The actual vs. desired outcome

[Holdontoyourhat]

Holdon, you are building an entire premise around your belief that someone wanted to kidnap JonBenet. The evidence, both circumstantial and physical suggests otherwise.

DA won't prosecute the R's', grand jury won't indict the R's , BPD won't arrest the R's, FBI or CBI won't arrest the R's, a federal judge hearing the case in another state wouldn't rule against the R's...

An investigator officially assigned to the case believed an intruder did it.

'The evidence, both circumstantial and physical' doesn't really suggest otherwise, does it. The evidence instead seems to have swayed official opinion away from the R's.

 

[BOESP]

DA won't prosecute the R's', grand jury won't indict the R's , BPD won't arrest the R's, FBI or CBI won't arrest the R's, a federal judge hearing the case in another state wouldn't rule against the R's...

An investigator officially assigned to the case believed an intruder did it.

'The evidence, both circumstantial and physical' doesn't really suggest otherwise, does it. The evidence instead seems to have swayed official opinion away from the R's.

Holdon, unless you know the instructions given the Grand Jury, you don't know whether an indictment was an option. Although, as you say, they did not issue an indictment, they did not exonerate anyone either. As to the DA's office, it has been made plain that Hunter thought Patsy guilty. Why do you refuse to see the inefficiency of the Boulder DA's office? It casts doubt on whether you are unbiased in how you analyze what is publicly known about this case. None of us can just ignore what doesn't fit our personal theory.

The arrest for a Colorado murder doesn't fall to the FBI unless it IS a kidnapping. Murder is a state matter.

The evidence suggests it was an inside job and professionals not hired to work for the Ramseys believe one or both Ramseys were involved. I would expect anyone studying this case to view the reports of experts working for the state in higher regard than either your or my opinion. Same thing for the Ramsey employees -- Ramsey worker bees had a vested interest in keeping them out of jail, just as John Ramsey said.

The only evidence presented for a kidnapping is a bogus ransom note. The body being left in the house speaks volumes as to whether or not it was a kidnapping.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Holdon, unless you know the instructions given the Grand Jury, you don't know whether an indictment was an option. Although, as you say, they did not issue an indictment, they did not exonerate anyone either. As to the DA's office, it has been made plain that Hunter thought Patsy guilty. Why do you refuse to see the inefficiency of the Boulder DA's office? It casts doubt on whether you are unbiased in how you analyze what is publicly known about this case. None of us can just ignore what doesn't fit our personal theory.

The arrest for a Colorado murder doesn't fall to the FBI unless it IS a kidnapping. Murder is a state matter.

The evidence suggests it was an inside job and professionals not hired to work for the Ramseys believe one or both Ramseys were involved. I would expect anyone studying this case to view the reports of experts working for the state in higher regard than either your or my opinion. Same thing for the Ramsey employees -- Ramsey worker bees had a vested interest in keeping them out of jail, just as John Ramsey said.

The only evidence presented for a kidnapping is a bogus ransom note. The body being left in the house speaks volumes as to whether or not it was a kidnapping.

Points to you for not bringing up the idea that they used their money to buy their way out. Having said that, though, there is this 'after the fact' non-prosecutorial behavior of officials, and these DNA comparisons they've been doing with outsiders, that suggest their general belief is that an intruder killed JBR.

If an intruder killed JBR, then its possible it was originally intended to be a kidnapping. I don't think it was for ransom or for instant gratification because they would have taken her out the door.

Instead, there was this interaction between JBR and her assailant that included pineapple, wrong underwear, hearts drawn on her hand, etc., You see what I mean.

 

[BOESP]

Points to you for not bringing up the idea that they used their money to buy their way out. Having said that, though, there is this 'after the fact' non-prosecutorial behavior of officials, and these DNA comparisons they've been doing with outsiders, that suggest their general belief is that an intruder killed JBR.

If an intruder killed JBR, then its possible it was originally intended to be a kidnapping. I don't think it was for ransom or for instant gratification because they would have taken her out the door.

Instead, there was this interaction between JBR and her assailant that included pineapple, wrong underwear, hearts drawn on her hand, etc., You see what I mean.

Holdon, a kidnapper would have taken the child, dead or alive. There is no question about that among professionals who deal with these type crimes as their life's work. Kidnappers kidnap for either money, future benefits generally of a sexual nature, or both reasons, or to manipulate for specific demands that usually involve power/political reasons, the last of which doesn't apply in this case. I'm sorry you can't see that.

