Paint tote

[JMO8778]

Good points! Not ONE person involved in this case said that note seemed like it was written by a foreigner.

Let's not forget also, that JR lied about the cord on JBR's wrists. He said he was the one who untied her wrist. He claimed the cord was very tightly tied. Any coroner, as well as any novice in the study of forensics, could tell by looking at her wrists that the cord was NEVER tied tightly. Not in life, not in death. There would be a furrow on her wrist(s) just as there was on her neck. There would be evidence of swelling above or below the furrow. NONE of the above were found.
Remember the autopsy photo where JBR's back is shown- there are white lines on her back in the livor mortis that represent where the waistband of her panties and long johns were against her skin, and also white lines across her back that indicate where the wrinkles and folds of her shirt pressed against her bare skin. When livor forms, as the blood settles, it is pressed away from areas that indent into the skin, even slightly, like clothing (or the cord). This is called "blanching". After livor becomes fixed (called non-blanching), these white areas remain, as the blood has thickened and no longer moves. The ligature furrow is RED because it was made while she was alive. The lines on her back are WHITE because they were made when she was placed on her back after she was dead. She was garotted while alive and on her stomach. After that, she was placed on her back. Livor began within the hour.
I know FW followed JR into the wineceller that day. Has he ever mentioned seeing JR do any of the following: Cut her down; untie her wrist; remove the tape; unwrap the blanket? Because I don't see where he was even ASKED about it, unless we are not privy to that interview.

I don't know,I haven't ever read anything on it,either.
Since FW won't talk and he wouldn't testify in that other case,I'm guessing that is what's happened..that he has something to say about JR finding the body,and it's not being revealed.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

And as far as her hands go,they would have been bound in front or in back of her,not over her head.(which was done after rigor set in).Now pls don't tell me they were and she got loose...a KN would have had her wrists completely bound with rope,many times over,not just once over each wrist with nothing more than that shoestring-like cord. <insert rolling eyes symbol here>.
And after being gagged and bound,a KN would have gotten her out of that house,ASAP! (via the door right there !) He would have executed a plan that had already been made.It is just that simple.A KN wants it to be that way.Get in,get out.Your scenario involves nothing short of the 3 stooges who can't get even get their act together enough to get a 45 pd child out of a door that was right there,not to mention,can't even properly bind or gag their victim.Oh please,get real !

And the 'foreigners' fail to write a note convincing enough to appear written by a foreigner.
Where are all the experts who say it was written by a foreigner??? No one would be that dumb.They know just how stupid it would make them appear.

Experts can't say it was written by a foreigner because (news flash) there's no automatic connection between someone's nationality and their ability to speak and write in English.

It seems you have this mistaken idea that a foreigner can't write an RN better than you could.

 

[UKGuy]

There is no such thing as a reasonable IDI explanation, according to the BORG.

What I think went on, is JBR was target for a kidnap, but the kidnap was botched or aborted, and she was instead murdered. The intruders came mentally and physically prepared to both kidnap and murder JBR. The former didn't work out because of some unknown factor, so the latter was chosen to prevent JBR from ever identifying her attackers.

I don't think the kidnap was for money.

Holdontoyourhat,

So your theory supports the notion that it may have actually been an Alien Abduction gone wrong, creatures from another solar system who, after studying our culture and language wished to kidnap a high ranking child e.g. daughter of a millionaire and pageant winner etc?

There is NO evidence to support an intruder theory, the best one offered, courtesy of Lou Smit, has been binned!

 

[JMO8778]

Holdontoyourhat,

So your theory supports the notion that it may have actually been an Alien Abduction gone wrong, creatures from another solar system who, after studying our culture and language wished to kidnap a high ranking child e.g. daughter of a millionaire and pageant winner etc?

that would be more likely,wouldn't it!

