Premeditated?

[Anyhoo]

I agree with everything except that my prime suspect is not necessarily John. I believe both of the adult Ramseys were ruthless enough, and perfectly capable of, doing the garroting. It just needed to be done as part of the staging, not because they got any enjoyment out of it.

Yep, definitely think both were ruthless enough.

Although my read of PR up to now has been that she does not possess the level of intelligence and ruthlessness to do this, you may be correct. Perhaps a hidden part of herself came out that night that allowed her to do this horrible brutal thing to her daughter. Yes, it is possible, but my read of PR is this: that upon seeing JB after the head blow she would completely fall apart emotionally and not know what to do. She would be crying and shaking and would go to someone else in the family for help. Someone she trusted. I think she did, and it was this other person who came in and took charge of a very chaotic emotional situation and did what he thought had to be done. IMO that person was JR.

 

[Anyhoo]

I think both were selfish enough, but JR was far more likely to think of a garrote than PR IMO. It was the method of execution used in the Philippines when he was stationed there. I also think part of the reason for adding the paint brush handle, PR's paint brush handle, was a double CYA in case the SFF BS didn't fly. A "Plan B".

Please explain this more. Are you saying that JR used the broke paint brush as the garrote handle to purposefully throw suspicion onto his wife? If so, would that action fall under the same category of using JAR's suitcase with his blanket and Dr. Seuss book in it? EDIT TO ADD: I just got a picture in my mind of why fibers from the crime scene would be found on items inside the suitcase, because someone purposely made sure those fibers were on those items to give the impression that the suitcase and contents was somehow directly involved in the murder when in reality it was not. The picture I got in my mind is of JR purposely doing that. More staging. More deception. I 100% cannot see PR doing this but I can 100% see JR doing this.

Let me say one more thing about this. When I think this way, something starts to make sense about the whole thing. I don't know what happened prior to the strangulation, but as for the strangulation itself (the actual murder) and the staging afterwards, I see JR's hand in it. He comes off as if he is clueless and doesn't know what is going on, but that is just an act. Despite appearances, I believe this man was directly involved in the death of his daughter. Maybe he thought he was protecting someone else in the family by doing it or maybe he was protecting himself. Either way, I think he is guilty. And if the DNA is not meaningless, I believe he found a way to stage that too.

 

[chlban]

Anyhoo;10257569]Well AK, even though I am RDI, on this point I must agree with you: If RDI, it would be totally illogical for them to write the RN on their own notepad with their own pen that was found in the house and also to leave the practice RN where it could be found.

Why? What else are they going to write it on? It's not like they could just run out to the 24 hour Walmart and pick up a clean notepad? They had to use
something from the house. As far as the practice note, either one of them or their son had just killed their daughter and they were staging like crazy. So something got overlooked.

What makes even less sense is that an intruder, inside the house and writing the War and Peace of Ransom Notes (for the moment we will just skip over the utter absurdity of that scenario in the fist place) decides to stop and start over. Why? Did he think he was going to be graded on his penmanship or the neatness of the note? He would, at best, cross out and move on.

This is in the same category as the broken stick in the paint tote.

See Non de plumes theory on this. A new favorite for me.

This is one of the things that puts doubt in my mind and makes me question if there was actually a very clever intruder who did these things for kicks, just because he could. In other words, someone so confident about what he was doing that it gave him a thrill to leave all these bizarre clues when he didn't have to, and going out of his way to use things from the house in the murder and not bring them with him. Here are some RDI theories that "might" explain this:

1. One or both parents who was doing the staging were sloppy and not thinking clearly and logically. They were desperate and did not think about the consequences of their actions. I don't believe this but it is a theory to explain it.

2. One or both parents did these things purposely with the intent of proving that they wouldn't have done it this way. I mean, why, if they were going to murder their daughter and leave a fake RN would they do it this way when there were other ways they could have done it which would not point back at them? But it is precisely because they could say that they did these seemingly illogical things. LE is not going to believe the parents could be so brazen (and so stupid) as to do that, and that is the reason why one of both parents did them. Now, as for this theory, it would take a very confident person to believe they could get away with this, IMO. And in my read of the two parents, I must admit that this does not seem to fit either one of them

.

Wow. Really? Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but my read on them is just the opposite. They would, IMO absolutely believe they could get away with it. Oh yeah, They did!

Unless BR is some kind of psychotic child mastermind, it does not fit him either

.