I won't even address the other points. They've been cussed and discussed and there is no convincing evidence for your claims unless you have access to a good body of evidence that isn't public that supports your personal beliefs.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Holdon, a kidnapper would have taken the child, dead or alive. There is no question about that among professionals who deal with these type crimes as their life's work.

If JBR is dead, then taking her out of the house is going to be more risky than not taking her out, and with no guarantee of payback. I would think that kidnapping negotiators would want to hear the kidnapping victim alive before they make a deal to pay. Kidnappers would know this.

I wasn't aware of any rule kidnappers are obligated to comply with, where they take the child they've already killed out of the house.

 

[BOESP]

If JBR is dead, then taking her out of the house is going to be more risky than not taking her out, and with no guarantee of payback. I would think that kidnapping negotiators would want to hear the kidnapping victim alive before they make a deal to pay. Kidnappers would know this.

I wasn't aware of any rule kidnappers are obligated to comply with, where they take the child they've already killed out of the house.

Holdon, you say you aren't aware of any rule kidnappers are obligated to comply with yet you assume the rules you believe are valid must be true. "Kidnapping" inherently means removing a person from their premises against the person's will.

I have nothing else to debate with you concerning speculative outcomes since arguing what may have happened instead of what did happen is of no value.

 

[JMO8778]

If JBR is dead, then taking her out of the house is going to be more risky than not taking her out, and with no guarantee of payback.

right,so why bother to kill her,why bother to take her to the basement at all,why not just get out of there ASAP????

 

[coloradokares]

Points to you for not bringing up the idea that they used their money to buy their way out. Having said that, though, there is this 'after the fact' non-prosecutorial behavior of officials, and these DNA comparisons they've been doing with outsiders, that suggest their general belief is that an intruder killed JBR.

If an intruder killed JBR, then its possible it was originally intended to be a kidnapping. I don't think it was for ransom or for instant gratification because they would have taken her out the door.

Instead, there was this interaction between JBR and her assailant that included pineapple, wrong underwear, hearts drawn on her hand, etc., You see what I mean.

Seriously where do you get you information Holdontoyourhat? Not from Colorado The state not my hat,

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Holdon, you say you aren't aware of any rule kidnappers are obligated to comply with yet you assume the rules you believe are valid must be true. "Kidnapping" inherently means removing a person from their premises against the person's will.

What I believe is that kidnappers and child killers just aren't abiding by most rules in the first place, and its not easy to apply stereotypical behavior in a case that is seen by experts far and wide as bizarre and atypical.

"The whole case is totally bizarre, I've never in my 35 years experience seen anything like this" --Robert Ressler

I have nothing else to debate with you concerning speculative outcomes since arguing what may have happened instead of what did happen is of no value.

OK

 

[BOESP]

What I believe is that kidnappers and child killers just aren't abiding by most rules in the first place, and its not easy to apply stereotypical behavior in a case that is seen by experts far and wide as bizarre and atypical.

"The whole case is totally bizarre, I've never in my 35 years experience seen anything like this" --Robert Ressler




OK

Most of the experts I've read believe Patsy did it. And, you aren't fully quoting Robert Ressler. You are only quoting one sentence out of an entire article, one sentence that completely ignores Mr. Ressler saying that he believed the entire crime was staged and that one or both parents were involved. Yes indeed it was bizarre, really bizarre. A lot about JonBenet's life and death seems bizarre to me.

 

[JMO8778]

and these DNA comparisons they've been doing with outsiders, that suggest their general belief is that an intruder killed JBR.

you mean that artifact dna that wasn't even complete and wasn't placed there at the same time as JB's dna was? even Lacy said it may not be the killer's.

 

[JMO8778]

What I believe is that kidnappers and child killers just aren't abiding by most rules in the first place, and its not easy to apply stereotypical behavior in a case that is seen by experts far and wide as bizarre and atypical.





OK

but logic still applies,ie-it wasn't a KN,else she would have been taken straight out the door that was there,and it wasn't for instant gratification,else she would have been taken straight out the door,and it wasn't for long term reasons,else she would have been taken right out the door,no fooling around,no going to the basement for *any reason at all...GET OUT,just get out of the house with her!!! but that wasn't done...so that effectively rules out intruder....now let's move on to other possibilities..the ppl in the house at the time.

