The ransom note & Patsy Ramsey, letter by letter.

[Anti-K]

"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

The grand jury voted to indict in ’99; that was years ago. Yes, the release of the indictments has brought renewed interest to the case, and – sadly – one more thing for us to disagree on, but as far as furthering a case against the Ramseys? Nothing has changed.

.

I appreciate the rest of your comments. I’m not here to cause trouble, and I know that I will never win an argument here and that I will never convince anyone of anything; but, I, too, think about the “readers,” particularly new readers, and I think about the fence sitters and the undecided, the wavering...

Oh! IDI does not equal Pro-Ramsey, and, I think that all IDI AND Pro-Ramsey want the same thing as RDI: Justice for Jonbenet.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

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.



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.

Yes, the intent CAN be the same: to explain a victim’s absence from the home; but, Jonbenet was not absent.

Regardless, even if we say that kidnapped and missing are the same, Elaina’s is not “a recent case where a killer parent did report a kidnapping with the body in the house.”

Elaina was not in her home; she was in her mom’s ex-boyfriend’s mother’s garage. Now, something interesting happened. Elaina was not initially reported missing (or, kidnapped, or anything). It isn’t clear that there was any real plan to deal with her “disappearance” beyond putting the body in the garage, but what happened is that Elaina’s father came to pick her up. Elaina’s mom was essentially “forced” into saying or doing something. At first, she said that Elaina was sleeping, and then when “forced” into getting her, she pretended to discover the baby’s bed empty and ran back outside simply saying that – gasp – Elaina was gone. A search ensued....

Still, the crux of it is that this is another example of killers reporting a kidnapping to explain their victim’s absence, and, it was reported after the body was disposed of. Of course, in this case, the killer’s may have planned to move the body to a different location or simply had not yet decided on what to do about it, but the father’s arrival and insistence on seeing Elaina prevented whatever it was that they might have planned.

Reporting a kidnapping with the body in the house, that’s what we’re looking for. No one does this sort of thing; it’s nonsensical and creates a contradiction.
...

AK

 

[Venom]

The grand jury voted to indict in ’99; that was years ago. Yes, the release of the indictments has brought renewed interest to the case, and – sadly – one more thing for us to disagree on, but as far as furthering a case against the Ramseys? Nothing has changed.

.

I appreciate the rest of your comments. I’m not here to cause trouble, and I know that I will never win an argument here and that I will never convince anyone of anything; but, I, too, think about the “readers,” particularly new readers, and I think about the fence sitters and the undecided, the wavering...

Oh! IDI does not equal Pro-Ramsey, and, I think that all IDI AND Pro-Ramsey want the same thing as RDI: Justice for Jonbenet.
...

AK

BBM- That can sure fool me around here. Most of the IDI will not even suggest that the R's did ANYTHING wrong....at all. Or that some of their actions make them seem suspect. To me, that is the most frustrating thing. This is not directed at you AK, just IDI's in general.

 

[Tawny]

WHY would the GJ indict the Rams for "...feloniously permit a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation which posed threat of injury to the child's life or health..." if it were an INTRUDER who did it? How does that make sense?

If you believe the Rams' story of that night, they put JBR to bed and went to bed themselves. How is that unreasonably placing a child in a situation that could result in death?

If that's the case, indict alloftheparents.

It does not compute with IDI theory at all. Not even slightly. Not even if going off of the assumption that they were trying to "pin anything on them" like some believe.

 

[chlban]

WHY would the GJ indict the Rams for "...feloniously permit a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation which posed threat of injury to the child's life or health..." if it were an INTRUDER who did it? How does that make sense?

If you believe the Rams' story of that night, they put JBR to bed and went to bed themselves. How is that unreasonably placing a child in a situation that could result in death?

If that's the case, indict alloftheparents.

It does not compute with IDI theory at all. Not even slightly. Not even if going off of the assumption that they were trying to "pin anything on them" like some believe.

That is absolutely correct. The indictment proves that the GJ was convinced RDI. Maybe they were unsure which Ramsey, but it clearly did not buy the intruder.

Unless of course they thought there was an intruder and the Ramsey's just stood around and watched them murder their daughter, which seems to be the belief at least some IDI's are clinging to. Cuz you know how parents are always doing that. :scared:

 

[Mama2JML]

WHY would the GJ indict the Rams for "...feloniously permit a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation which posed threat of injury to the child's life or health..." if it were an INTRUDER who did it? How does that make sense?