 

[JMO8778]

Experts can't say it was written by a foreigner because (news flash) there's no automatic connection between someone's nationality and their ability to speak and write in English.

there are certain characteristics,and while they can't say it WAS written by a foreigner,b/c it wasn't-they can rule out that it was *not written by a foreigner.You can dumb *down,but you can't dumb up,and Mark McClish's analysis is a good one:
[SIZE=+3]Statement Analysis[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]by Mark McClish[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+2]JonBenet Ramsey Ransom Note[/SIZE]
Click here for an update on this case.


A key piece of evidence in solving this murder is the ransom note. The police as well as the Ramseys believe that whoever wrote the note is probably the killer. If the police can match the handwriting in the ransom note to a suspect's handwriting, the case is solved. The problem has been they have not found a match. Even without a positive match, the ransom note is still the key to solving this crime.

Using Statement Analysis we can examine this ransom note and determine if it is a legitimate ransom note. Was it the intention of the writer to extort money from the Ramseys, or was the note written as a ploy after JonBenet was killed? Determining the veracity of the ransom note is important. If the note is legitimate, then we know we have a kidnapping that went bad. This would exclude the Ramseys as possible suspects. Why would they kidnap their own child and demand money from themselves? If the note is fraudulent, then we know this was a murder made to look like a kidnapping. Anyone could be a possible suspect. Let's examine the ransom note left at the Ramsey residence. I have added the numbers in the left hand column to make it easier to reference while analyzing it.
1. "Mr. Ramsey.
2. Listen carefully! We are a group of individuals that represent
3. a small foreign faction. We xx respect your bussiness
4. but not the country that it serves. At this time we have
5. your daughter in our posession. She is safe and unharmed and
6. if you want her to see 1997, you must follow our instructions to
7. the letter.

8. You will withdraw $118,000.00 from your account. $100,000 will be
9. in $100 bills and the remaining $18,000 in $20 bills. Make sure
10. that you bring an adequate size attache to the bank. When you get
11. home you will put the money in a brown paper bag. I will call you
12. between 8 and 10 am tomorrow to instruct you on delivery. The
13. delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be rested. If we
14. monitor you getting the money early, we might call you early to
15. arrange an earlier delivery of the money and hence a earlier
16. delivery pickup of your daughter.

17. Any deviation of my instructions will result in the immediate
18. execution of your daughter. You will also be denied her remains
19. for proper burial. The two gentlemen watching over your daughter
20. do not particularly like you so I advise you not to provoke them.
21. Speaking to anyone about your situation, such as Police, F.B.I.,
22. etc., will result in your daughter being beheaded. If we catch you
23. talking to a stray dog, she dies. If you alert bank authorities, she
24. dies. If the money is in any way marked or tampered with, she dies.
25. You will be scanned for electronic devices and if any are found, she
26. dies. You can try to deceive us but be warned that we are familiar
27. with Law enforcement countermeasures and tactics. You stand a 99&#37;
28. chance of killing your daughter if you try to out smart us. Follow
29. our instructions and you stand a 100% chance of getting her back.
30. You and your family are under constant scrutiny as well as the
31. authorities. Don't try to grow a brain John. You are not the only
32. fat cat around so don't think that killing will be difficult. Don't
33. underestimate us John. Use that good southern common sense of yours.
34. It is up to you now John!
35. Victory!
36. S.B.T.C."

One of the first things we notice is that this is a very long ransom note. Most ransom notes are short and to the point. "We have your kid and she is safe. It will cost you $400,000 to get her back. Do not call the police. We will be contacting you." This ransom note was written on three pieces of paper. This is our first clue this note may be bogus.

As we read the ransom note, we find it doesn't make much sense. Line #2, "We are a group of individuals." What exactly does the writer mean by "group of individuals?" Every group is comprised of individuals. That's what makes it a group. Is the writer telling us despite being a group, they maintain their individuality? Most of the year they live separate lives, but everyone once in a while they come together as a group? 1. "Mr. Ramsey.
2. Listen carefully! We are a group of individuals that represent
3. a small foreign faction. We xx respect your bussiness
4. but not the country that it serves.
The writer also states in lines #2 and #3 that they "represent a small foreign faction." The use of the word "foreign" doesn't make sense. Even if to us they are foreigners, they wouldn't call themselves foreigners. They are not foreigners to themselves. They would tell us, "We are the Islamic Jihad." Remember you can learn a lot if you ask yourself how you would state something. Then compare your statement with the suspect's statement. If you went to Iran and kidnapped someone, it is doubtful you would leave a note stating you are a foreigner.