 

[Squishified]

If JBR is dead, then taking her out of the house is going to be more risky than not taking her out, and with no guarantee of payback. I would think that kidnapping negotiators would want to hear the kidnapping victim alive before they make a deal to pay. Kidnappers would know this.

I wasn't aware of any rule kidnappers are obligated to comply with, where they take the child they've already killed out of the house.

Then why did they leave the note?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Most of the experts I've read believe Patsy did it. And, you aren't fully quoting Robert Ressler. You are only quoting one sentence out of an entire article, one sentence that completely ignores Mr. Ressler saying that he believed the entire crime was staged and that one or both parents were involved. Yes indeed it was bizarre, really bizarre. A lot about JonBenet's life and death seems bizarre to me.

This is flat wrong. I have the article that contains the quote, and nowhere in it does Ressler say one or both parents were involved.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

but logic still applies,ie-it wasn't a KN,else she would have been taken straight out the door that was there,and it wasn't for instant gratification,else she would have been taken straight out the door,and it wasn't for long term reasons,else she would have been taken right out the door,no fooling around,no going to the basement for *any reason at all...GET OUT,just get out of the house with her!!! but that wasn't done...so that effectively rules out intruder....now let's move on to other possibilities..the ppl in the house at the time.

Again, I think long term kidnapping may be more complicated than short term gratification. For example, maybe the perp was originally infatuated with JBR, and wanted to take her for life, but then changed his mind for some reason. Or, for another example, maybe JBR couldn't be coaxed into leaving on her own will, and the perp didn't want to move her by physical force.

 

[coloradokares]

Again, I think long term kidnapping may be more complicated than short term gratification. For example, maybe the perp was originally infatuated with JBR, and wanted to take her for life, but then changed his mind for some reason. Or, for another example, maybe JBR couldn't be coaxed into leaving on her own will, and the perp didn't want to move her by physical force.

I doubt a SFF wanted her for life or cared about her willingness. And not wanting to move her by force is totally absurd, Id say that dastardly intruder fell way shy of not using physical force. Now can we get back to discussion of the real possibilities IE she was killed by a resident of that home. IMHO

 

[JMO8778]

Again, I think long term kidnapping may be more complicated than short term gratification. For example, maybe the perp was originally infatuated with JBR, and wanted to take her for life, but then changed his mind for some reason.

for what reason,in between getting her from her bedroom (and choosing to not go out the door that was right there) and taking her to the basement, would an 'intruder' have changed his mind?

Or, for another example, maybe JBR couldn't be coaxed into leaving on her own will, and the perp didn't want to move her by physical force.

nah,so just kill her instead.no physical force used there,huh?
anyway,what about all that rope said intruder brought w. him? why not just use that to tie her up,get her out,or if not take her out,just tie her up instead of kill her?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

for what reason,in between getting her from her bedroom (and choosing to not go out the door that was right there) and taking her to the basement, would an 'intruder' have changed his mind?




nah,so just kill her instead.no physical force used there,huh?
anyway,what about all that rope said intruder brought w. him? why not just use that to tie her up,get her out,or if not take her out,just tie her up instead of kill her?

Ur the 2nd to get defensive about the physical force thing. Don't you think, that a cord around JBR's neck and wrists is going to get a little conspicuous after a while out of the house? The force they use on JBR in the house is going to be different than the force they use outside the house, right? They're going to either have to drug her, hit her over the head, or talk her into it, because the cord thing wont fly.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I doubt a SFF wanted her for life or cared about her willingness. And not wanting to move her by force is totally absurd, Id say that dastardly intruder fell way shy of not using physical force. Now can we get back to discussion of the real possibilities IE she was killed by a resident of that home. IMHO

Go ahead.

 

[BOESP]

This is flat wrong. I have the article that contains the quote, and nowhere in it does Ressler say one or both parents were involved.

So why did you only mention the part that made the article sound like it supported your belief that the Ramseys are innocent? That is a flat wrong thing to do. When I read the article (the one we discussed here not long ago), I was impressed with the idea that Ressler believed one or both parent was involved, particularly Patsy. Perhaps you are using a different article this time? If so, could you reference us to that article so we have the option of reading all of it and not just your selected version?