If you believe the Rams' story of that night, they put JBR to bed and went to bed themselves. How is that unreasonably placing a child in a situation that could result in death?

If that's the case, indict alloftheparents.

It does not compute with IDI theory at all. Not even slightly. Not even if going off of the assumption that they were trying to "pin anything on them" like some believe.

The Ramseys were THE focus. The prosecutor called the shots, the Ramseys weren't called to testify, and it would be impossible to indict an unknown person. The jury thought more evidence could be found through discovery, and the majority decision to indict on these specific charges was quite likely a compromise.

 

[Venom]

The Ramseys were THE focus. The prosecutor called the shots, the Ramseys weren't called to testify, and it would be impossible to indict an unknown person. The jury thought more evidence could be found through discovery, and the majority decision to indict on these specific charges was quite likely a compromise.

What? If the GJ couldn't indict an unknown person and thought that it was an intruder, they would not have brought any charges against the R's.

 

[Mama2JML]

What? If the GJ couldn't indict an unknown person and thought that it was an intruder, they would not have brought any charges against the R's.

An indictment required a majority vote to indict, 9/12. The decision wasn't necessarily unanimous, as was the case with the prosecutorial team, and reflective of the RDI v. IDI debate that lingers still. Grand juries seek probable cause, they further an investigation, and indictments do not require evidence of guilt, especially beyond that of a reasonable doubt. Child found murdered in the house; probable cause.

 

[Linda7NJ]

An indictment required a majority vote to indict, 9/12. The decision wasn't necessarily unanimous, as was the case with the prosecutorial team, and reflective of the RDI v. IDI debate that lingers still. Grand juries seek probable cause, they further an investigation, and indictments do not require evidence of guilt, especially beyond that of a reasonable doubt. Child found murdered in the house; probable cause.

True. Indictments are fairly easy to get. The expression "indict a ham sandwich" comes to mind.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Anti-K]

WHY would the GJ indict the Rams for "...feloniously permit a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation which posed threat of injury to the child's life or health..." if it were an INTRUDER who did it? How does that make sense?

If you believe the Rams' story of that night, they put JBR to bed and went to bed themselves. How is that unreasonably placing a child in a situation that could result in death?

If that's the case, indict alloftheparents.

It does not compute with IDI theory at all. Not even slightly. Not even if going off of the assumption that they were trying to "pin anything on them" like some believe.

The grand jury indicted because they felt that there was sufficient evidence to support a charge against the Ramseys.
...

AK

 

[Mysteeri]

FGS, ifi RDI, they had to explain her dead and assaulted body in the house somehow, therefore the staging of a "kidnapping"; the tape on her mouth applied after death, the loose wrist ligatures and the silly ransom note. Amateurish, yes. Did they plan everything out perfectly, no. They may have considered transporting her body somewhere but realized it was too risky, too complicated or too much to bear emotionally.

 

[Venom]

An indictment required a majority vote to indict, 9/12. The decision wasn't necessarily unanimous, as was the case with the prosecutorial team, and reflective of the RDI v. IDI debate that lingers still. Grand juries seek probable cause, they further an investigation, and indictments do not require evidence of guilt, especially beyond that of a reasonable doubt. Child found murdered in the house; probable cause.

Maybe I wasn't clear or am not understanding your post.

"The prosecutor called the shots, the Ramseys weren't called to testify, and it would be impossible to indict an unknown person."

I took that to mean that you thought they just indicted the R's because they couldn't indict the intruder (aka unknown person.) I must have misinterpreted what you were trying to say. Sorry about that.

 

[tweezybird]

That is absolutely correct. The indictment proves that the GJ was convinced RDI. Maybe they were unsure which Ramsey, but it clearly did not buy the intruder.

Unless of course they thought there was an intruder and the Ramsey's just stood around and watched them murder their daughter, which seems to be the belief at least some IDI's are clinging to. Cuz you know how parents are always doing that. :scared:

Thanks for a little chuckle while reading about this horrible crime.

 

[dazeerae]

Something interesting I found at .blogspot.com. The January 1, 1997 interview is analyzed. During the interview, in regards to the ransom note, Patsy states:

"I didn't -- I couldn't read the whole thing I -- I just gotten up. We were on our -- it was the day after Christmas, and we were going to go visiting, and it was quite early in the morning, and I had got dressed and was on my way to the kitchen to make some coffee, and we have a back staircase from the bedroom areas, and I always come down that staircase, and I am usually the first one down. And the note was lying across the -- three pages -- across the run of one of the stair treads, and it was kind of dimly lit."