Burke may have caused the initial injury, but I don't really think he was
involved in the staging. As horrid as I think both parents were I don't think even they wouldn't involve him in that. part. If for no other reason than that would just be more information he might spill.

 

[chlban]

Anyhoo;10257628]Although my read of PR up to now has been that she does not possess the level of intelligence and ruthlessness to do this, you may be correct. Perhaps a hidden part of herself came out that night that allowed her to do this horrible brutal thing to her daughter. Yes, it is possible, but my read of PR is this: that upon seeing JB after the head blow she would completely fall apart emotionally and not know what to do. She would be crying and shaking and would go to someone else in the family for help

There's a reason for the term "Steel Magnolia".

 

[gramcracker]

There's a reason for the term "Steel Magnolia".

you beat me to it. that's what I was thinking. and Iron Butterfly

 

[Anti-K]

Answer this question, AK: Why would an intruder have to stage and deceive? My definition of staging and deception is to change the crime scene to give a false or misleading impression about what happened, and to hide a person's involvement. If the killer was an intruder as you think, he certainly didn't have to do the bizarre things he did. He could have molested and murdered JB without leaving all of these crazy little clues. He is not staging, IMO, but is showing that he doesn't care and that he thinks he can get away with anything. He is showing off. He gets a thrill from doing these things and leaving all these clues for LE. If I were IDI, that is how I would interpret the evidence. He is not staging. He is showing off. Can you see that?

Yes, I can see how, if you were IDI, you would interpret things. I’ve thought about it. It does make some sense. But I also consider that such a person might not like it if someone else got the credit for his work, namely, the Ramseys.

IMO, we simply do not have enough information to determine what an intruder’s motivation might have been. I think we have enough to make a good guess as to his intent, but motive – I just don’t know.

For various reasons I think that it is possible that this crime was intended for investigators, most specifically profilers, and that it was also intended to effect the community. It is in some sense, a shock crime. I don’t think that an intruder, or anyone, could have foreseen just how big this crime would get, but it should have been easy to predict the regional impact.

Consider:
Without suspicion of parental involvement this was just another little girl tragically assaulted and murdered in her home while her parents slept. As we all (should have) learned by now these things do sometimes happen. With parental suspicion we have the story of guilty, cold, manipulative parents escaping prosecution and/or the story of innocent parents wrongfully accused while a killer goes free. Either way, we have the story of injustice, we have polarization and controversy and the illusion of mystery unfolding while a killer goes free. No matter which side of the fence one is on, a killer goes free.

The potential for media exposure and community effect (controversy/polarization, etc) was virtually guaranteed as described by the victimology and the circumstances: six year old female murdered in her own home on Christmas – Christmas! – in a safe, affluent neighbourhood, respectable and wealthy parents, etc.

Russell Smith (of BRACE; http://www.braceanalysis.com/ ) has described what he calls a ‘fame terrorist,’ someone who commits a criminal act as a means of gaining access to the media for some other purpose (self-promotion). “Media” would be any aspect of the crime’s aftermath through which the killer could hope to achieve some advantage - political gain, career promotion, stature amongst considered peers, etc; who knows, it could be anything -ANYTHING- satisfactory to ego. The specter and impact of parental suspicion widened the range of, and, made prominent the media (media = ANY aspect of the crime’s aftermath) through which an opportunist could take advantage.

But, as I said, we simply do not have enough information to determine what an intruder’s motivation might have been, and I think this will remain true until we have a person to attach it to. Most likely, IMO, that person is DNA-Man. He is Mr. X and his motivation was motivation X.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Why? What else are they going to write it on? It's not like they could just run out to the 24 hour Walmart and pick up a clean notepad? They had to use
something from the house. As far as the practice note, either one of them or their son had just killed their daughter and they were staging like crazy. So something got overlooked.

What makes even less sense is that an intruder, inside the house and writing the War and Peace of Ransom Notes (for the moment we will just skip over the utter absurdity of that scenario in the fist place) decides to stop and start over. Why? Did he think he was going to be graded on his penmanship or the neatness of the note? He would, at best, cross out and move on.



See Non de plumes theory on this. A new favorite for me.

.

Wow. Really? Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but my read on them is just the opposite. They would, IMO absolutely believe they could get away with it. Oh yeah, They did!

.

