Kidnaping Gone Bad

[Maikai]

Why is this motive so hard to believe? There's several reasons to think this crime was as it appears to be. An attempted kidnapping that went bad, because the perps were amatuers. We have:

*The note
*Several accessible ways into the home, with the most obvious the broken basement window
*Evidence that JBR was subdued and controlled
*Recent publicity in the newspaper that JR was a billionaire (not true, but that was the impression)
*A trophy-type child, who was touted in early articles as a former Little Miss Colorado. There would have been plenty of evidence of this in the house.

Once the idea was planted, the rest falls in place. The hastily constructed garrote could have been done as a form of control....there could have been more than one, and one bailed out early, leaving one with a struggling child--and in too deep to get out, if the perp was in a state of panic. If one, the same scenario---things had gotten out of hand, and he didn't know how to get out of it. The two-perp scenario makes sense to me because two together may do what one alone wouldn't have the nerve to--they would feed off of each other.

[Jayelles]

And why didn't they just take her body and try and get the money anyway?

Why did they write three pages of a ransom note expressing their respect for John Ramsey and showing off their knowledge of movie lines?


And if they simply panicked and fled, why hide the body and not the ransom note too?

[Barbara]

[QUOTE=Maikai]Why is this motive so hard to believe? There's several reasons to think this crime was as it appears to be. An attempted kidnapping that went bad, because the perps were amatuers. We have:

*The note

Written by Patsy Ramsey IMO and if it was a kidnapping gone bad, why leave it at all? Why give authorities the possibility of tracing the handwriting when supposedly he took other "evidence" with him. Why leave that?

*Several accessible ways into the home, with the most obvious the broken basement window

John admittedly tampered with the window, closing it, according to him and having broken it himself earlier when locked out of the house and going through it himself. AND...no evidence left. It was winter. Would this perp not be wearing a jacket, etc? Lou Smit's demonstration proved that it would be very difficult to get in and not leave something. And let's not forget the undisturbed spider web.



*Evidence that JBR was subdued and controlled

What evidence? If you are referring to a stun gun, that has not been proven but speculated. Of course she was controlled, she was a little six year old girl. Doesn't take much

*Recent publicity in the newspaper that JR was a billionaire (not true, but that was the impression)

And they only asked for $118K?

*A trophy-type child, who was touted in early articles as a former Little Miss Colorado. There would have been plenty of evidence of this in the house.

So?

Once the idea was planted, the rest falls in place. The hastily constructed garrote could have been done as a form of control....there could have been more than one, and one bailed out early, leaving one with a struggling child--and in too deep to get out, if the perp was in a state of panic.

Yet he took the time to take "other" things with him in this state of "panic"?

If one, the same scenario---things had gotten out of hand, and he didn't know how to get out of it. The two-perp scenario makes sense to me because two together may do what one alone wouldn't have the nerve to--they would feed off of each other

Two perps? With no evidence left behind? Nonsense!

The RST explanations are contradictory to each other and insist on having things "both ways".

[Maikai]

And why didn't they just take her body and try and get the money anyway?

Why did they write three pages of a ransom note expressing their respect for John Ramsey and showing off their knowledge of movie lines?


And if they simply panicked and fled, why hide the body and not the ransom note too?

If they couldn't plan a legitimate kidnapping, then the murder may not have been intentional, and they cut the plans short. He may not have wanted to risk seen carrying a dead body around, and may have thought they needed her alive, to prove they had her....or if one found himself alone, with the other one bailing out early, he'd have no reason to continue the plan.

Why does any writer write the way they do? Planning the note beforehand could have been part of the excitement...and they may have felt the note would do the trick---if the Ramseys didn't call the police, it would be easy to get the money out of them. It's a long rambling note, with the first 2/3's at least showing some thought beforehand, IMO. The taunting and sarcastic last part seems more adlibbed.

[Barbara]

If they couldn't plan a legitimate kidnapping, then the murder may not have been intentional, and they cut the plans short. He may not have wanted to risk seen carrying a dead body around, and may have thought they needed her alive, to prove they had her....or if one found himself alone, with the other one bailing out early, he'd have no reason to continue the plan.

Why does any writer write the way they do? Planning the note beforehand could have been part of the excitement...and they may have felt the note would do the trick---if the Ramseys didn't call the police, it would be easy to get the money out of them. It's a long rambling note, with the first 2/3's at least showing some thought beforehand, IMO. The taunting and sarcastic last part seems more adlibbed.

:waitasec:
So now it's THEY? So you are saying that THEY were watching the house and knew the Ramseys called the police, therefore gave up on getting the money????

Good thing they are imaginary or else if they really knew that, they might have beheaded her as promised in THEIR note.

You still haven't explained why thinking John was a billionaire, they only asked for $118,000?

You still haven't explained why in THEIR panic, they remembered to take the tape, etc. that is unaccounted for.

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[Britt]

Why is this motive so hard to believe? There's several reasons to think this crime was as it appears to be. An attempted kidnapping that went bad, because the perps were amatuers.
What about the sexual assault? Which motive is the real motive?