She states that she did not read the whole thing, yet she clearly remembered the closing "Victory S.B.T.C." when speaking to the 911 operator. This may be apropos of nothing, but I found the contradiction interesting.

 

[Mama2JML]

Something interesting I found at .blogspot.com. The January 1, 1997 interview is analyzed. During the interview, in regards to the ransom note, Patsy states:

"I didn't -- I couldn't read the whole thing I -- I just gotten up. We were on our -- it was the day after Christmas, and we were going to go visiting, and it was quite early in the morning, and I had got dressed and was on my way to the kitchen to make some coffee, and we have a back staircase from the bedroom areas, and I always come down that staircase, and I am usually the first one down. And the note was lying across the -- three pages -- across the run of one of the stair treads, and it was kind of dimly lit."

She states that she did not read the whole thing, yet she clearly remembered the closing "Victory S.B.T.C." when speaking to the 911 operator. This may be apropos of nothing, but I found the contradiction interesting.

She looked at the the last page, @ the closing, in an attempt to identify the "who"?...

 

[BBB167893]

Yes, the intent CAN be the same: to explain a victim’s absence from the home; but, Jonbenet was not absent.

I'm claiming the ransom note was to explain why she was DEAD, not missing. Like I said, the intent was to mislead. I never claimed it was exactly the same.

Still, the crux of it is that this is another example of killers reporting a kidnapping to explain their victim’s absence, and, it was reported after the body was disposed of. Of course, in this case, the killer’s may have planned to move the body to a different location or simply had not yet decided on what to do about it, but the father’s arrival and insistence on seeing Elaina prevented whatever it was that they might have planned.

I see. So your contention is that these people were stopped by something, possibly unforeseen, but that couldn't happen with the Rs. Is that about right?

Reporting a kidnapping with the body in the house, that’s what we’re looking for. No one does this sort of thing; it’s nonsensical and creates a contradiction.

Like all the OTHER things that never happened to kids until they happened?

 

[BBB167893]

The grand jury indicted because they felt that there was sufficient evidence to support a charge against the Ramseys.
...

AK

You'll have to excuse me if I'm a bit taken aback by an IDI saying that so clearly, Anti-K. I won't mention any names, but for the last few years, I've had to listen to IDIs crow about how there was no indictment. They were so positive.

 

[BBB167893]

FGS, ifi RDI, they had to explain her dead and assaulted body in the house somehow, therefore the staging of a "kidnapping"; the tape on her mouth applied after death, the loose wrist ligatures and the silly ransom note. Amateurish, yes. Did they plan everything out perfectly, no. They may have considered transporting her body somewhere but realized it was too risky, too complicated or too much to bear emotionally.

That's my feeling as well.

 

[Anti-K]

I'm claiming the ransom note was to explain why she was DEAD, not missing. Like I said, the intent was to mislead. I never claimed it was exactly the same.

The ransom note doesn’t explain why she is dead, it explains why she is absent from the home: she was kidnapped (except, she wasn’t!). Not only is the ransom note NOT an explanation for why the victim is dead, it is CONTRADICTED because the victim is dead and still in the house.

..

I see. So your contention is that these people were stopped by something, possibly unforeseen, but that couldn't happen with the Rs. Is that about right?

No. My contention is that we DON’T KNOW what Elaina’s killers may have done because their hand was forced by the introduction of a third party (Elaina’s father). In the Ramsey case, the reporting of a kidnapping was not forced, but was willingly reported. It was reported AS IF the Ramseys were not aware that there was no kidnapping and that the body was in the house.

...

Like all the OTHER things that never happened to kids until they happened?

This is meant as rhetorical; right? It’s also almost non sequitor. If you want to argue that parents who kill their children also report them kidnapped while their victim’s body is still in the house then do so. If you can find an example – if ANYONE – can find an example of this, then show me.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

You'll have to excuse me if I'm a bit taken aback by an IDI saying that so clearly, Anti-K. I won't mention any names, but for the last few years, I've had to listen to IDIs crow about how there was no indictment. They were so positive.

Most people believed that there was no indictment. It was a reasonable belief based on the fact that no charges were filed.
...

AK