The writer goes on to say in lines #3 and #4, "We respect your bussiness but not the country that it serves." Are we to believe that JonBenet was kidnapped and then murdered because someone has a hatred for the United States? Most people would agree this crime is not an international incident. 1. "Mr. Ramsey.
2. Listen carefully! We are a group of individuals that represent
3. a small foreign faction. We xx respect your bussiness
4. but not the country that it serves.
In line #3, the writer crossed out the beginning of a word. It appears that the first letter was a "d" and the second letter possibly an "o." The writer may have started to write "We don't respect your business" but then changed it to "We respect your business." A kidnapper who already has his mind set would probably not make this mistake.

The writer misspells two common words in lines #4 and #5, "business" and "possessions." However, the writer correctly spells the words "deviation" and "attache" even including the accent on the word "attache." This leads us to believe the writer purposefully misspelled these two words to try to make it look like an uneducated person or a foreigner wrote this note. The two misspellings occur in the first paragraph. After that, the writer uses correct grammar except for using the article "a" when he should have written "an." This is further indication the misspellings were done on purpose. The writer showed his true writing skills and forgot to misspell words throughout the note. 1. "Mr. Ramsey.
2. Listen carefully! We are a group of individuals that represent
3. a small foreign faction. We xx respect your bussiness
4. but not the country that it serves. At this time we have
5. your daughter in our posession. She is safe and unharmed and
6. if you want her to see 1997, you must follow our instructions to
7. the letter.
In lines #4 and #5, the writer tells us "...we have your daughter in our possession." Remember that the shortest way to say something is the best way to state it. A true kidnapper would have said, "We have your daughter." The words "in our possession" are understood and unnecessary. This wordiness shows us that someone was trying to make this look like a kidnapping.

The writer states in line #8, "You will withdraw $118,000.00 from your account." The kidnapper may know the Ramseys are wealthy, but how does the writer know they have $118,000 in their account. Most kidnappers would simply state "get the money." They don't care where you get it from just get it. 8. You will withdraw $118,000.00 from your account. $100,000 will be
9. in $100 bills and the remaining $18,000 in $20 bills. Make sure
10. that you bring an adequate size attache to the bank.
The amount of $118,000 is a relatively small amount of money. Kidnappers are greedy. A true kidnapper would demand much more money.

The phrase "your account" is very interesting. First, as I previously mentioned a kidnapper would not tell you from where to obtain the money. If the kidnapper did, the writer would probably use the phrase "the bank." Secondly, if Patsy Ramsey was the author of this note, then we can see how in targeting the note towards her husband, she would use the phrase "your account" vs "my account."

In line #10, the writer tells the Ramseys to "bring an adequate size attache to the bank." Most kidnappers are not going to remind you to bring an adequate size case to hold the money. Likewise in line #13, it is doubtful that a kidnapper will tell you "to be rested" because the delivery process will be exhausting. 8. You will withdraw $118,000.00 from your account. $100,000 will be
9. in $100 bills and the remaining $18,000 in $20 bills. Make sure
10. that you bring an adequate size attache to the bank. When you get
11. home you will put the money in a brown paper bag. I will call you
12. between 8 and 10 am tomorrow to instruct you on delivery. The
13. delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be rested. If we
14. monitor you getting the money early, we might call you early to
15. arrange an earlier delivery of the money and hence a earlier
16. delivery pickup of your daughter.
Line #13 and #14 the writer states, "If we monitor you getting the money early...." Later in line #30 the writer states, "You and your family are under constant scrutiny...." The kidnapper would have us believe that they are continually watching the Ramsey family. Highly unlikely.