Were they stupid amateurs? Did they just forget they'd written the note? If they were so stupid, how did they cleverly manage not to leave any evidence? And why cleverly leave no evidence yet "forget" the two hugest pieces of evidence - the body and the note?

So....we have two amateur criminals bumbling their way through a variety of crimes in a stranger's home on Christmas night, spending hours in the home (as they wait for the family to return, then wait for the family to prepare for and go to bed, then fall asleep) yet leaving no physical evidence -- no fingerprints, no DNA, no hair, no noise -- and volunteering a three-page handwriting sample and leaving behind the collateral.

And why would an intruder need to, or bother to, stage the crime scene?

The staging:
1. blocking the train room door with the chair after entering the house through the train room window
2. a ransom-for-money note, but a sexually assaulted victim
3. a useless piece of postmortem duct tape... (in any case, try the tape yourself and see how "subdued" you are)
4. ditto the wrist cord

WHY the above things? How do they fit into "motive"? If they are not "staging," what are they?

[Maikai]

they didn't post......so here goes...

:waitasec:
So now it's THEY? So you are saying that THEY were watching the house and knew the Ramseys called the police, therefore gave up on getting the money????

I think they gave the plan up when JBR was killed.

Good thing they are imaginary or else if they really knew that, they might have beheaded her as promised in THEIR note.

Garrotting...beheading? Garroting is a way of beheading in the video games.....might have been the inspiration.......

You still haven't explained why thinking John was a billionaire, they only asked for $118,000?

In "Ransom," there is a question about why only $2,000,000? Don't they know I'm worth much more? FBI answers...because they know you have it. I think a smaller sum was asked for thinking it would be chump change to a billionaire, and he would come up with it quickly. A large sum might have made it more likely to call the FBI or police. Who knows if that would have been the end of it?

You still haven't explained why in THEIR panic, they remembered to take the tape, etc. that is unaccounted for.

They took the items they brought in...might have had a knapsack or something to put them in......stun gun could be traced back if bought legitimately.

[Jayelles]

If they couldn't plan a legitimate kidnapping, then the murder may not have been intentional, and they cut the plans short. He may not have wanted to risk seen carrying a dead body around, and may have thought they needed her alive, to prove they had her....or if one found himself alone, with the other one bailing out early, he'd have no reason to continue the plan.

So where does the sexual molestation come into it? If they clobbered her and throttled her to silence her - why sexually assault her with a paintbrush?

Why does any writer write the way they do? Planning the note beforehand could have been part of the excitement...and they may have felt the note would do the trick---if the Ramseys didn't call the police, it would be easy to get the money out of them. It's a long rambling note, with the first 2/3's at least showing some thought beforehand, IMO. The taunting and sarcastic last part seems more adlibbed.

So you are assuming that the kidnappers intended to spend ages in the house composing and writing the note? Wouldn't genuine kidnappers get in and out AQAP?

[Maikai]

What about the sexual assault? Which motive is the real motive?

Were they stupid amateurs? Did they just forget they'd written the note? If they were so stupid, how did they cleverly manage not to leave any evidence? And why cleverly leave no evidence yet "forget" the two hugest pieces of evidence - the body and the note?

So....we have two amateur criminals bumbling their way through a variety of crimes in a stranger's home on Christmas night, spending hours in the home (as they wait for the family to return, then wait for the family to prepare for and go to bed, then fall asleep) yet leaving no physical evidence -- no fingerprints, no DNA, no hair, no noise -- and volunteering a three-page handwriting sample and leaving behind the collateral.

And why would an intruder need to, or bother to, stage the crime scene?

The staging:
1. blocking the train room door with the chair after entering the house through the train room window
2. a ransom-for-money note, but a sexually assaulted victim
3. a useless piece of postmortem duct tape... (in any case, try the tape yourself and see how "subdued" you are)
4. ditto the wrist cord

WHY the above things? How do they fit into "motive"? If they are not "staging," what are they?

Yes, they were stupid amateurs---they blew the kidnapping, and they left evidence. Amateurs make mistakes. They left DNA, a footprint, trace fibers and hair, and their handwriting. I don't think they knew printing--even disguised might be able to be traced back, if they got on the radar screen.

The sexual assault, IMO, was incidental to the true crime---wouldn't be the first case where there was another motive, and a victim sexually assaulted out of anger. If the train room door was blocked, then it was done on the way out---a temporary barricade, just in case someone came charging down the stairs. There's no reason to think the perp was cool, calm and collected.

They left the body, because it was more incriminating to be found with a dead body,then leave it behind. They may have thought they needed her alive to prove they had her. If the crime got out of hand, then the plan unravelled.

[Jayelles]

Yes, they were stupid amateurs---they blew the kidnapping, and they left evidence. Amateurs make mistakes. They left DNA, a footprint, trace fibers and hair, and their handwriting. I don't think they knew printing--even disguised might be able to be traced back, if they got on the radar screen.



