the middle of the night, they would have reported the murder to police. That's a bad thing for the killer(s) trying to drive out of town on empty dark roads.

Consider the note content and its placement a delay tactic, and its truths and its lies become more apparent.

I'll conclude that the note placement and much of its content were mostly a delay tactic designed to preclude any road tactics by police, in the event a family member came downstairs in the middle of the night looking for, and finding, JonBenet. The note effectively prevented a house search, and caused the disappearance of JonBenet to be interpreted as a kidnapping for ransom that would require a careful response over hours and hours. The note did not prevent the police from being called, but by the time they were notified, the killer(s) were out of the area.

Now we're getting somewhere!
This makes sense!

 

[sissi]

You can safely draw several conclusions from the ransom note without going too far out on a limb.

Consider only that the ransom note was handwritten. This on its own is very significant. It actually indicates that the author may be foreign or live abroad.

You can say without any argument that whoever the perpetrator is doesn't want to get caught, so why risk leaving a handwritten note? In the event of capture, handwriting analysis may be the key testimony that sends the perpetrator away. Its very risky handwriting a note. Most kidnappers for ransom don't handwrite their notes. They use the phone, typewriter, etc.

One circumstance where it would be safe for the author to leave a handwritten note is if the author had confidence that his/her handwriting of the past, present, or future would for some reason not be subject to comparison.

The chances of the author having his/her handwriting spotted goes down with distance from Boulder. Ideally, if the author lives outside the US, and normally writes in another language, possibly even using another alphabet, then the chances of being spotted goes to nearly zero.

I'm concluding that a family member or Boulder resident, who was otherwise capable of the despicable deed, would lack the confidence needed to actually handwrite a ransom note.

I could agree, however, I'm not sure we should think an ocean apart, maybe just a mountain ridge or two

 

[BlueCrab]

The placement of the note is as significant as its content.

The note was placed between JonBenet and the rest of her family, in a position where it could not be missed. This placement assured the note would be found before JonBenet.

So, the ransom note was not for naught. I think its placement stopped the Ramseys from otherwise finding JonBenet early. Without the note, I believe the Ramseys would have searched their house top to bottom before bothering the police, upon finding their 6 year old missing from her bed.

If the Ramseys found JonBenet earlier, possibly even as early as the middle of the night, they would have reported the murder to police. That's a bad thing for the killer(s) trying to drive out of town on empty dark roads.

Consider the note content and its placement a delay tactic, and its truths and its lies become more apparent.

I'll conclude that the note placement and much of its content were mostly a delay tactic designed to preclude any road tactics by police, in the event a family member came downstairs in the middle of the night looking for, and finding, JonBenet. The note effectively prevented a house search, and caused the disappearance of JonBenet to be interpreted as a kidnapping for ransom that would require a careful response over hours and hours. The note did not prevent the police from being called, but by the time they were notified, the killer(s) were out of the area.

Holdontoyourhat,

That's a good hypothesis, but it's contradicted by the evidence.

IMO the Ramseys DID search the house, including the basement, and they DID find JonBenet at least one hour before they called 911 at 5:52 AM. The Ramseys slipped up several times during the police interviews to reveal they were up way before 5:30 A.M.

For instance, John says he snuck away by himself sometime between 7 and 9 AM and checked out the train room. That's when he said he found the basement window open about 1/4 of an inch and closed it. However, John also said he had to remove a chair from in front of the train room door to get in. That comment caught him in a lie. Here's why:

Officer Rick French had searched the train room a few minutes after 6:00 AM and there was no chair in front of the door, and he noticed no open window.

Fleet White searched the train room about 15 minutes later and there was no chair in front of the door, and he noticed no open window although he did notice a broken glass pane in the window.

Therefore, John had to have been in the basement prior to Rick French and Fleet White and prior to the 911 call to have moved the chair from in front of the train room door and to have closed the window. Since John apparently searched the basement around 4 or 5 that morning and is lying about it, then he had also likely found JonBenet. Why else would he lie?

IOW, the Ramseys knew a family member was involved when they found the body and that commenced the staging and lying in an attempt to cover up the sexual aspects of the murder and try to point the evidence toward a non-existant intruder. The three days of 1998 police interviews tripped them up and revealed a series of lies that continue to this day.

BlueCrab

 

[sissi]

Holdontoyourhat,

That's a good hypothesis, but it's contradicted by the evidence.

IMO the Ramseys DID search the house, including the basement, and they DID find JonBenet at least one hour before they called 911 at 5:52 AM. The Ramseys slipped up several times during the police interviews to reveal they were up way before 5:30 A.M.

For instance, John says he snuck away by himself sometime between 7 and 9 AM and checked out the train room. That's when he said he found the basement window open about 1/4 of an inch and closed it. However, John also said he had to remove a chair from in front of the train room door to get in. That comment caught him in a lie. Here's why:

Officer Rick French had searched the train room a few minutes after 6:00 AM and there was no chair in front of the door, and he noticed no open window.

Fleet White searched the train room about 15 minutes later and there was no chair in front of the door, and he noticed no open window although he did notice a broken glass pane in the window.

Therefore, John had to have been in the basement prior to Rick French and Fleet White and prior to the 911 call to have moved the chair from in front of the train room door and to have closed the window. Since John apparently searched the basement around 4 or 5 that morning and is lying about it, then he had also likely found JonBenet. Why else would he lie?

IOW, the Ramseys knew a family member was involved when they found the body and that commenced the staging and lying in an attempt to cover up the sexual aspects of the murder and try to point the evidence toward a non-existant intruder. The three days of 1998 police interviews tripped them up and revealed a series of lies that continue to this day.

BlueCrab

BLUE CRAB...With all due respect, (gee I'm nice today),how do you get from the police showing a photo to John of the chair in front of the door, to John being the first one downstairs. Clearly that chair was in front of the door before John went down to the basement. If French didn't see it, then White on his trip down, (both preceded John) didn't see it, then a big hmmm for who put it there. The last person, between White and John was the photographer, if we are making guesses here, could we safely suggest White put it there?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

The only things I would admit into evidence at this point are the ransom note, the slain 6 year old, weapons, and the testimony of the inital reaction of the parents. There's a lot that can be established from this, a lot of work to do, before admitting hearsay.

Listen to the testimony of the parents following the discovery of the ransom note. That is what truth sounds like, and the truth never sounded so truthful.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I'm saying that the author of the note is probably far from Boulder, but his purported two gentlemen could be anywhere, if they exist at all.