Burke may have caused the initial injury, but I don't really think he was
involved in the staging. As horrid as I think both parents were I don't think even they wouldn't involve him in that. part. If for no other reason than that would just be more information he might spill.

If RDI, there would have been no need to write a note to begin with. No note.
If for some inexplicable reason they did decide to write a ransom note than they could have written one on anything with anything: lipstick, pen, marker; on a wall, on the backside of a random piece of wrapping paper (it’s Christmas, there’s paper, envelopes, cards, cardboard, etc everywhere!), and if they decided to write one they could have kept it short and simple – a phrase or two.

.

The so-called practice note is absurd because 1) it remained in the notepad while the pages before it and the pages after it were removed, and, 2) it is not reasonable to believe that the author forgot who they were addressing (particularly if this was a second draft). Add 1 and 2 and you get the possibility that the so-called ransom note was intentionally created and purposefully left in the notepad.
...

AK

 

[Scandigirl]

Answer this question, AK: Why would an intruder have to stage and deceive? My definition of staging and deception is to change the crime scene to give a false or misleading impression about what happened, and to hide a person's involvement. If the killer was an intruder as you think, he certainly didn't have to do the bizarre things he did. He could have molested and murdered JB without leaving all of these crazy little clues. He is not staging, IMO, but is showing that he doesn't care and that he thinks he can get away with anything. He is showing off. He gets a thrill from doing these things and leaving all these clues for LE. If I were IDI, that is how I would interpret the evidence. He is not staging. He is showing off. Can you see that?

Just catching up on this fascinating thread, and throwing my :twocents: in... Could the idea of the killer/stager getting a deliberate thrill out of leaving clues apply to either John or Patsy, as well as an intruder? I can imagine either John or Patsy being responsible for either the murder or the staging, and both seemed pretty arrogant to me. If either of them had narcissistic traits, maybe they would also get some kind of twisted entertainment out of leaving clues, almost to taunt the police and everyone else and to prove their own belief that they were cleverer than everyone else?

In England here, not sure if anyone has heard of the Harold Shipman case- a doctor who killed hundreds of patients through morphine injections, spanning decades? I know it's very different because he killed hundreds, over and over again, and Ina totally different way, but he was arrogant and brazen enough to do it right under his colleague's noses. Even when he was sent to prison, he retained his arrogance and superiority over the police and everyone else, by refusing to confess or explain his actions. He preferred to commit suicide rather than do that, and he was described as haughty and condescending in all his
interviews, treating the police as idiots. I'm sure everyone can think of many other killers like that, with a superiority complex?

John Ramsey even mentioned himself in interview that the killer might have left "funny little clues"? He could have either been meaning himself, of that he knew that was Patsy's intention? The clues were clever, as we're all still debating the riddle today! I don't know, I just always picked up a sense of almost smug satisfaction from seeing John's interviews?

The other thing is that it's always tempting to refer to "the Ramsey's" as if they're one entity, acting completely together all the time... The perplexing thing is, we don't know if they we acting together and "on the same page" all the time, or if one of them believed something different from the other? Was the staging only meant for the police, etc, or was it also to confuse/mislead/send a message to the other spouse? Who knows?! :banghead:

 

[chlban]

you beat me to it. that's what I was thinking. and Iron Butterfly

LOL. Although I was born and raised in California, my mother, and all four of her sisters, were born and raised in the deep South. I am intimately familiar with the term and exaclty what it means.

They all had the whole Southern Belle thing, fluttery, feminine and oh so polite, down to a T. But mess with them or their families and watch out.

My Uncle once said that, instead of the Navy Seals, they should have sent a team of Southern Belle's after Bin Laden. He would have been dead within a month of 9/11 and he would have died much harder.

I think he was joking.:scared:

 

[chlban]

Scandigirl;10258262]Just catching up on this fascinating thread, and throwing my :twocents: in... Could the idea of the killer/stager getting a deliberate thrill out of leaving clues apply to either John or Patsy, as well as an intruder? I can imagine either John or Patsy being responsible for either the murder or the staging, and both seemed pretty arrogant to me. If either of them had narcissistic traits, maybe they would also get some kind of twisted entertainment out of leaving clues, almost to taunt the police and everyone else and to prove their own belief that they were cleverer than everyone else?

There isn't much I would put past those two, so perhaps.