Stupid amateurs who tied an "elaborate" knot? And who have evaded capture for 7+ years?

[Barbara]

IMO, this whole "movie" script being a part of the ransom note is not an issue. It sounds good while speculating, but I truly believe the movies don't play any part (at least intentionally) in the writing of the note. It's been fun reading all the comparisons though and gave the Ramseys something to sidetrack about.

You said they gave up the plan (you think) when JBR was killed, but you said earlier that they would have gotten the money if the Ramseys didn't call the police, inferring that they were in fact watching and planning to get the money anyway (unless I misunderstood your post). Asking for 2 million when a person has more, is still TWO MILLION DOLLARS AND PETTY CASH. Thinking John is a "BILLIONAIRE" and asking for 118K is quite different AND not comparable to the ratio described in Ransom.

Taking in the items they "brought" still shows they didn't panic and had THEIR wits about them enough to remove those items, why not the ransom note. It wasn't too heavy and would have fit in a knapsack.

I beg to differ: Garrotting is not symbolic of beheading. This was someone supposedly old enough to have a hatred for John, yet plays video games for inspiration? Video games are more in tune with young children, say 9 years old?

[Jayelles]

I would also wonder why the Bungle Brothers didn't take a few items of value when their kidnapping went awry?

[Barbara]

Yes, they were stupid amateurs---they blew the kidnapping, and they left evidence. Amateurs make mistakes. They left DNA, a footprint, trace fibers and hair, and their handwriting. I don't think they knew printing--even disguised might be able to be traced back, if they got on the radar screen.

Kidnappers who really plan a kidnapping as you describe as "going bad" don't come prepared with a stun gun, tape, cord, etc. and then hope there is enough time, material, etc. to write the ransom note THERE AT THE SCENE. That's just ridiculous.

If this were a true kidnapping, the kidnappers would have had everything prepared, no? Like in the movies the kidnappers watch, according to the RST. They paste letters from newspapers, magazines and the like onto pieces of paper so that the handwriting cannot be traced.

Either they are movie buffs or they are not. Either they are amateur or they are not. Either they are pedophiles or they are not. Either they are.......or they are not....the list is endless.

[Barbara]

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:



the Bungle Brothers

[Jayelles]

I think they would most likely would prepare a ransom note with a computer. Very few people don't have access to computers nowadays.

[Barbara]

I think they would most likely would prepare a ransom note with a computer. Very few people don't have access to computers nowadays.

Back in 1996, computers weren't quite as common as now. I didn't have one until 1997 and many people I know got theirs around the same time.

I'd be curious to find out how many documented cases of kidnapping had handwritten ransom notes. I'll try to research that as well.

[Jayelles]

Back in 1996, computers weren't quite as common as now. I didn't have one until 1997 and many people I know got theirs around the same time.

I'd be curious to find out how many documented cases of kidnapping had handwritten ransom notes. I'll try to research that as well.

Maybe so, but there were word processors and typewriters.

[Maikai]

I think they would most likely would prepare a ransom note with a computer. Very few people don't have access to computers nowadays.

Hard drives can be checked.....typing traced back to paper and printer. There could have been a computer generated note---the length of the note would be much less on a typed page....it could have been copied onto the notepad because of opportunity. The cross-offs in the printed note could have been the result of copying, and losing his place.

[Jayelles]

Hard drives can be checked.....typing traced back to paper and printer. There could have been a computer generated note---the length of the note would be much less on a typed page....it could have been copied onto the notepad because of opportunity. The cross-offs in the printed note could have been the result of copying, and losing his place.

Checking the hard-drive would only be useful if it were ever saved. If I were going to do somethig like this, I wouldn't save it.

Of course, I have proved how effectively one can copy someone's handwriting by computer. I used a scanned copy of another poster's London Letter to fake a Lord's prayer. It was more than passable. I posted the results at Purgatory some months ago.

[Maikai]

If this were a true kidnapping, the kidnappers would have had everything prepared, no? Like in the movies the kidnappers watch, according to the RST. They paste letters from newspapers, magazines and the like onto pieces of paper so that the handwriting cannot be traced.

Either they are movie buffs or they are not. Either they are amateur or they are not. Either they are pedophiles or they are not. Either they are.......or they are not....the list is endless.

I don't think they necessarily had to be pedophiles. Movie buffs, yes---the note was a copycat of several extortion movies---and then there's the marked up entreprenaur article which is from "Rocochet." I can see someone having a great deal of fun composing it, and anticipating at some point it would be known, and people would puzzle over it. They brought in a burglary/kidnapping kit----but didn't think it through, which is why they botched it.

[Barbara]

Hard drives can be checked.....typing traced back to paper and printer. There could have been a computer generated note---the length of the note would be much less on a typed page....it could have been copied onto the notepad because of opportunity. The cross-offs in the printed note could have been the result of copying, and losing his place.

They were smart enough to avoid that, yet left a handwritten novel 3 pages long.