In line #19, we have an unnecessary word, "over." 17. Any deviation of my instructions will result in the immediate
18. execution of your daughter. You will also be denied her remains
19. for proper burial. The two gentlemen watching over your daughter
Unnecessary words are words that can be taken out of the sentence, and yet the sentence still makes sense. The writer could have stated, "The two gentlemen watching your daughter." By including the extra word, the writer is including extra information. What is the difference between watching someone and watching over someone? The best example I can think of is in reference to God. If I say that God is watching over me, I visualize God keeping his distance. He sees me, but he also see the entire world at the same time. He can see me because I am part of the world. While He is watching over me He is also watching over others. The word "over" means God is spreading His watchful eye upon the earth. However, if I say that God is watching me it becomes more personal. Even though He can see the entire world, He is focusing His attention on me. Another example would be if a friend asked you to "watch over" his house while he was out of town. In this case, he probably wants you to stop by every once in a while and make sure everything is okay. Maybe you will pick up his mail and water his plants. However, if he asked you to "watch" his house he probably wants you to housesit. He wants you to be there where you can keep a close eye on things.

In a kidnapping, the kidnappers should be "watching" the abductee. They will want to keep a close eye on her. They want to make sure she doesn't escape or alert someone that she needs help. They will want to make sure she doesn't harm herself if her being alive is dependent upon them receiving the ransom. When the writer of the ransom note said they were "watching over" JonBenet, the writer was telling us they were not keeping a close eye on her. There are only two reasons why you would not closely watch your hostage: 1. If you knew for certain she was alright and could not escape; 2. If you knew she was dead. Since a dead body isn't going anywhere, it is something you "watch over." Based on the language used, it appears the writer knew JonBenet was dead when writing the ransom note.

Line #19 continues on stating "The two men watching over your daughter do not particularly like you...." When we look at a copy of the ransom note, we find the writer originally wrote "....do particularly like you...." The word "not" was then written above the space between the words "do" and "particularly." A line was then drawn indicating the word "not" should be inserted between these two words. A true kidnapper would not make the mistake of saying these gentlemen do like you. 17. Any deviation of my instructions will result in the immediate
18. execution of your daughter. You will also be denied her remains
19. for proper burial. The two gentlemen watching over your daughter
20. do not particularly like you so I advise you not to provoke them.
The sentence "The two gentlemen watching over your daughter do not particularly like you so I advise you not to provoke them" is not very aggressive language. This would indicate that a woman wrote this note. Other statements in the ransom note such as "I advise you to be rested" also show a feminine touch.

 

[JMO8778]

Saying that JonBenet will be "beheaded" in line #22 is very unusual. This was put in the note to make it look like a "foreign faction" was behind this kidnapping. 21. Speaking to anyone about your situation, such as Police, F.B.I.,
22. etc., will result in your daughter being beheaded. If we catch you
23. talking to a stray dog, she dies. If you alert bank authorities, she
24. dies. If the money is in any way marked or tampered with, she dies.
25. You will be scanned for electronic devices and if any are found, she
26. dies.
Four times the writer uses the phrase "she dies." (Lines #23 - #26) The problem is the writer should be speaking in the future tense; "she will die." This is a strong indication the writer knew JonBenet was dead when the ransom note was written.

The note is addressed to "Mr. Ramsey." However, towards the end of the note Mr. Ramsey becomes "John." The writer refers to Mr. Ramsey as "John" three times in lines #31 - #34. If this was a foreign faction, they would continually use the term "Mr. Ramsey." Referring to him by his first name is too personal for an unknown kidnapper. 30. You and your family are under constant scrutiny as well as the
31. authorities. Don't try to grow a brain John. You are not the only
32. fat cat around so don't think that killing will be difficult. Don't
33. underestimate us John. Use that good southern common sense of yours.
34. It is up to you now John!
35. Victory!
36. S.B.T.C."
Everyone has a personal dictionary. Certain words mean certain things. If the writer saw John Ramsey as being "Mr. Ramsey" then he should always refer to him as "Mr. Ramsey." When he changed the language and call him "John" there has to be a justification for the change. There are no synonyms in Statement Analysis. Every word or name means something different. If the change in language is unjustified, then the person is making up the story.