After 17 years of following this case there is no "if' left in my opinion of their narcissistic tendencies. Especially Patsy, but John had them too. Even if they were innocent, (which is about as likely as my being in the next Sports Illustrated swimsuit ediiton), the fact that John actually thought they would be allowed to fly off into the sunset on the day his daughter was "kidnapped" and murdered proves that.

John Ramsey even mentioned himself in interview that the killer might have left "funny little clues"? He could have either been meaning himself, of that he knew that was Patsy's intention? The clues were clever, as we're all still debating the riddle today! I don't know, I just always picked up a sense of almost smug satisfaction from seeing John's interviews

?

Again, possible but I think it is more likely they were just trying to confuse things. I am sure that they were also quite upset and scared and hopefully feeling at least a modicum of grief. So, I think some of the rabbit holes may have been created by just being so upset and not really doing their best, most rational thinking. I also really can see the idea, suggested earlier in this thread, that if John did some of the staging, he may well have been thinking ahead to the idea that if the staging didn't work, it was Patsy who would be implicated, and may have deliberately set her up just as a back up. Hoping the police would buy the intruder but, just in case.........

The other thing is that it's always tempting to refer to "the Ramsey's" as if they're one entity, acting completely together all the time... The perplexing thing is, we don't know if they we acting together and "on the same page" all the time, or if one of them believed something different from the other? Was the staging only meant for the police, etc, or was it also to confuse/mislead/send a message to the other spouse? Who knows?! :banghead

Yes, well this brings me back to one of my more enduring theories on the case which is that the staging was all Patsy. That, in fact, John did not even know JB was dead until it slowly, or maybe not so slowly, dawned on him on the morning of the 26th.

The physical evidence may or may not back this up, but the strongest evidence of this to me is the behavior of John and Patsy that morning to each other.

It was completely "off". By every account they barely spoke to each other, she stayed with the women and he with the men. Not only is that totally off for genuinely worried parents it is off for two people who just worked together through the night to stage the scene. What it is on target for, IMO is a man who has just woke to nightmare and, after recognizing Patsy's writing and style in the fake RN is gradually realizing that something terrible has happened to their daughter and is mad as hell. Patsy's behavior absolutely fits with someone who knows he is seeing the light and wants all her friends there to act as a buffer. As well as, of course, give her the sympathy and attention she no doubt would feel was due to her, but would certainly realize she wouldn't get from John (Narcissistic much?)

Like so many aspects of this case, I am just not sure. The only thing i am 100% certain of is that a Ramsey caused the death and one or more Ramsey staged the scene. All the why's, when's and who's are what keep this board lively even after all these years.

 

[Scandigirl]

Hi chlban, thanks for responding. I could well imagine either John or Patsy possibly getting a secret kick out of leaving "clever little clues". I agree too, that both display narcissistic personality traits! I think virtually everyone (at least RDI) agree on that by now!

I go back and forth on thinking that they were "in on it" together, or one acting alone and trying to manipulate the other. One of the big problems in this case is that it's possible to make a lot of things fit many different scenarios, depending on how you view things- some things are conclusive, but so many leave room for various interpretations... We all know so many things that occurred, but just don't know for sure why!

I agree that the most obvious conclusion to draw about John and Patsy's coldness with each other, and Patsy inviting friends round on the morning of the 26th, is that John was probably angry with Patsy when it dawned on him what was happening, and she was trying to protect herself.

That is the most likely explanation, and therefore probably the truth, but again, we just don't know for sure. It could still be possible that there's another, less obvious explanation as well, which although less likely, could equally be the truth. Sometimes things don't always follow the most logical explanation- or what seems logical to us. Not disagreeing with you (I have no idea what the truth is!), but can we rule out the additional option that maybe the Ramsey's were behaving that way because they had a generally cold relationship, and were often like that with each other, or even that they were deliberately appearing to be "off" with each other? Maybe this could have been for other people's benefit, because they had some reason between themselves why they thought it might help them, such as making it seem that they were unlikely to have been working together? Much less likely, I know, but how much can we necessarily assume?

It would have been great to have been a fly on the wall that night, that's for sure!

 

[Nom de plume]

Those are both really good points and you may well be correct. I am definitively not sure who did what in the staging with the exception of the RN which IMO screams Patsy,regardless of the handwriting.

I was mostly responding to anyhoo's statement that John was the one smart enough and ruthless enough to use the garrote. IMO, Patsy would be every bit as ruthless and, while I can say many negative things abut Patsy, being stupid isn't one of them. I think she was definitely a smart cookie but what tripped her up on the RN was her flair for the dramatic.