That makes sense to you?

[Barbara]

I don't think they necessarily had to be pedophiles. Movie buffs, yes---the note was a copycat of several extortion movies---and then there's the marked up entreprenaur article which is from "Rocochet." I can see someone having a great deal of fun composing it, and anticipating at some point it would be known, and people would puzzle over it. They brought in a burglary/kidnapping kit----but didn't think it through, which is why they botched it.

A buglary/kidnapping KIT????

And no burglary and no kidnapping.

People who are planning a kidnapping/burglary who ARENT pedophiles don't sexually abuse the victim.

Nobody had "fun" that night.

I'm starting to feel like Desi Arnaz. I am getting so frustrated, I might start breaking into Yiddish, but nobody would understand me :)

(except for Sabrina I think)

Meshugenuhs!!!!!

[Britt]

If the train room door was blocked, then it was done on the way out---a temporary barricade, just in case someone came charging down the stairs.
There is no "if" about it. From the June 24, 1998, questioning of John Ramsey by Lou Smit, JonBenet The Police Files, pages 313-314:

Like Patsy, John was shown a series of crime scene photographs. One showed a chair blocking the door into the train room in the basement. To get to the broken window in the cellar, someone has to go through that door. Ramsey found the chair blocking the entranceway during his first search of the basement, moved it and then moved it back, he said. The information cast some doubt on the intruder theory.

SMIT: So you think that the chair would block the door and nobody would have gotten in there without moving it?

RAMSEY: Correct.

SMIT: In other words, let's say that the intruder goes into the train room, gets out, let's say, that window?

RAMSEY: Uh huh.

SMIT: How in effect would he get that chair to block that door, if that is the case, is what I'm saying?

RAMSEY: I don't know... I go down, I say, "Ooh, that door is blocked." I move the chair and went in the room.

SMIT: So you couldn't have gotten in without moving the chair?

RAMSEY: Correct... I had to move the chair.

SMIT: The thing I'm trying to figure out in my mind then is, if an intruder went through the door, he'd almost have to pull the chair behind him... because that would have been his exit... so that's not very logical as far as....

RAMSEY: I think it is. I mean if this person is that bizarrely clever to have not left any good evidence, but left all these little funny clues around, they... are clever enough to pull the chair back when they left.

So, Maikai, how would that work as a barricade? The train room was separate from the room where JB was found -- different entranceway -- and was blocked from the outside, the hallway side, not the inside where it might be used as a barricade while the intruders exited through the window.

What was the alleged intruders' purpose in blocking the train room door - the room with the broken window? Why would they enter the house through that broken window, go through the door into the hallway, then block it with a chair?

[Britt]

I don't think they necessarily had to be pedophiles.
Huh? They're not pedophiles, yet they sexually assaulted a six-year-old... WHY? Because they were pissed off? As if... killing her wasn't enough to satisfy their rage? And then they were considerate enough to redress her? Again, WHY?

Maybe it would help if you could cite some other cases where a non-pedophile spontaneously decided to sexually attack a child for some non-pedophilic reason ??

[Britt]

Movie buffs, yes---the note was a copycat of several extortion movies---
And how does this eliminate a Ramsey as the writer?

[Britt]

I don't think they knew printing--even disguised might be able to be traced back, if they got on the radar screen.
Again... how does this eliminate a Ramsey as the writer? In fact, this logic would explain why a Ramsey would risk hand-writing the note.

[tipper]

I think it may well have been printed with the non-dominant hand. I tried that once and was amazed at how similar my writing became. The little squiggles in what should have been straight lines were everwhere just like the note. If someone came to the house, knowing the Ramseys were going to be at a party for a few hours, they would have plenty of time to familiarize themself with the house layout and write the note.

[BrotherMoon]

Yes, it's a kidnapping gone bad. Now go away.

[Shylock]

If someone came to the house, knowing the Ramseys were going to be at a party for a few hours, they would have plenty of time to familiarize themself with the house layout and write the note.
Oh, so now the world's greatest intruder KNEW the Ramseys were at a party huh? And just HOW did he know that?

And while you're at it, also explain to us how he also knew the Ramseys weren't going to stop at the airport on the way home from the party and pickup 6 other family members to bring home with them that night. Now wouldn't THAT have been a shock to Mr. Intruder!

Oh, and how did he know the Ramseys wouldn't turn on the alarm system when they got home and activate a bunch of motion detectors?

That intruder had one hellOfa crystal ball, didn't he!

[tipper]

No, he just needed to know someone who had knowledge of their plans and perhaps a key that could be copied. I've always been intrigued that LHP's husband asked if she was strangled. Did he get a call very early that morning saying plans had gone awry?

[Barbara]

No, he just needed to know someone who had knowledge of their plans and perhaps a key that could be copied. I've always been intrigued that LHP's husband asked if she was strangled. Did he get a call very early that morning saying plans had gone awry?