The note is signed "S.B.T.C" There is no period after the letter "C." When writing we end a thought by placing a period at the end of the sentence. Not using a period tells us the writer intentionally stopped writing. There may be conflict at this point in the story. The writer may have more information that was purposely withheld.
After re-examining a copy of the ransom note, I believe there is a period after the letter "C." It looks like the period was placed so close to the "C" that it bled into the letter.

There has been a lot of speculation as to what the letters S.B.T.C. mean. The one that makes some sense to me is "Saved By The Cross." This is because the Ramseys profess to have faith in God and because word "Victory" precedes the initials S.B.T.C. As all Christians know, it is through Christ's sacrifice on the cross that we have "victory" over death.

In examining the pronouns, we find this crime was not committed by a group. If you are writing for a group, then your language will reflect there are several people involved. Throughout the ransom note, the writer uses the plural pronouns "we," "us" and "our" because the writer wants to give the impression that a group is responsible for the kidnapping. In lines #2 - #5 we find the statements, "We are a group of individuals." "We respect your business." "We have your daughter." In line #6 the writer states, "You must follow our instructions." In line #28, "Follow our instructions." However, in line #17 we have, "Any deviation of my instructions." If this was a group effort, the writer would have a group mentality and would consistently use the plural pronouns. Look at line #11 and line #14, "I will call you" vs "We might call you." People's words will betray them. The truth will slip out and in this case we can easily see it in the pronouns. We see deception in this ransom note with the changing pronouns. This kidnapping was not the work of a terrorist group. One person, probably a woman, wrote this ransom note. One person and perhaps an accomplice committed this crime.


As you can see there is a lot of deception in this ransom note. The writer's own words tell us this ransom note was not written with the intent to obtain money. Since the ransom note was written as a ruse, we can conclude this was not a kidnapping that turned into a murder, but a murder made to look like a kidnapping. This means we cannot exclude the Ramseys as possible suspects. Let's look at what evidence ties John and Patsy Ramsey to the ransom note.

1. The ransom note was written on a pad of paper that was in the Ramsey's residence. Likewise, the pen that was used to write the note also came from their residence.

2. The killer placed a nylon cord made into a garrote around JonBenet's neck and strangled her. A broken paintbrush belonging to Patsy Ramsey was used to make the garrote.

3. While handwriting analysis shows that John Ramsey did not write the ransom note, Patsy Ramsey could not be completely eliminated as the writer.

4. Certain words in the ransom note such as "instruction" "monitor" "execution" "scanned" "electronic" and "device" are computer terms. At the time of JonBenet's death, John Ramsey was president of Access Graphics a computer distribution company.

5. The kidnapper demanded $118,000 from the Ramseys. This is a very unusual amount. Most people would ask for a much larger amount. There is a reason why the writer chose $118,000. Even John Ramsey agrees that the number 118 is significant to the killer. It has been reported that in 1996 John Ramsey received a bonus of $118,000. Is this a coincidence? When the writer had to think of a number, $118,000 was on his mind. 13. delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be rested. If we
14. monitor you getting the money early, we might call you early to
15. arrange an earlier delivery of the money and hence a earlier
16. delivery pickup of your daughter.
6. In lines #13 - 16, the writer states, "If we monitor you getting the money early, we might call you early to arrange an earlier delivery of the money and hence a earlier pickup of your daughter." The word "hence" is a formal way of saying "therefore." The writer starts out the ransom note misspelling words giving the appearance he is uneducated. However, his educational level begins to show when he uses words such as "hence."

The word "hence" is not a very common word. When was the last time you used that word in a sentence? Chances are you have not used it this week. We should look to see if this word appears in any writings of John or Patsy Ramsey. Well, it does. On December 14, 1997, the First United Methodist Church in Boulder, Colorado held a memorial service for JonBenet. In the program, there was "A Christmas Message from the Ramsey Family." This message was also posted on the Ramsey family's web site. In the message, we find the statement, "Had there been no birth of Christ, there would be no hope of eternal life, and, hence, no hope of ever being with our loved ones again."