That same flair is exactly why I could see her using the garrote as well.

Again, I am not saying you are wrong and I definitely like the theory that John was setting her up, just in case, by using her paintbrush handle. So he sets it up to look like an intruder, his first choice, but if that doesn't work he wants a fall back. Making Patsy the Patsy:floorlaugh:

OK sorry, I couldn't resist.

Good theory!

I too can see the possibility of PR doing the garrote, I just don't see her being as likely to do it as JR. Even if JR did it, PR's jacket fibers were still in that knot, so I believe she was close by.

Being the ruthless business man that he's been reported to be, I can see him being the type to always have a Plan B. He's a control freak, but also smart enough to know that things don't always work out as planned, "hence" a back up plan. He'd be glad to pay for the best attys to represent them both (although he got the heavy hitters & PR got the 2nd rate attys), but if it came down to RDI, he was going to make sure she took the fall for it. After all, she had stage IV ovarian cancer, so she wouldn't be around that long anyway. He on the other hand has the rest of his life to live. I can really picture him thinking this way. JMO

"Patsy the Patsy". LOL Exactly!! :floorlaugh:

 

[Mama2JML]

If RDI, there would have been no need to write a note to begin with. No note.
If for some inexplicable reason they did decide to write a ransom note than they could have written one on anything with anything: lipstick, pen, marker; on a wall, on the backside of a random piece of wrapping paper (it’s Christmas, there’s paper, envelopes, cards, cardboard, etc everywhere!), and if they decided to write one they could have kept it short and simple – a phrase or two.

.

The so-called practice note is absurd because 1) it remained in the notepad while the pages before it and the pages after it were removed, and, 2) it is not reasonable to believe that the author forgot who they were addressing (particularly if this was a second draft). Add 1 and 2 and you get the possibility that the so-called ransom note was intentionally created and purposefully left in the notepad.
...

AK

The same purpose can be applied to the broken paintbrush, fashioned into a handle, with the remaining brush end placed in the paint tote. ...& the blanket. Wrapping the body, with the feet, head, & hands left uncovered, while leaving the ligature tied tight around the child's neck.

Superficially, these elements (notepad, pens, paintbrush, blanket) implicate the family; crime scene analysis 101. But, RDI theories do not accommodate crucial forensic evidence, nor many documented facts. One must disregard, the missing evidence (I.e. cord, tape, etc.), shrug off the obvious nature of the evidence left behind, and pretend the unsourced DNA, hairs, fibers, prints, handwriting etc. is inconsequential.

 

[Anti-K]

Just catching up on this fascinating thread, and throwing my :twocents: in... Could the idea of the killer/stager getting a deliberate thrill out of leaving clues apply to either John or Patsy, as well as an intruder? I can imagine either John or Patsy being responsible for either the murder or the staging, and both seemed pretty arrogant to me. If either of them had narcissistic traits, maybe they would also get some kind of twisted entertainment out of leaving clues, almost to taunt the police and everyone else and to prove their own belief that they were cleverer than everyone else?

In England here, not sure if anyone has heard of the Harold Shipman case- a doctor who killed hundreds of patients through morphine injections, spanning decades? I know it's very different because he killed hundreds, over and over again, and Ina totally different way, but he was arrogant and brazen enough to do it right under his colleague's noses. Even when he was sent to prison, he retained his arrogance and superiority over the police and everyone else, by refusing to confess or explain his actions. He preferred to commit suicide rather than do that, and he was described as haughty and condescending in all his
interviews, treating the police as idiots. I'm sure everyone can think of many other killers like that, with a superiority complex?

John Ramsey even mentioned himself in interview that the killer might have left "funny little clues"? He could have either been meaning himself, of that he knew that was Patsy's intention? The clues were clever, as we're all still debating the riddle today! I don't know, I just always picked up a sense of almost smug satisfaction from seeing John's interviews?

The other thing is that it's always tempting to refer to "the Ramsey's" as if they're one entity, acting completely together all the time... The perplexing thing is, we don't know if they we acting together and "on the same page" all the time, or if one of them believed something different from the other? Was the staging only meant for the police, etc, or was it also to confuse/mislead/send a message to the other spouse? Who knows?! :banghead:

If RDI, and if the Ramseys possessed the sort of arrogance that some describe than they wouldn’t have even bothered to create the crime scene. They’d just push the kid down the stairs, and claim they found her unconscious/dead. Call an ambulance, call the lawyers, get outta dodge. No cops, no crime scene, no self-incriminating evidence.

