The ransom note & Patsy Ramsey, letter by letter.

[Linda7NJ]

The original point was to show that SD did not post about “a recent case where a killer parent did report a kidnapping with the body in the house” on the "Shootin' From the Lip-Part 3" thread. He was, and is, clearly wrong – Elaina was not reported kidnapped, and she was not found in the house.

More to the point is this: murderers report their victims as missing or kidnapped after they’ve disposed of them, and not before. The report of missing or kidnapped explains the absence of victim.



The Zahra Baker case is interesting in that it illustrates this point exactly. Zahra was murdered and her body disposed of. The ransom note makes an appearance after the body had been disposed of and the ransom note was supposed to explain the disappearance.



This is exactly the opposite of the Ramsey situation.



A ransom note made sense in the Zahra case because there was no body and it is nonsense in the Ramseys case because there was a body.

...



AK

I see what you're saying.

Ramsey case IMO is so unique but all too similar...in that the ransom note was manufactured as a diversion in both cases.
It's always to point away from the guilty.
Part of me believes John actually thought they would be able to board their plane and he would dispose of JonBenet at that time. Seems he was busying himself away from everyone that morning trying to figure out what to do with her...before he "fake" found her.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Anti-K]

Seems to me a lot of murdering parents have learned a very valuable lesson from the Ramseys. Get rid of the body before producing a fake ransom note. They'd be pretty stupid to follow the Rs lead. Look what it got them! Maybe not prison time, but a lifetime of scrutiny at the least.

Getting rid of the body before reporting a kidnapping (or missing person) predates Ramsey. Douglas discusses this in the “Hurting the Ones We Love” chapter of his book “Mindhunter” (which also predates Ramsey).
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

I see what you're saying.

Ramsey case IMO is so unique but all too similar...in that the ransom note was manufactured as a diversion in both cases.
It's always to point away from the guilty.
Part of me believes John actually thought they would be able to board their plane and he would dispose of JonBenet at that time. Seems he was busying himself away from everyone that morning trying to figure out what to do with her...before he "fake" found her.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

HI Linda,

The Ramsey case is somewhat unique, regardless of RDI or IDI.
If john thought he could leave in the morning and board their plane and dispose of the body at that time, than why would the body be in the basement. Why not in the garage or in the trunk of the car, ready to go?

Even more troubling to me is this: if a parent murders or accidentally kills their child and then disposes of the body than have to come up with a way of explaining why their child is no longer at home. If they don’t; dispose of the body than they have to explain why the child is dead. These are two very different and grossly distinct situations. In the former, of course, one would have to say that the child had been abducted, or that they were simply “missing;” maybe, they ran away from home. We don’t know what happened, she’s just gone. That makes complete and total sense and there are many cases that prove this point.

The Ramseys did not dispose of Jonbenet. The fact that she was in the basement, and the state she was in, tells us that they, if RDI, were not going to dispose of her. The Ramseys needed to explain a dead body in the house, and faking a kidnapping contradicts the very thing that they, if RDI, needed to do. How, why, would it even occur to them to fake such a thing? It wouldn’t. If it did, then it would quickly follow that they needed to get rid of the body. These things go hand in hand; you can’t have one without the other. If they decided to reject the idea of disposing of the body, than they would almost certainly have to reject the idea of reporting a kidnapping.
...

AK

 

[Tawny]

This thread has gone off the rails, IMO.

 

[BBB167893]

Who says you’re ignoring anything? You did (post 907, above). I said the case against the Ramseys has not been advanced since the early days and you said you were going to ignore that.
...

AK

Very funny. I ignored it because it was an obvious cheap shot.

 

[BBB167893]

You see no difference between reporting someone missing and reporting someone kidnapped? I don’t believe you.

Do you think it's possible for you to go ONE post without twisting what I say?

In this case, the intent was to lead the police on a wild goose chase. In THAT regard, there's not much difference.

No self-incriminating evidence was created by mom or by ex-boyfriend. No staging, no posing. No intruder, no kidnapping, no crime scene.