7. The word "hence" is a transition word. You do not have to use the word "and" with it. For example, "The arcade was closed, hence, I spent my money at the mall." The writer of the ransom note used the phrase "and hence." In their Christmas Message, the Ramseys used this exact same phrase. "Had there been no birth of Christ, there would be no hope of eternal life, and, hence, no hope of ever being with our loved ones again."

In their book, The Death of Innocence, Patsy Ramsey addresses the use of the phrase "and hence."

"Actually, I have no idea why we used that phrase. Maybe we'd seen it so many times in reading the ransom note - and having to write it over and over again for the police - that it became a part of our subconscious vocabulary. Who Knows? Then again, maybe people everywhere use the phrase &#8216;and hence' everyday of the week, because it's a normal part of the English language."
​

Like I said, when was the last time you used that phrase? It is not part of the normal English vocabulary. Patsy Ramsey does not tell us why they used that phrase. She only says "maybe" it is because they saw it in the ransom note and had to write it several times for the police. She then asked a question, "Who knows?" She is trying to sweep this under the carpet as if it is no big deal. However, this is a very big deal. We have the same phrase that is in the ransom note, appearing in their writings.

On October 12, 2000, the Ramsey's did a webcast interview with Newseum (www.newsuem.org). In the interview, John Ramsey makes the following statement:

"The justice system is a government organization. And hence, should be looked at with some degree of skepticism."
​

8. Many Ramsey supporters believe the Ramseys did subconsciously adopt the phrase "and hence" found in the ransom note. Okay. I will admit it is possible. But lets take a closer look at the phrase "and hence." When we look at the original ransom note we find the writer had crossed out a word. 13. delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be rested. If we
14. monitor you getting the money early, we might call you early to
15. arrange an earlier delivery of the money and hence a earlier
16. delivery pickup of your daughter.
The writer started to say that upon receiving the money he would "deliver" JonBenet to her parents. He then realized that a kidnapper would not deliver the hostage but would tell the authorities where she could be found. Therefore, he changed it to "pick-up." It is doubtful that a kidnapper would make this mistake.

More importantly, an examination of the author's writing style shows us that whatever comes before the phrase "and hence" comes after the phrase "and hence." 13. delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be rested. If we
14. monitor you getting the money early, we might call you early to
15. arrange an earlier delivery of the money and hence a earlier
16. delivery pickup of your daughter.
We see the same writing style in the Ramsey's Christmas message.

"Had there been no birth of Christ, there would be no hope of eternal life, and, hence, no hope of ever being with our loved ones again."
​

So, the Ramsey supporters would have us believe that the Ramseys not only adopted the word "hence" they also adopted the phrase "and hence" and they also adopted the killer's writing style! Possible but not probable.






For a complete Statement Analysis of the JonBenet Ramsey murder, get the book
I Know You Are Lying
Detecting Deception Through Statement Analysis








​

http://www.statementanalysis.com/ramseynote/

It seems you have this mistaken idea that a foreigner can't write an RN better than you could.

that's it,no mistake
esp. considering it's written in English.


and can you tell us why there has never been a 'small FF' to come fwd and claim responsibility for this crime???? If this was the case,they most certainly would have come fwd,esp. by now.

 

[BBB167893]

Uh, except maybe for the victim profile??

I thought you were against making "after-the-fact" generalizations, Holdon. My, my. But I can see what you mean, I think. But look at the killer profile, and it all becomes clear, like it did to me. Don't forget, I used to be on your side.

And I'll tell you here and now that anyone who even 'barely scratches' a child in this way is a pedophile.