The sort of person you’re describing, one who gets some kind of “twisted entertainment” from leaving clues and taunting the police, etc sounds more like a BTK or a Zodiac type, not a Ramsey-type.

Now, while I understand the idea that, if RDI, the Ramseys may have planted clues and such, but those clues and such point to themselves. This isn’t a sign of arrogance, it’s a sign of stupidity. It completely contradicts what they were supposedly trying to do.

Most of us refer to them as the Ramseys because they have acted in unison throughout, and if one of them committed this crime than the other one, at minimum, was accomplice after the fact. It’s all absurd. If your spouse callously murdered your child wouldn’t you be concerned for your remaining child? Nope. You’d rat your spouse out in a flash even if only to protect your remaining child.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

“Detectives Harmer and Hickman interviewed [victim advocates] Jedamus and Morlock at police headquarters. PMPT; P. 672

“The Ramseys probably didn’t know that their conversations with the advocates were not confidential or privileged by law. Jedamus and Morlock were obligated to tell the detectives everything they could remember, since they worked for - and were partly compensated by - the police department.”
<snip>
&#8220;Morlock remembered that John Ramsey had cried but had tried to control his emotions even when he was so distraught that he could barely speak.
<snip>
Merlock &#8220;told the detectives that she had seen John and Patsy sitting together in the dining room holding each other and talking.&#8221; P. 673
..

DIANE SAWYER: (voice-over) His name is Dr. Francesco Beuf. He was JonBenet's pediatrician. He talked to me by phone about whether Mrs. Ramsey's grief was real.
(From taped telephone conversation)

Dr. FRANCESCO BEUF: Oh, for God's sake, she was as devastated as anyone could be by a terrible loss like that. They called me to provide some tranquilizers for her. She was absolutely shattered by this.

DIANE SAWYER: And Mr. Ramsey?

Dr. FRANCESCO BEUF: He looked absolutely devastated. To me, they were the most appropriate reactions in the world. God knows, I wouldn't know how I'd react if one of my children had been murdered, particularly in such horrible circumstances. He paced and paced and paced. He and I went out for a walk for a while that night. It's the wreckage of two human beings.
http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/09101997bynumabcprimetime.htm
...

AK

 

[5x5]

It''s been puzzling to me as well.

The adult R’s sure seemed to put BR under the umbrella with them, even though publicly suing and PR announcing that BR had been cleared.

First you have the strange, imo, comments:
From JR: The perp didn’t mean to kill her. She was wrapped in a blanket. (Well, that ligature sure does look intentional to me. I see a disconnect between that statement and the announcement that early afternoon that it was an inside job by someone who knew them.)
JR on CNN interview: We’re not angry. We just want to know why this happened.
From JAR: The perp needs to be forgiven.
From PR: How could someone do this to another child.

Just some additional hinky thoughts regarding the R’s in relation to BR’s role. One of the questions I’ve had is whether the cell phone records from December, might have revealed a call placed by JR to someone like MB. What if JR called someone and said that BR had accidently caused a serious injury to JB while they were playing around; lawyer/friend MB may have said that BR couldn’t be charged anyway. I’ve wondered for some time exactly when did JR and PR learn that BR could not be charged, or mentioned, no matter what he had done. moo

BBM:If this quote is exact, then it is MOST telling! Another child??? that's a big slip of the lip - MOO but I've always felt BDI. I haven't read the entire thread so I'm sorry if this has already raised a red flag among the sleuthers.

 

[Anti-K]

The same purpose can be applied to the broken paintbrush, fashioned into a handle, with the remaining brush end placed in the paint tote. ...& the blanket. Wrapping the body, with the feet, head, & hands left uncovered, while leaving the ligature tied tight around the child's neck.

Superficially, these elements (notepad, pens, paintbrush, blanket) implicate the family; crime scene analysis 101. But, RDI theories do not accommodate crucial forensic evidence, nor many documented facts. One must disregard, the missing evidence (I.e. cord, tape, etc.), shrug off the obvious nature of the evidence left behind, and pretend the unsourced DNA, hairs, fibers, prints, handwriting etc. is inconsequential.