No, that happened in THIS case.

 

[BBB167893]

IMO many murdering parents make mistakes when trying to conceal the crime.
Seems the Ramsey's didn't think it all the way through...or there was a quick change of plans.

I don't get what's so hard to understand about that, Linda.

 

[BBB167893]

Seems to me a lot of murdering parents have learned a very valuable lesson from the Ramseys. Get rid of the body before producing a fake ransom note. They'd be pretty stupid to follow the Rs lead. Look what it got them! Maybe not prison time, but a lifetime of scrutiny at the least.

I agree completely.

 

[Anti-K]

This thread has gone off the rails, IMO.

I don’t know about “off the rails,” certainly off-topic.
Is there an existing thread that the current discussion should be moved to? Or, a new thread started, or...? Suggestions?
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Very funny. I ignored it because it was an obvious cheap shot.

It was not an “obvious cheap shot,” nor any kind of shot; it was a statement of fact: the case against the Ramseys has not been advanced one bit since the earliest days of this case.

When you said that you were going to ignore that I thought it was because you simply didn’t want to get into that aspect of the discussion.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Do you think it's possible for you to go ONE post without twisting what I say?

In this case, the intent was to lead the police on a wild goose chase. In THAT regard, there's not much difference.



No, that happened in THIS case.

I’m not twisting your words at all. Read it again: “You see no difference between reporting someone missing and reporting someone kidnapped? This is not a “twisting of words.” This is an expression of disbelief posed as a question.

While it may be true that reporting someone missing and reporting someone kidnapped can both be seen as attempts to mislead, this does not detract from the very real and clear distinctions between both claims. For example: kidnapping infers a kidnapper, and kidnapping is a criminal offence; someone missing may have wandered off on their own, and there is no crime being committed.

Your claim of posting “a recent case where a killer parent did report a kidnapping with the body in the house” on the "Shootin' From the Lip-Part 3" thread is disproved by the fact that Elaina was not reported kidnapped, and she was not found in the house. If you meant something other than “did report a kidnapping with the body in the house,” then perhaps you need to revisit that post and edit your claim; or, simply retract it or restate it.
...

AK

 

[Tawny]

I don’t know about “off the rails,” certainly off-topic.
Is there an existing thread that the current discussion should be moved to? Or, a new thread started, or...? Suggestions?
...

AK

Great Odin's beard, no, please keep it contained to this one only.

 

[gramcracker]

It was not an “obvious cheap shot,” nor any kind of shot; it was a statement of fact: the case against the Ramseys has not been advanced one bit since the earliest days of this case.

When you said that you were going to ignore that I thought it was because you simply didn’t want to get into that aspect of the discussion.
...

AK

"advanced" is open to interpretation. mine is that the release of the GJ indictments did indeed "advance" the case. it hasn't been resolved, but it has advanced

drip, drip, drip, like water on stone, IMO there seems to be a concerted effort to turn the justice for JonBenet forum into a pro-Ramsey forum. no amount of information is considered sufficient. no matter how much background/history is (re)posted the response is another set of questions. there are numerous threads dating back seventeen years which present answers (not that they are considered "acceptable" by some members). those who are new to the forum are influenced by what they read and the fuller context of the circumstances is often ignored and/or dismissed. which misleads the newer readers and frustrates the veteran readers. I respect the IDI threads by rarely posting in them because I disagree with the basic premise. to each their own. I wish that some IDIs would show the same respect to the RDI threads. to each their own, and neither side will ever convince the other. IMO

 

[BBB167893]

It was not an “obvious cheap shot,” nor any kind of shot; it was a statement of fact: the case against the Ramseys has not been advanced one bit since the earliest days of this case.

When you said that you were going to ignore that I thought it was because you simply didn’t want to get into that aspect of the discussion.

Okay, I'll accept that it was an honest mistake. Not only am I not afraid to discuss that aspect of the case, it's the MAIN SUBJECT of my upcoming book. I fully mean to place the blame for that where it belongs, and I devote a lot of time to it.