True, but that's not what you said. You said a sadistic pedophile kidnapper. There are different kinds of people who do this. Some are forceful, sadistic and controlling. Others think they're giving the child "pleasure." Others are not true pedophiles, but situational molesters, where the child is used for sexual purposes because they are seen as "safe" or "available" or both. And yes, I am going somewhere with that.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, I just think yours is wrong, thats all.

I was going to say the same.

You won't know if it was or was not a sadistic murder until you know what happened in the basement, right?

To be fair, Holdon, you actually make a good point there. It seems like settle on one specific "motive," as far as that goes. That truly is my weakness in this case.

Allow me to rephrase: Where does LE, or anyone else for that matter, state that LE has established forensically that the tape was placed on an unconscious JBR?

If memory serves, Mike Kane said something like that. And he was the "evidence man" in the DA's office. Could be wrong. I'll check it out.

There is no such thing as a reasonable IDI explanation, according to the BORG.

Ah, yes. The famed BORG insult. I thought you a better man, Holdon. Well, I learned a long time ago to wear the "BORG" title as a badge of honor. I guess that makes me Locutus, then, because I used to be on the other side. And no, I don't see any reasonable evidence of IDI. I may have at one time, but only because I was blinded by naive, unrealistic pie-in-the-sky notions like "nobody with no history could do this." David Westerfield had no history either. That was the end of that for me. In that time, I also learned that if "after-the-fact" behavior wasn't evidence, there'd be a LOT of free killers out there. Does the "White Bronco chase" mean anything to anyone here?

Thats just ridiculous. Did intruders ask JBR nicely to hold still while they cover her eyes?
You can't be serious. Wouldn't JBR be free to scream?

JMO, I defer to you:

good point,yes,she would most certainly have been free to scream w/ that lousy piece of tape over her mouth...I recall reading it was said to only be 3/4 inch wide...no wonder FW was bewildered !
I also believe,like many others,that it was used previously..and that's why there was no other tape found.
BUT...that leads to a point..a KN would most certainly bind and GAG his victim,right off the bat,using a cloth or something more reliable than a single piece of tape..if tape then he would have used 1/2 a roll or so (if not even the whole roll,to be sure she was gagged enough so as not to be heard,since kids can scream loudly!),going through her mouth and AROUND her head,not just over her mouth.One small piece of tape is laughable,just laughable.It is so obviously nothing more than STAGING.
And as far as her hands go,they would have been bound in front or in back of her,not over her head.(which was done after rigor set in).Now pls don't tell me they were and she got loose...a KN would have had her wrists completely bound with rope,many times over,not just once over each wrist with nothing more than that shoestring-like cord. <insert rolling eyes symbol here>.And after being gagged and bound,a KN would have gotten her out of that house,ASAP! (via the door right there !) He would have executed a plan that had already been made.It is just that simple.A KN wants it to be that way.Get in,get out.Your scenario involves nothing short of the 3 stooges who can't get even get their act together enough to get a 45 pd child out of a door that was right there,not to mention,can't even properly bind or gag their victim.Oh please,get real ! And the 'foreigners' fail to write a note convincing enough to appear written by a foreigner. Where are all the experts who say it was written by a foreigner??? No one would be that dumb.They know just how stupid it would make them appear.

No need for me to add anything!

 

[JMO8778]

Thx SD,I consider that quite an honor !

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

there are certain characteristics,and while they can't say it WAS written by a foreigner,b/c it wasn't-they can rule out that it was *not written by a foreigner.You can dumb *down,but you can't dumb up,and Mark McClish's analysis is a good one:

Good, because you just said they can rule in that it was written by a foreigner!(LOL)!

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

If memory serves, Mike Kane said something like that. And he was the "evidence man" in the DA's office. Could be wrong. I'll check it out.

Good, you check it out. Because tape placed on a living JBR changes the motive and might change the perception of what was staging and what was not.

I figured RDI had good reason to believe the tape was just placed over JBR's mouth after she died, but apparently there isn't one.