...and knowledge of their bedtime routines,

...and knowledge that the dog wasn't there

...and knowledge of the layout of the house

...and knowledge of their sleep habits, sexual routines

Oh hell, the Ramseys, when going out to the Whites, and then going around delivering gifts and visiting, didn't even know full well, their own plans and time frames for that night, yet the "intruder" had it down to a science?

Again, what motive would LHP's husband have for this. They were expecting to pick up a couple of thousand dollar check from Patsy. Why would he do that before getting it? He was a big man by all accounts and a drunkard. Does he fit the profile of a stealth, climb through the basement window, do all those things that this crime entailed, while drunk and overweight, without a sound, and without a trace??

You can't really believe that is a viable scenario can you?

[Angie]

and those stupid kidnappers woke someone up that fateful night, to see if he/she could write them a long and lengthy educated ransom note.

[tezi]

Yep, let's throw Mervin Pugh back under the bus again, like that family hasn't suffered enough because they had the misfortune of knowing the Ramsey's. Gee, don't forget Mervin was a porno star involved in child porn too....Yeah, right....

What phone call saying plans had gone awry??? Or would that phone call be the one JR made to the pilot saying plans had changed????

[tipper]

...and knowledge of their bedtime routines,

...and knowledge that the dog wasn't there

...and knowledge of the layout of the house

...and knowledge of their sleep habits, sexual routines

Oh hell, the Ramseys, when going out to the Whites, and then going around delivering gifts and visiting, didn't even know full well, their own plans and time frames for that night, yet the "intruder" had it down to a science?

Again, what motive would LHP's husband have for this. They were expecting to pick up a couple of thousand dollar check from Patsy. Why would he do that before getting it? He was a big man by all accounts and a drunkard. Does he fit the profile of a stealth, climb through the basement window, do all those things that this crime entailed, while drunk and overweight, without a sound, and without a trace??

You can't really believe that is a viable scenario can you?
It's one scenario I periodically consider. But it's not the only one I consider.

1. I'm not saying Merv did this himself. I think he could have provided the information and key needed to someone else. Why take a $2,000 loan when you can have a quick $59,000 payday. Unfortunately, something went wrong and JonBenet died.

2. Merv would know the dog spent most of it's time at the Barnhills.

3. The layout of the house could be explored while the Ramseys were at the White's. Barnhill saw a male approaching the house around the time the Ramseys left for the Whites. That suggests someone was watchiing and waiting for them to leave. Knowing when they would return wasn't vital. If he knew they were going to a dinner then he knew he had at least a couple hours before needing to lay low.

4. He could assume that they sleep at night. What other habit does he need to know? Wait 'til the house is quiet, wait a little more and assume they are asleep. Sexual habits? He could probably safely conclude that Patsy and John didn't usually have a go at it on the dining room table, particularly the night before a trip. What else would he need to know?

People break into homes all the time while the owners sleep. There is always some risk that the owner will get up, or be doing something unexpected. But still, people continue to break into homes.

I think it's possible this was a person who felt the world owes him, heard about John Ramsey's bonus from Merv, decided it wasn't fair that the Ramseys of the world get all the breaks, also felt asking for the bonus amount wasn't like "real" stealing since it was, after all, a bonus, and hatched this plan. Unfortunately something went terribly wrong and JonBenet was killed.

Although I do not think Mervin personally did this, as I said, I find it very curious he asked about her being strangled. Why would he want to know at all, let alone ask about a method of killing that is not particularly common for children? While I don't think Mervin was the hands-on person I would remind you that Westerfield, also a large man, managed, while drunk, to enter and leave the van Dam house without knowing anything about the habits, pets and schedules of the people there and didn't leave any known traces of himself. Bundy was also usually drunk when he killed. How many houses did he enter without knowing the habits of the residents?

My thoughts about what happened at the end of this scenario are less clear than the beginning. Perhaps she screamed and he panicked and killed her in frustration at having failed again. Perhaps he thought she might recognize him. Perhaps she didn't scream and the head blow was only supposed to knock her out but he hit her too hard. Perhaps the garrotte was a control device and she screamed and he hit her in the head, thought he might have killed her, and strangled her just to be sure she couldn't recover. Perhaps the sexual assault was merely an attempt to head the police off into the world of pedophiles or perhaps it was anger in general, directed at JonBenet.

If any one theory fit perfectly with no unanswered questions we wouldn't be here. But I would rather see no one in jail for this crime than 25 years from now see another name go on the exonerated list of Sheck's Innocence Project.

[Barbara]

4. He could assume that they sleep at night. What other habit does he need to know? Wait 'til the house is quiet, wait a little more and assume they are asleep. Sexual habits? He could probably safely conclude that Patsy and John didn't usually have a go at it on the dining room table, particularly the night before a trip. What else would he need to know?

People break into homes all the time while the owners sleep. There is always some risk that the owner will get up, or be doing something unexpected. But still, people continue to break into homes.

