Premeditated?

[Anti-K]

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.

I reject the “accident” explanation for the head blow. I don’t think the evidence supports it. Plus, you have to imagine all sorts of wild and sometimes contradictory scenarios to try and explain this blow as an accident. But, this blow is easily explained as being an intentional blow struck with the intent to cause severe harm, perhaps, even death.

Of course, this is hard to reasonably explain in an RDI scenario. In fact, I don’t think it can be reasonably explained in an RDI scenario.
.

Generally, a person might stage an accident to cover up a murder (or a suicide). But, to murder a critically injured child instead of seeking assistance and then to stage a (fake) kidnapping that only contradicts the (for real) murdered victim being still in the house while creating all manner of self-incriminating evidence is beyond bizarre. Over the top staging would not begin to explain it.
...

AK

 

[gramcracker]

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.

ah, yes, the walk with Dr Beuf, and JF. the purposeful and very productive walk, six hours after the discovery of his daughter's body. when the grief-stricken father *reluctantly* decided to hire the first of so very many attorneys

then, within less than a week, Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, FBI profiler John Douglas, two private investigators, and crisis management consultant Pat Korten were also on board. (PK, former Justice Dept spokesman, was a heavy hitter: Edwin Meese, Oliver North and Clarence Young are listed among his clients). and also within less than a week they somehow summoned the strength to be interviewed on CNN (although they ran out of energy before they could talk with BPD. they had to rest up four months for that)

I'm worn out just thinking about everything that got started the night JR took a walk with Dr B, when he and his wife began to face that fact that they had wrecked their lives. bummer. I bet it was, like, devastating

 

[Scandigirl]

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

Like Anyhoo, I have to agree with the completely sensible points that you've made, Anti-K. To deliberately point clues to themselves does sound inexplicably stupid, and so too the idea that one spouse would stand by and just accept the other one murdering their child. All I can say is that this whole case is one huge riddle, with bizarre things seemingly contradicting themselves. That's why I'm ending up speculating in riddles myself! There must be some explanation that would tie everything in together, somehow- whether it's following any logic or not!

Since this thread is about premeditation, I've swung around between considering it as a tragic accident that may have been deliberately covered up, possibly to hide signs of prior molestation? But, to me, this doesn't seem to fit. As I've said before, to me, that doesn't sit right with the parents' behaviour. Plus, since strangulation with a garrotte doesn't fit into any accident scenario, that would only leave the head bash as the accidental injury... I believe that the head wound is simply too big, and done with such force, that it must have been somehow deliberate...

I've recently been wondering about premeditation, and it all been planned out beforehand, on cold blood. Some things could arguably point towards that, but again, to me personally, it doesn't quite fit. Amongst other things, assuming that both parents were involved to some degree or another, why would Patsy enter JB into another future pageant? Why would the Ramsey's have planned a holiday the next morning? Also, if the idea in advance was simply to kill/silence her for some reason, wouldn't the head bash have been enough in itself? Or even two bashes if the first one didn't do it completely? (Sorry to sound horrible). But, then, why bother with all the cord/duct tape etc?

This has got me wondering if it could lie somewhere in between? Some type of unpleasant/abusive situation that was being inflicted on JB that night, with at least the knowledge of both Ramsey's, if not both being actively involved... I'm not sure exactly what, but whatever was happening may even have happened before, or maybe it was the first time. It wasn't meant to lead to her death, but something went wrong and it did... The head bash, strangulation etc were all part of this scenario somehow, plus used for extra staging too, as the Ramsey's needed to make it look as if they weren't involved?

Only my own recent thoughts, and probably completely wrong?

 

[Darlene733510]

PR mentioned that JB and BR liked to play kitty. JB would be the kitty and BR would have some sort if leash to walk the kitty around. What did they use for the leash? Could it have been Jacques dog leash, or did they use a rope, similar to the garrote?
What if the head wound happened and BR ran to get the parents, telling them JB had an accident and she wouldn't wake up? They may have believed BR, and knew JB would die, so then the staging began to protect their son.
If BR also ended her life with the garrote, of course they would want to protect him. When JR told him, after the phone call, "we are not speaking to you", was it because of anger at what BR had done?
If the garrote type of rope was used to play kitty perhaps it was already made, and could rule out premeditation. It' hard for me to believe that all of this would be premeditated, especially with all the plans for trips to MI, and then on to the Red Boat cruise. I wonder if clothing, etc. of JB's was packed for these events? Why even pack for these trips at all, if they planned to kill JB.