In “The Cases That Haunt Us,” John Douglas writes, Many commentators have mentioned Jonbenet’s being wrapped in the blanket…
Well, I can’t help it if readers, particularly law enforcement professionals, misunderstand or misinterpret what I say, or only look at the surface material…
…the body was not protectively wrapped as I would expect to find in a parental murder. It was haphazardly draped, with the arms and feet sticking out……this is in no way similar to the almost hermetic wrapping or sealing I have often seen… P. 316

So, the blanket could be an attempt by an intruder to create a scene that would suggest to investigators parental involvement, but the arms and legs sticking out is a detail that he missed. Superficially, the blanket may say RDI, but on closer examination it does not; it says IDI.

Still, the blanket, the so-called practice note, the broken end of the paint brush in the paint tote, etc are all details created seemingly with purpose and intent. They’re like clues left for investigators, just as the ransom note in conjunction with the hidden body [should have] created a virtually pristine crime scene [the windowless room] for investigators to find. The body posed for investigators, with arms raised to emphasize and make obvious the useless manner of the wrist ligatures. The obviously hinky ransom note created to invite investigators primed with suspicion...
...

AK

 

[Anyhoo]

If RDI, and if the Ramseys possessed the sort of arrogance that some describe than they wouldn’t have even bothered to create the crime scene. They’d just push the kid down the stairs, and claim they found her unconscious/dead. Call an ambulance, call the lawyers, get outta dodge. No cops, no crime scene, no self-incriminating evidence.

The sort of person you’re describing, one who gets some kind of “twisted entertainment” from leaving clues and taunting the police, etc sounds more like a BTK or a Zodiac type, not a Ramsey-type.

Now, while I understand the idea that, if RDI, the Ramseys may have planted clues and such, but those clues and such point to themselves. This isn’t a sign of arrogance, it’s a sign of stupidity. It completely contradicts what they were supposedly trying to do.

Most of us refer to them as the Ramseys because they have acted in unison throughout, and if one of them committed this crime than the other one, at minimum, was accomplice after the fact. It’s all absurd. If your spouse callously murdered your child wouldn’t you be concerned for your remaining child? Nope. You’d rat your spouse out in a flash even if only to protect your remaining child.
...

AK

Even though I am RDI I must agree with a lot of what you said here, unless the head blow was not planned/ was accidental and the parent(s) did not believe they could make it look like it was not a criminal act and thus they felt compelled to stage, but even then I agree it is over the top staging.

 

[DeeDee249]

BBM:If this quote is exact, then it is MOST telling! Another child??? that's a big slip of the lip - MOO but I've always felt BDI. I haven't read the entire thread so I'm sorry if this has already raised a red flag among the sleuthers.

You know, I missed that myself until you pointed it out. This is a BIG slip, IMO. There have been quite a few slip-ups by the parents in this case. Patsy told LE that she "heard John screaming as he came up from the basement" that morning. But what was he doing in the basement THAT MORNING? The Rs have always maintained that Patsy found the note on the stairs and JR was in the shower when she called him down. Neither was "supposed" to have been in the basement that morning.
Then we have Patsy's several slips about seeing that "pretty good little heart" on JB's hand "in the morning" (as she told police) and then backpedaling and saying that "maybe she only READ about it"- of course she had already said that they never read the autopsy report not did they know how their daughter died.
Then she said to Judith Miller (I believe it was her) "Couldn't you fix this for me?" And her well-known "We didn't mean for this to happen".
And of course, JR's comment when shown the crime photo of the white blanket with the pink nightie on it "That wasn't supposed to be there". News Flash - NONE of it was supposed to be there- not the pink nightie, not the white blanket, not the dead little girl. So for him to single out the pink nightie as something that "didn't belong there" suggests to be that he slipped up by saying that. That it meant (in his mind) that the rest of it WAS supposed to be there because he PUT it there. (the white blanket and JB's body).

 

[Nom de plume]

BBM:If this quote is exact, then it is MOST telling! Another child??? that's a big slip of the lip - MOO but I've always felt BDI. I haven't read the entire thread so I'm sorry if this has already raised a red flag among the sleuthers.

I've heard this discussed, and the theory that "another child" refers to BR. I've started to wonder if this couldn't mean something else though. What if PR is saying that what ever adult murdered JB had done this to ANOTHER, different child previously?