Yes, but in this case, this perp reportedly was waiting in the house for them and in this case, the perp knew that they had JUST gone to "bed" an hour or so before, so also had to know that after such a short time, with two children on Christmas day, and two parents alone upstairs that everyone was "asleep".

The extreme risk, after otherwise being so careful does not make sense.

[Nehemiah]

Thanks, Maikai, for sharing your thoughts. I think anything is possible. So if this were a kidnapping gone bad, why did the Ramseys behave the way they did after the murder? I can't reconcile that one.

IMO

[Seeker]

Thanks, Maikai, for sharing your thoughts. I think anything is possible. So if this were a kidnapping gone bad, why did the Ramseys behave the way they did after the murder? I can't reconcile that one.

IMO
Don't forget disregarding absolutely EVERYTHING the note writer said NOT TO DO!!!

Do not call the police. You are under surveillance. If we see you talking to a stray dog, she dies.
Not only did they call the police and NOT tell them to be extremely low key and cautious, they called all of their friends over as well to create even more chaos. :rolleyes:
Gee, and here the RST has tried to lead us to believe that JR is so intelligent...one of the members even wants him to run for president? YIKES!!

Last sentence editted

[vicktor]

Britt: What was the alleged intruder's purpose in blocking the train room door...?

Vicktor: He was trying to make his point of entrance less obvious. If he had moved the suitcase away from the wall, it would have made it more difficult to surmise where he got in. Most likely case is that he carried the RN upstairs after the crime was finished. If he had left it there earlier, anyone coming downstairs would have been alerted and might have compromized the crime in progress. He most likely had seen the alarm panel after the Ramseys retired, if not also before and probably knew it was off. Having put the chair in place and left the note, he probably left through the butler's door. It was seen to be hanging open on the 26th. Although who knows for certain, how many people living in that type of house would tend to leave outside doors hanging open, in winter?

[vicktor]

Yep, let's throw Mervin Pugh back under the bus again, like that family hasn't suffered enough because they had the misfortune of knowing the Ramsey's. Gee, don't forget Mervin was a porno star involved in child porn too....Yeah, right....



Now that you mention it, wasn't LHP writing a tell all book, some 6+ years after the fact, the first chapter of which appeared a few months ago. Dealt with Patsy's confessions and sexual adventures. Although the Pughs don't deserve any (more) bad fortune, there is a balance.

[Britt]

Britt: What was the alleged intruder's purpose in blocking the train room door...?

Vicktor: He was trying to make his point of entrance less obvious.
Why? What difference would that make once he'd kidnapped his victim and left the ransom note? It's not like they wouldn't notice there'd been an intruder. And why bother with a chair? Why not just shut the door? If he were trapped in the basement by an awakened Ramsey, how would that chair blocking that door have helped him in the least? And wouldn't an out-of-place chair in itself draw attention?

Most likely case is that he carried the RN upstairs after the crime was finished.
How'd he do that when he wrote the note on Patsy's pad in the home? Remember, the pad matching the ransom note pages, and even including a practice note, was found right there in the kitchen. Do you mean, he wrote the note in the kitchen, then took it downstairs, then brought it back up to leave it?

Having put the chair in place and left the note, he probably left through the butler's door.
But what does the chair blocking the train room door have to do with it? What did that accomplish?

[tezi]

Now that you mention it, wasn't LHP writing a tell all book, some 6+ years after the fact, the first chapter of which appeared a few months ago. Dealt with Patsy's confessions and sexual adventures. Although the Pughs don't deserve any (more) bad fortune, there is a balance.


I haven't heard anything else about the book, except for the first chapter. IMO, it was nothing compared to what Susan Bennett did to the Pugh's. :furious:

[K777angel]

Please explain just what this "gone bad" scenario in the alleged kidnapping of JonBenet might have been. It's a term thrown around constantly by the Ramsey sympathizers - but one that is NEVER demonstrated in any theory.

There is a reason a plausible explanation for just HOW it "went bad" is never given. Because it makes absolutley NO SENSE. Sounds good on the surface,
but upon any kind of scrutiny or serious consideration it must be tossed out.

The things done to JonBenet alone are evidence that this crime was not a "kidnapping" gone bad - but a sexual molestation gone bad.
There was too much time spent with her and at the crime scene to consider some scenario of a 'kidnapping' suddenly interrupted and 'gone bad.'

The evidence and facts show that the perp did a number of things to JonBenet and his/her final act with her body was to WRAP HER UP in her blanket - on top of a blanket that was laid out. This is the direct opposite
of a kidnap scenario.
Now this is so very important to think about. Why would someone intent on entering a home in such a bold and risky fashion, on Christmas night no less -
to kidnap a small child and leave a ransom note - then go down into the farthest and most remote room within a room in the house (thereby TRAPPING HIMSELF with no escape!) - and lay a blanket down on the floor to rest JonBenet on? The blanket WAS there. She WAS lain upon it by the perp.
It makes absolutely NO SENSE that his motivation was kidnapping - no! - it was molestation - no! - now it's murder. Schizo theory this "kidnapping gone bad."