 

[Mama2JML]

PR mentioned that JB and BR liked to play kitty. JB would be the kitty and BR would have some sort if leash to walk the kitty around. What did they use for the leash? Could it have been Jacques dog leash, or did they use a rope, similar to the garrote?

Interesting, Darlene. Is this story shared in DOI? I have not come across this information before, but I know Mrs. Ramsey (BPD Intvw. '97) mentioned that JonBenet & Daphne White liked to play kitty. Although, she did not describe a leash being involved, and she made no mention of Burke:

"TT: Right. And on of those had something about a kitty game, that was her favorite game. You remember what that’s about?

PR: Kitty?

TT: Yeah.

PR: To play kitty. Yeah, she likes to play kitty (inaudible).

TT: Uh.

PR: You don’t like kitty huh. She and Daphne like to, they love kittens. And we had some kittens up at the lake (inaudible). And she and Daphne like to pretend they were kittens. She’s just, they would walk around and they would say, oh there’s a kitty, (inaudible). Let’s go into the pet shop, I think I’ll buy this one.

TT: And that’s the game JonBenet really like or something?

PR: She and Daphne played kitty. They’d walk around on all fours, you know."​

​

 

[chlban]

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?

Care to expand?

 

[chlban]

gramcracker;10262091]
ah, yes, the walk with Dr Beuf, and JF. the purposeful and very productive walk, six hours after the discovery of his daughter's body. when the grief-stricken father *reluctantly* decided to hire the first of so very many attorneys

then, within less than a week, Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, FBI profiler John Douglas, two private investigators, and crisis management consultant Pat Korten were also on board. (PK, former Justice Dept spokesman, was a heavy hitter: Edwin Meese, Oliver North and Clarence Young are listed among his clients). and also within less than a week they somehow summoned the strength to be interviewed on CNN (although they ran out of energy before they could talk with BPD. they had to rest up four months for that)

I'm worn out just thinking about everything that got started the night JR took a walk with Dr B, when he and his wife began to face that fact that they had wrecked their lives. bummer. I bet it was, like, devastating

Yeah, I hate it when that happens.

 

[Scandigirl]

Just thinking some more about the perplexing issue of so many things pointing to the Ramsey's being involved... Thinking again about Anti-K's earlier point that the Ramsey's would have had to be absolutely stupid to leave "clever little clues" pointing to themselves...

From a logical point of view, I completely agree- it's impossible to argue that any of that would possibly make sense. But yet, as so many things used in the crime were theirs (such as the ransom note pad, the paintbrush, arguably the cord and duct tape), the bizarre reality is that they really did use their own things, to point to themselves? We don't know for sure if the cord and duct tape was theirs, but the paint brush was certainly Patsy's, and the ransom note was certainly hand written on their own writing pad...

The puzzle is, what does that really imply? If a Ramsey(s) did it, did they use their own things because they had no choice at the last minute, or did they think to some extent that it was a clever move to suggest it must have been someone else, or someone trying to frame them, as they couldn't possibly have risked using their own things and incriminating themselves? Maybe they were clever in this way, as we're all still puzzled by it today?

Or maybe, as Nom de Plume suggested, one Ramsey (John?) could have used Patsy's things as a sort of Plan B? Just in case the original plan went wrong, a secondary option would be to implicate his wife? Anything necessary to ultimately protect himself?

Or maybe the Ramsey's reasoned (correctly!) that even if using their own things pointed directly to them, as long as no one could prove exactly who in the family actually did what, it would likely get them off the hook? Could they have knowingly taken that gamble? It depends how much they were just reacting in a blind panic that night, or how cool and calculating they were?

Did they originally have the idea that by using their own things, police would assume that they couldn't have been that stupid themselves, and it must therefore have been someone else with access to their household things, such as LHP? John did originally keep trying to say it was "an inside job"?