 

[BBB167893]

I’m not twisting your words at all. Read it again: “You see no difference between reporting someone missing and reporting someone kidnapped? This is not a “twisting of words.” This is an expression of disbelief posed as a question. While it may be true that reporting someone missing and reporting someone kidnapped can both be seen as attempts to mislead, this does not detract from the very real and clear distinctions between both claims. For example: kidnapping infers a kidnapper, and kidnapping is a criminal offence; someone missing may have wandered off on their own, and there is no crime being committed.

Obviously, there's a difference in the ACTS, Anti-K. I simply MEANT that, in terms of use as a misleading tactic, the intent is much the same.

Your claim of posting “a recent case where a killer parent did report a kidnapping with the body in the house” on the "Shootin' From the Lip-Part 3" thread is disproved by the fact that Elaina was not reported kidnapped, and she was not found in the house. If you meant something other than “did report a kidnapping with the body in the house,” then perhaps you need to revisit that post and edit your claim; or, simply retract it or restate it.

Don't split hairs, all right. Elaina's killers knew exactly where she was. They knew she wasn't really missing. That's my point.

 

[Nom de plume]

"advanced" is open to interpretation. mine is that the release of the GJ indictments did indeed "advance" the case. it hasn't been resolved, but it has advanced

drip, drip, drip, like water on stone, IMO there seems to be a concerted effort to turn the justice for JonBenet forum into a pro-Ramsey forum. no amount of information is considered sufficient. no matter how much background/history is (re)posted the response is another set of questions. there are numerous threads dating back seventeen years which present answers (not that they are considered "acceptable" by some members). those who are new to the forum are influenced by what they read and the fuller context of the circumstances is often ignored and/or dismissed. which misleads the newer readers and frustrates the veteran readers. I respect the IDI threads by rarely posting in them because I disagree with the basic premise. to each their own. I wish that some IDIs would show the same respect to the RDI threads. to each their own, and neither side will ever convince the other. IMO

ITA gramcracker! Seems as though IDIs are coming out of the woodwork since the GJ indictments were released. Where were they all before? (Of course, we had a couple of resident IDIs, but the percentage has increased greatly in the last few months.) Also makes you wonder why they've just now shown up?!? Didn't they have just as much concern for finding the mysterious, elusive "boogie man" before the GJ news broke? Things that make you go hmm....:waitasec: (Or Ah HA! :wink

Personally, I wish we had "only RDI" threads, "only IDI" threads, and a few mixed for people that are fence sitters. I don't run this site, but if I did, that's how it would be set up. JMO Seems we waste so much time on the "should be RDI only" threads rehashing, and re-defending the actual evidence that's documented in AR reports, transcripts, etc. only to have it questioned, doubted, dismissed or ignored time after time. SMH

 

[Venom]

ITA gramcracker! Seems as though IDIs are coming out of the woodwork since the GJ indictments were released. Where were they all before? (Of course, we had a couple of resident IDIs, but the percentage has increased greatly in the last few months.) Also makes you wonder why they've just now shown up?!? Didn't they have just as much concern for finding the mysterious, elusive "boogie man" before the GJ news broke? Things that make you go hmm....:waitasec: (Or Ah HA! :wink

Personally, I wish we had "only RDI" threads, "only IDI" threads, and a few mixed for people that are fence sitters. I don't run this site, but if I did, that's how it would be set up. JMO Seems we waste so much time on the "should be RDI only" threads rehashing, and re-defending the actual evidence that's documented in AR reports, transcripts, etc. only to have it questioned, doubted, dismissed or ignored time after time. SMH

Agreed!

 

[Venom]

Great Odin's beard, no, please keep it contained to this one only.

:lol::woot:

 

[Mama2JML]

There's an IDI thread & a RDI thread, but, like this one, the majority of the threads are not labeled.

 

[gramcracker]

IMO the flavor of the intent is obvious, no matter how pleasant the packaging and whether or not a thread is labeled