As all the FBI and forensic experts have said: Kidnappers for ransom have money as their motivation.
Sexual perverts have molestation as their motive.
The 2 do not mix.
Neither of those motivation are evident in this crime.
NO money was ever attempted to be collected.
The molestation done to JonBenet compared to what TRUE sexual predators do - was minor and timid. No pervert entered that home with that intention.
The note alone refutes that by it's very existence. And the evidence at the crime scene alone refutes what the NOTE was trying to get everyone to believe.

The Ramsey sympathizers try and roll too many things into this phantom intruder and it does not fit and makes no sense.
There is just no evidence that any attempt was ever made to kidnap JonBenet - let alone evidence of a kidnapping 'gone bad.'

Something went bad alright - but it was the molestation and subsequent head blow that set this crime and staging in motion. Not the bogus and
ridiculous 'kidnapping' angle that in fact opposed the EVIDENCE at the scene so blatantly that it gave the ruse away.

[BrotherMoon]

I beg to differ.

Very, very little of the evidence (the condition of the body and the note) has anything to do with sex. Even the damage to the vagina was slight. Researchers of rape speak of the act as having more to do with power than sex.

The garotte was not a sexual device, it's final postion suggests it's purpose was the same as the wrist ligature; holding a body part in a pose. Sex is ancillary to the more fundamental idea of USE, control and manilpulation of one person by another.

Sex IS a factor in the use of JonBenet by her mother as the oversexuallization evident in the pageants illustrates.

BUT! Ultimately, the gratifaction sought by the use of JonBenet has more to do with the establishment and maintenance of identity; psychological survival, life and death of a personal image. Take a look at Patsy's life, sex was not one of the driving forces. She dated late, she dated older males, she married an older man, she was somewhat frigid in her marriage. She developed a competent sexual image for her pageants for the purpose of acceptance and social position only.

None of the so-called staging was done for discovery by police but rather was done for personal reasons by and for the perp, Patsy Ramsey.

[Barbara]

Please explain just what this "gone bad" scenario in the alleged kidnapping of JonBenet might have been. It's a term thrown around constantly by the Ramsey sympathizers - but one that is NEVER demonstrated in any theory.

There is a reason a plausible explanation for just HOW it "went bad" is never given. Because it makes absolutley NO SENSE. Sounds good on the surface,
but upon any kind of scrutiny or serious consideration it must be tossed out.

The things done to JonBenet alone are evidence that this crime was not a "kidnapping" gone bad - but a sexual molestation gone bad.
There was too much time spent with her and at the crime scene to consider some scenario of a 'kidnapping' suddenly interrupted and 'gone bad.'

The evidence and facts show that the perp did a number of things to JonBenet and his/her final act with her body was to WRAP HER UP in her blanket - on top of a blanket that was laid out. This is the direct opposite
of a kidnap scenario.
Now this is so very important to think about. Why would someone intent on entering a home in such a bold and risky fashion, on Christmas night no less -
to kidnap a small child and leave a ransom note - then go down into the farthest and most remote room within a room in the house (thereby TRAPPING HIMSELF with no escape!) - and lay a blanket down on the floor to rest JonBenet on? The blanket WAS there. She WAS lain upon it by the perp.
It makes absolutely NO SENSE that his motivation was kidnapping - no! - it was molestation - no! - now it's murder. Schizo theory this "kidnapping gone bad."

As all the FBI and forensic experts have said: Kidnappers for ransom have money as their motivation.
Sexual perverts have molestation as their motive.
The 2 do not mix.
Neither of those motivation are evident in this crime.
NO money was ever attempted to be collected.
The molestation done to JonBenet compared to what TRUE sexual predators do - was minor and timid. No pervert entered that home with that intention.
The note alone refutes that by it's very existence. And the evidence at the crime scene alone refutes what the NOTE was trying to get everyone to believe.

The Ramsey sympathizers try and roll too many things into this phantom intruder and it does not fit and makes no sense.
There is just no evidence that any attempt was ever made to kidnap JonBenet - let alone evidence of a kidnapping 'gone bad.'

Something went bad alright - but it was the molestation and subsequent head blow that set this crime and staging in motion. Not the bogus and
ridiculous 'kidnapping' angle that in fact opposed the EVIDENCE at the scene so blatantly that it gave the ruse away.

So nice to see you back and posting Angel. A nice voice of reason and needed as you make a point I hadn't thought to ask.

Perhaps Maikai will be so kind as to come and explain exactly what she means by "gone bad". Perhaps not.

[K777angel]

Thank you Barbara dear. :p Nice to have a day off today!

I'm still waiting to see the 'gone bad' theory laid out as to just how it is thought it could have happened. And, just as importantly - that it FITS the known facts and evidence.

Me thinks the wait will be long....