I still find it hard to believe how long and rambling the ransom note was, in relation to it being self-incriminating! If a Ramsey wrote it (most likely Patsy), why write something so long in her own handwriting? Even if I had been in a desperate panic that night, and needed to write a note in my own handwriting, I would have made it as short as possible- one sentence saying "We have you daughter. Will call to collect x amount of money"- and probably written in block capital letters, to reveal as little about the author as possible. Wouldn't anyone else do the same, thinking rationally?

Maybe this alone indicates that at least the writer of the note (as we don't know for sure that this was also the killer, however likely) might not have been thinking as rationally and logically as we are now, in the cold light of day?

Who knows? So many questions... Just thoughts, of course!

 

[chlban]

Just thinking some more about the perplexing issue of so many things pointing to the Ramsey's being involved... Thinking again about Anti-K's earlier point that the Ramsey's would have had to be absolutely stupid to leave "clever little clues" pointing to themselves...

From a logical point of view, I completely agree- it's impossible to argue that any of that would possibly make sense. But yet, as so many things used in the crime were theirs (such as the ransom note pad, the paintbrush, arguably the cord and duct tape), the bizarre reality is that they really did use their own things, to point to themselves? We don't know for sure if the cord and duct tape was theirs, but the paint brush was certainly Patsy's, and the ransom note was certainly hand written on their own writing pad...

The puzzle is, what does that really imply? If a Ramsey(s) did it, did they use their own things because they had no choice at the last minute, or did they think to some extent that it was a clever move to suggest it must have been someone else, or someone trying to frame them, as they couldn't possibly have risked using their own things and incriminating themselves? Maybe they were clever in this way, as we're all still puzzled by it today?

Or maybe, as Nom de Plume suggested, one Ramsey (John?) could have used Patsy's things as a sort of Plan B? Just in case the original plan went wrong, a secondary option would be to implicate his wife? Anything necessary to ultimately protect himself?

Or maybe the Ramsey's reasoned (correctly!) that even if using their own things pointed directly to them, as long as no one could prove exactly who in the family actually did what, it would likely get them off the hook? Could they have knowingly taken that gamble? It depends how much they were just reacting in a blind panic that night, or how cool and calculating they were?

Did they originally have the idea that by using their own things, police would assume that they couldn't have been that stupid themselves, and it must therefore have been someone else with access to their household things, such as LHP? John did originally keep trying to say it was "an inside job"?

I still find it hard to believe how long and rambling the ransom note was, in relation to it being self-incriminating! If a Ramsey wrote it (most likely Patsy), why write something so long in her own handwriting? Even if I had been in a desperate panic that night, and needed to write a note in my own handwriting, I would have made it as short as possible- one sentence saying "We have you daughter. Will call to collect x amount of money"- and probably written in block capital letters, to reveal as little about the author as possible. Wouldn't anyone else do the same, thinking rationally?

Maybe this alone indicates that at least the writer of the note (as we don't know for sure that this was also the killer, however likely) might not have been thinking as rationally and logically as we are now, in the cold light of day?

Who knows? So many questions... Just thoughts, of course!

Well, unless one is of the belief that this was a well planned out and deliberate murder, which I certainly don't, then I think it follows that even though I believe them both to be highly intelligent and ruthless, I would still expect that they would be highly emotional, at least internally, scared, perhaps angry at whichever of the three caused the head injury and thus the situation they now found themselves in.

Maybe, in addition to that, John was intelligent enough to understand that it might not work in the end and wanted a "back up" to point to Patsy.

The reality is, if they had just figured out a way to get the body out of the house, without being seen leaving in the middle of the night, we probably wouldn't still be discussing this case today. It would have gone down as an "unknown intruder" and have been all but forgotten like so many other cold cases.

Dumping the body certainly seems to be a lesson several other family members have learned in the years since with so many disappearing babies and children. If and when the bodies are ever found, there is so much decomposition there is no real evidence to be found.

The reality is that, whatever they did and why exactly they did it, the fact is that we still don't know which of them is actually responsible for JonBenet's death, so it seems the basic plan worked.