JR removing the tape and leaving it in the basement subtracts from its value as a staging prop. I mean, if it were staged, I rather doubt JR would disturb the staging himself. Fewer people would appreciate the tape if it were removed and left on the floor. Besides, removing the tape is consistent with a desire to revive JBR, so JR's actions once again are consistent with IDI, not RDI.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Holdontoyourhat,

So your theory supports the notion that it may have actually been an Alien Abduction gone wrong, creatures from another solar system who, after studying our culture and language wished to kidnap a high ranking child e.g. daughter of a millionaire and pageant winner etc?

You've got the alien creatures part right, I'm sure. If you substitute 'solar system' with 'country' you'd have it.

 

[JMO8778]

Good, because you just said they can rule in that it was written by a foreigner!(LOL)!

not quite,just as IDI saying Patsy was effectively ruled out from writing the RN,although truth is,she couldn't be eliminated.

 

[JMO8778]

You've got the alien creatures part right, I'm sure. If you substitute 'solar system' with 'country' you'd have it.

..and the truth is,the smoking gun is if you see it on earth,it's *from earth (ufo's),just as the smoking gun is the child found dead *in the parents home.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

..and the truth is,the smoking gun is if you see it on earth,it's *from earth (ufo's),just as the smoking gun is the child found dead *in the parents home.

Your saying that believing IDI is the same as believing UFO's. OK I guess you're entitled to your opinoin.

Only aliens have never been proven to exist, while child killers who aren't parents are proven to exist. And some don't care whose turf its on.

 

[coloradokares]

Your saying that believing IDI is the same as believing UFO's. OK I guess you're entitled to your opinoin.

Only aliens have never been proven to exist, while child killers who aren't parents are proven to exist. And some don't care whose turf its on.

Good thing I didnt respond as I would have said I was more persuaded in the truth of UFOs than of the IDI theory at this time. Wasnt it just last week they were doing a tour round Texas?

 

[JMO8778]

Good thing I didnt respond as I would have said I was more persuaded in the truth of UFOs than of the IDI theory at this time. Wasnt it just last week they were doing a tour round Texas?

yes,gotta keep up appearances,I guess.lol.
I'm just wondering how much the gov paid Robert Lazar to say they were doing reverse propulsion on a ufo.He looked like he was reading from a script the last time I saw him on tv.And why reverse them anyway,if they do so well going fwd,lol.
I know,getting off topic here..

 

[JMO8778]

Your saying that believing IDI is the same as believing UFO's. OK I guess you're entitled to your opinoin.

no,I'm talking about smoking guns.you changed it around to that..

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

no,I'm talking about smoking guns.you changed it around to that..

If you're talking about RDI smoking guns, you're talking about smoking guns that never were:

No consensus among ABFDE CDE's that PR wrote the note.

No evidence of any domestic dispute that night. No broken glass, no witness testimony, no neighbor testomony, etc.

No evidence that either the cord or tape was ever independently owned or operated by the R's. No remants, no other uses, not even similar uses.

None of the wrong DNA at the crime scene.

Plenty of claims on PR and JR evidence found at the crime scene, but NO evidence from the crime scene on PR or JR (i.e. blood, cord fibers, wood fibers, etc. etc.)

etc. etc.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Using the available evidence, there's no way to refute that intruders of foreign origin came during the afternoon, brought cord and tape with them, improvised the paintbrush, garroted JBR in her bed, brought her to the basement, wrote the ransom note, somehow managed to feed her pineapple, sexually assaulted or whatever, and murdered her after deciding she was not suitable for kidnapping via tape and blanket.

 

[UKGuy]

Using the available evidence, there's no way to refute that intruders of foreign origin came during the afternoon, brought cord and tape with them, improvised the paintbrush, garroted JBR in her bed, brought her to the basement, wrote the ransom note, somehow managed to feed her pineapple, sexually assaulted or whatever, and murdered her after deciding she was not suitable for kidnapping via tape and blanket.

Holdontoyourhat,
Of course it can be refuted.

1. There is no forensic evidence linking directly to any intruder.

2. The available forensic evidence suggests JonBenet was garroted just outside the wine-cellar door.

Try another theory, since that one is incoherent!