 

[DeeDee249]

PR mentioned that JB and BR liked to play kitty. JB would be the kitty and BR would have some sort if leash to walk the kitty around. What did they use for the leash? Could it have been Jacques dog leash, or did they use a rope, similar to the garrote?
What if the head wound happened and BR ran to get the parents, telling them JB had an accident and she wouldn't wake up? They may have believed BR, and knew JB would die, so then the staging began to protect their son.
If BR also ended her life with the garrote, of course they would want to protect him. When JR told him, after the phone call, "we are not speaking to you", was it because of anger at what BR had done?
If the garrote type of rope was used to play kitty perhaps it was already made, and could rule out premeditation. It' hard for me to believe that all of this would be premeditated, especially with all the plans for trips to MI, and then on to the Red Boat cruise. I wonder if clothing, etc. of JB's was packed for these events? Why even pack for these trips at all, if they planned to kill JB.

Actually, I think it was JB and her friend the White's daughter who used to play Kitty, wasn't it? Not JB and BR.

 

[CanManEh]

Cheap Crack that's the only reason I can see fit here... SAY
NO
2 CRACK.

 

[Anyhoo]

I reject the “accident” explanation for the head blow. I don’t think the evidence supports it. Plus, you have to imagine all sorts of wild and sometimes contradictory scenarios to try and explain this blow as an accident. But, this blow is easily explained as being an intentional blow struck with the intent to cause severe harm, perhaps, even death.

Of course, this is hard to reasonably explain in an RDI scenario. In fact, I don’t think it can be reasonably explained in an RDI scenario.
.

Generally, a person might stage an accident to cover up a murder (or a suicide). But, to murder a critically injured child instead of seeking assistance and then to stage a (fake) kidnapping that only contradicts the (for real) murdered victim being still in the house while creating all manner of self-incriminating evidence is beyond bizarre. Over the top staging would not begin to explain it.
...

AK

I agree with you that the head blow appears to be an intentional act rather than accidental. I don't know what your definition of "reasonably explained" is, but I believe RDI unless a compelling reason can be found why the Ramsey's would cover up for someone outside of the family murdering their daughter. That the Ramsey's did cover up is beyond doubt IMO, so either they covered up for one of their own or they covered up for someone else. I believe there is a reason why someone in that family would purposely want to harm JB, but why it happened that particularly night (Christmas night) on the eve of their trips is a mystery to me. I don't think it is a coincidence that it happened on that particularly night. I think someone wanted it to happen before they took those trips, for some reason.

I understand what you are saying in your last paragraph and I partially agree with it but I do not agree that the Ramsey's are innocent in their daughter's death, however it may appear.

 

[Anyhoo]

Like Anyhoo, I have to agree with the completely sensible points that you've made, Anti-K. To deliberately point clues to themselves does sound inexplicably stupid, and so too the idea that one spouse would stand by and just accept the other one murdering their child. All I can say is that this whole case is one huge riddle, with bizarre things seemingly contradicting themselves. That's why I'm ending up speculating in riddles myself! There must be some explanation that would tie everything in together, somehow- whether it's following any logic or not!

Since this thread is about premeditation, I've swung around between considering it as a tragic accident that may have been deliberately covered up, possibly to hide signs of prior molestation? But, to me, this doesn't seem to fit. As I've said before, to me, that doesn't sit right with the parents' behaviour. Plus, since strangulation with a garrotte doesn't fit into any accident scenario, that would only leave the head bash as the accidental injury... I believe that the head wound is simply too big, and done with such force, that it must have been somehow deliberate...

I've recently been wondering about premeditation, and it all been planned out beforehand, on cold blood. Some things could arguably point towards that, but again, to me personally, it doesn't quite fit. Amongst other things, assuming that both parents were involved to some degree or another, why would Patsy enter JB into another future pageant? Why would the Ramsey's have planned a holiday the next morning? Also, if the idea in advance was simply to kill/silence her for some reason, wouldn't the head bash have been enough in itself? Or even two bashes if the first one didn't do it completely? (Sorry to sound horrible). But, then, why bother with all the cord/duct tape etc?

This has got me wondering if it could lie somewhere in between? Some type of unpleasant/abusive situation that was being inflicted on JB that night, with at least the knowledge of both Ramsey's, if not both being actively involved... I'm not sure exactly what, but whatever was happening may even have happened before, or maybe it was the first time. It wasn't meant to lead to her death, but something went wrong and it did... The head bash, strangulation etc were all part of this scenario somehow, plus used for extra staging too, as the Ramsey's needed to make it look as if they weren't involved?

Only my own recent thoughts, and probably completely wrong?

No, I think you are dead on. I have never thought it was just a coincidence that this murder happened prior to their two vacations. Somehow that figures into the equation. Perhaps someone did not want JB to go on those vacations.

I agree that the had blow is too severe to be accidental. You just don't hit someone that hard on accident. I think someone meant to kill JB with the head blow. The purpose of the head blow was to kill her. And if that was the case, how long did the inflictor of the head blow intend to do it before he/she actually did it? Seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks? Why would someone within the family want to kill JB?

I think something happened that night that suddenly made it imperative that JB be killed. Whatever this something was, the inflictor of the head bash did not expect it. There was no plan to kill JB before this something happened but afterwards they spontaneously decided that she had to die.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I agree with you that the head blow appears to be an intentional act rather than accidental. I don't know what your definition of "reasonably explained" is, but I believe RDI unless a compelling reason can be found why the Ramsey's would cover up for someone outside of the family murdering their daughter. That the Ramsey's did cover up is beyond doubt IMO, so either they covered up for one of their own or they covered up for someone else. I believe there is a reason why someone in that family would purposely want to harm JB, but why it happened that particularly night (Christmas night) on the eve of their trips is a mystery to me. I don't think it is a coincidence that it happened on that particularly night. I think someone wanted it to happen before they took those trips, for some reason.



I understand what you are saying in your last paragraph and I partially agree with it but I do not agree that the Ramsey's are innocent in their daughter's death, however it may appear.

I'm always amazed that people buy the cover up theory.

They covered up so well that they use a tablet from the house and leave it there, supposedly give her pineapple and leave that there, call the police and put the body in the basement to be found.
But they manage to get rid of tape, rope, flashlight.

Why, if they were covering it up, would they leave the pineapple, the tablet, the pen and her body there.

If you are trying to make something look like a kidnapping you hide the body away from the house. Jmo

It's never made sense to me that this was covered up. They had all the time in the world if they had done it. To me it is obvious that someone else did this. Came in wrote the note, left the note, then grabbed jbr and took her to the basement and killed her. Everything used in the killing is gone so that says to me the killer never came back upstairs. They left either through the window, or hightailed it out a close door. Jmo



Forgive the autocorrect. Tapatalk has a mind of its own.

 

[ShadyLady]

I have not read all the comments yet....but the staging only makes sense to me, if it was used to cover previous sex abuse. No other explanation for me. That night it went too far.

 

[Anyhoo]

Just thinking some more about the perplexing issue of so many things pointing to the Ramsey's being involved... Thinking again about Anti-K's earlier point that the Ramsey's would have had to be absolutely stupid to leave "clever little clues" pointing to themselves...

From a logical point of view, I completely agree- it's impossible to argue that any of that would possibly make sense. But yet, as so many things used in the crime were theirs (such as the ransom note pad, the paintbrush, arguably the cord and duct tape), the bizarre reality is that they really did use their own things, to point to themselves? We don't know for sure if the cord and duct tape was theirs, but the paint brush was certainly Patsy's, and the ransom note was certainly hand written on their own writing pad...

The puzzle is, what does that really imply? If a Ramsey(s) did it, did they use their own things because they had no choice at the last minute, or did they think to some extent that it was a clever move to suggest it must have been someone else, or someone trying to frame them, as they couldn't possibly have risked using their own things and incriminating themselves? Maybe they were clever in this way, as we're all still puzzled by it today?

Or maybe, as Nom de Plume suggested, one Ramsey (John?) could have used Patsy's things as a sort of Plan B? Just in case the original plan went wrong, a secondary option would be to implicate his wife? Anything necessary to ultimately protect himself?

Or maybe the Ramsey's reasoned (correctly!) that even if using their own things pointed directly to them, as long as no one could prove exactly who in the family actually did what, it would likely get them off the hook? Could they have knowingly taken that gamble? It depends how much they were just reacting in a blind panic that night, or how cool and calculating they were?

Did they originally have the idea that by using their own things, police would assume that they couldn't have been that stupid themselves, and it must therefore have been someone else with access to their household things, such as LHP? John did originally keep trying to say it was "an inside job"?

I still find it hard to believe how long and rambling the ransom note was, in relation to it being self-incriminating! If a Ramsey wrote it (most likely Patsy), why write something so long in her own handwriting? Even if I had been in a desperate panic that night, and needed to write a note in my own handwriting, I would have made it as short as possible- one sentence saying "We have you daughter. Will call to collect x amount of money"- and probably written in block capital letters, to reveal as little about the author as possible. Wouldn't anyone else do the same, thinking rationally?

Maybe this alone indicates that at least the writer of the note (as we don't know for sure that this was also the killer, however likely) might not have been thinking as rationally and logically as we are now, in the cold light of day?

Who knows? So many questions... Just thoughts, of course!

I like the way you speculate, and I do have some thoughts as to what you said. IMO, it would take a very devious mind to do the staging that was done that night and I strongly question whether two parents, suddenly and unexpectedly thrust into a situation like this would be thinking clearly enough and would be so arrogant and confident to think they could get away with these things. It just does not fit for me IF the murder was not planned and not premeditated.

The suitcase and its contents are a huge clue IMO. It is no coincidence that fibers from the crime scene were found on items within the suitcase because someone made sure those fibers were on those items. Now, I think the person who did this got a little too clever for his own good because by doing this he pointed back to himself. I look at the three people in the family (BR, PR, and JR) and question which of these three people would have the mindset to do something like this, and every single time one person becomes obvious: JR. The other two did not do this particular piece of staging. We don't know when JR did this staging but we know that JR must know there is a need to stage and he is thinking of everything he can to throw LE off of the scent by planting clues like this. This relates to the head blow and garroting because if JR staged the suitcase, then what else did he stage, and for whom he is going to this extraordinary effort to stage? The suitcase staging indicates to me someone pulling out all the stops to confuse LE in any way they can, and if JR staged the suitcase then this directly relates to the garrote. The garrote was someone pulling out all the stops to confuse LE. There is a connection here, if you will allow yourself to see it, of someone who is desperate to plant as many false clues as possible so LE will not find the real killer. Now, I ask myself this question: Would JR go to this extraordinary level of staging to protect his son?
Would JR go to this extraordinary level of staging to protect his wife? OR would JR go to this extraordinary level of staging to protect himself?

 

[Anyhoo]

I'm always amazed that people buy the cover up theory.

They covered up so well that they use a tablet from the house and leave it there, supposedly give her pineapple and leave that there, call the police and put the body in the basement to be found.
But they manage to get rid of tape, rope, flashlight.

Why, if they were covering it up, would they leave the pineapple, the tablet, the pen and her body there.

If you are trying to make something look like a kidnapping you hide the body away from the house. Jmo

It's never made sense to me that this was covered up. They had all the time in the world if they had done it. To me it is obvious that someone else did this. Came in wrote the note, left the note, then grabbed jbr and took her to the basement and killed her. Everything used in the killing is gone so that says to me the killer never came back upstairs. They left either through the window, or hightailed it out a close door. Jmo



Forgive the autocorrect. Tapatalk has a mind of its own.

Good to see you again, Miss Scarlett. How are things in Tara?

I agree the staging was bizarre, but maybe that was due to necessity. If we speculate that the original plan was to remove JB's body from the house but then someone (rightly) realized that they would be seen leaving late at night by their neighbors and this would finger them, they went to plan B which was the staged kidnapping. But even then I agree some of the staging like the RN (with its associated practice RN) is bizarre.

It is obvious to you that someone else did this because that is what you are meant to think. Obviously that crazy staging was effective enough to fool you, but the only reason it can do that is because you choose to ignore all the other signs of Ramsey complicity. As much as you want to focus on just the hard evidence, you cannot ignore these other things. We've had this discussion before.

 

[Mama2JML]

Good to see you again, Miss Scarlett. How are things in Tara?

I agree the staging was bizarre, but maybe that was due to necessity. If we speculate that the original plan was to remove JB's body from the house but then someone (rightly) realized that they would be seen leaving late at night by their neighbors and this would finger them, they went to plan B which was the staged kidnapping. But even then I agree some of the staging like the RN (with its associated practice RN) is bizarre.

It is obvious to you that someone else did this because that is what you are meant to think. Obviously that crazy staging was effective enough to fool you, but the only reason it can do that is because you choose to ignore all the other signs of Ramsey complicity. As much as you want to focus on just the hard evidence, you cannot ignore these other things. We've had this discussion before.

You may have discussed this with Scarlett before I became an active poster @ WS, so I'm not aware of your theory regarding "signs of Ramsey complicity". What are "these other things" you believe we choose to ignore?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Good to see you again, Miss Scarlett. How are things in Tara?



I agree the staging was bizarre, but maybe that was due to necessity. If we speculate that the original plan was to remove JB's body from the house but then someone (rightly) realized that they would be seen leaving late at night by their neighbors and this would finger them, they went to plan B which was the staged kidnapping. But even then I agree some of the staging like the RN (with its associated practice RN) is bizarre.



It is obvious to you that someone else did this because that is what you are meant to think. Obviously that crazy staging was effective enough to fool you, but the only reason it can do that is because you choose to ignore all the other signs of Ramsey complicity. As much as you want to focus on just the hard evidence, you cannot ignore these other things. We've had this discussion before.

It does not fool me. I believe there is more evidence that shows an intruder than not. But it makes sense that someone who was making a hasty exit would not go up and gather clues or evidence on that main level of the house. If it was the R's, any of them all that stuff on the second level would point right at them so it makes no sense to leave that and remove the other things. I do only focus on the hard evidence. That is all that matters.

Jmo.



Forgive the autocorrect. Tapatalk has a mind of its own.

 

[Venom]

I like the way you speculate, and I do have some thoughts as to what you said. IMO, it would take a very devious mind to do the staging that was done that night and I strongly question whether two parents, suddenly and unexpectedly thrust into a situation like this would be thinking clearly enough and would be so arrogant and confident to think they could get away with these things. It just does not fit for me IF the murder was not planned and not premeditated.

The suitcase and its contents are a huge clue IMO. It is no coincidence that fibers from the crime scene were found on items within the suitcase because someone made sure those fibers were on those items. Now, I think the person who did this got a little too clever for his own good because by doing this he pointed back to himself. I look at the three people in the family (BR, PR, and JR) and question which of these three people would have the mindset to do something like this, and every single time one person becomes obvious: JR. The other two did not do this particular piece of staging. We don't know when JR did this staging but we know that JR must know there is a need to stage and he is thinking of everything he can to throw LE off of the scent by planting clues like this. This relates to the head blow and garroting because if JR staged the suitcase, then what else did he stage, and for whom he is going to this extraordinary effort to stage? The suitcase staging indicates to me someone pulling out all the stops to confuse LE in any way they can, and if JR staged the suitcase then this directly relates to the garrote. The garrote was someone pulling out all the stops to confuse LE. There is a connection here, if you will allow yourself to see it, of someone who is desperate to plant as many false clues as possible so LE will not find the real killer. Now, I ask myself this question: Would JR go to this extraordinary level of staging to protect his son?
Would JR go to this extraordinary level of staging to protect his wife? OR would JR go to this extraordinary level of staging to protect himself?

BBM- Maybe they didn't necessarily think they'd get away with it at first, and the arrogance and confidence came later.
That morning:
-you have PR on the 911 call possibly saying "They're going to arrest me"
-they called all those extra people over to the house
-JR tried to fly away
-they couldn't sit down for an interview
-they lawyered up so they didn't have to deal with the police

The longer they got away with obscuring the truth, not having to give interviews (unless it was on their terms), and basically getting the white glove treatment from the DA's office the more arrogant and cocky they got. Remember PR's "Did I write the note before or after I killed her?"