[Shawna]

Risk management companies are starting to offer ransom and kidnapping insurance to their clients. Can you imagine the Ramsey's walking into an insurance place after the murder occured saying "a foreign faction kidnapped our daughter, we need money to buy that nice boat we always wanted"? :D

http://www.aon.com/us/busi/risk_management/risk_transfer/kidnap_ransom.jsp

[tezi]

Risk management companies are starting to offer ransom and kidnapping insurance to their clients. Can you imagine the Ramsey's walking into an insurance place after the murder occured saying "a foreign faction kidnapped our daughter, we need money to buy that nice boat we always wanted"? :D

http://www.aon.com/us/busi/risk_management/risk_transfer/kidnap_ransom.jsp

Shawna,

I would not put anything past John Ramsey!!!! :angel:

[vicktor]

Why? What difference would that make once he'd kidnapped his victim and left the ransom note? It's not like they wouldn't notice there'd been an intruder. And why bother with a chair? Why not just shut the door? If he were trapped in the basement by an awakened Ramsey, how would that chair blocking that door have helped him in the least? And wouldn't an out-of-place chair in itself draw attention?





Its one of those things that doesn't add or subtract a lot from what was found. But then the intruder did a lot of unusual things. Could be a situation opposite to what was first suggested. Maybe by placing the chair, but leaving the suitcase and leaving the butlers door open he was tacitly pointing to his entrance and exit.

He had to have borrowed the notepad either before or after the R's got home and took it downstairs. I've always wondered if there was 2 similar pads stacked in the kitchen, so that if one was missing it would never be noticed. The note almost had to be written downstairs, probably as the R's went upstairs and went to sleep. It doesn't make sense for him to bring the note up (maybe he returned the pad) until leaving because if it was discovered it would compromize his escape and might allow him to be identified by JB or a Ramsey if they saw him running away. If that had happened and he was later caught and positively id.ed, he probably could have "retired" in prison.

[vicktor]

Risk management companies are starting to offer ransom and kidnapping insurance to their clients. Can you imagine the Ramsey's walking into an insurance place after the murder occured saying "a foreign faction kidnapped our daughter, we need money to buy that nice boat we always wanted"? :D

]

No, I honestly can't. But perhaps John approached his life insurance agent early in 1996, and asked him if he could take out a large term policy on JB. Seeing as how the rates are good on young people he would have got a super deal.

[Islander]

Thank you Barbara dear. :p Nice to have a day off today!

I'm still waiting to see the 'gone bad' theory laid out as to just how it is thought it could have happened. And, just as importantly - that it FITS the known facts and evidence.

Me thinks the wait will be long....

That’s a good question. What did go bad? The “so called” kidnapper allegedly was able to break into the Ramsey house unnoticed, take the time to scout out the interior of the house and to write a rather lengthy ransom note, and then creep into JB’s bedroom and remove her to the basement without waking any of the Ramseys. So far so good, he’s got his target under his control, and nothing went bad. Are we to believe that this is where his kidnapping plan ended, that he went to all that trouble and risk, only to have no idea how to remove JB from her house to a pre-selected location? Some kidnapping plan. :)

[Shylock]

Are we to believe that this is where his kidnapping plan ended, that he went to all that trouble and risk, only to have no idea how to remove JB from her house to a pre-selected location? Some kidnapping plan. :)
This is why the whole intruder theory is too stupid to even consider. Yes, that's right, as soon as Mr. Intruder had accomplished everything he had set out to do (except leave the house with her), he changes his mind and decides it will be more beneficial to his "foreign faction" if he slightly molests and murders her....

[Barbara]

Thank you Barbara dear. :p Nice to have a day off today!

I'm still waiting to see the 'gone bad' theory laid out as to just how it is thought it could have happened. And, just as importantly - that it FITS the known facts and evidence.

Me thinks the wait will be long....

You just might be retired by the time you get that theory! :)

[Britt]

Its one of those things that doesn't add or subtract a lot from what was found.
But you can't dismiss something like that if you want to legitimize an intruder theory. The chair blocking the door is very important because you have to explain: why would an intruder bother to do that? The obvious answer IMO is that he wouldn't. Not only did it serve no purpose whatsoever, it would probably make it easier for a house occupant to catch/trap the intruder in the basement.

The alternative is that it was a Ramsey who blocked the door with the chair. But how would you fit that into an intruder theory? Or is John lying about the chair in his discussion with Smit?

Or perhaps a Ramsey left the chair there - maybe Burke, after playing in the train room - and the intruder never used the basement window at all ? I guess if I were an IDI theorist I'd go with this one, since John claims to be the one who broke the window in the first place.

But then the intruder did a lot of unusual things.
Well that's a convenient rationalization for everything intruder theorists can't explain - "who knows why this maniac did what he did?" etc - however, "unusual" or not, what the intruder did has to make sense unless you're only interested in illogical fantasy-based theories.

Maybe by placing the chair, but leaving the suitcase and leaving the butlers door open he was tacitly pointing to his entrance and exit.
And why oh why would he do this?

[Cherokee]

[Kidnapping Gone Bad] ... Why is this motive so hard to believe?

1. Because Patsy wrote the ransom note. Why would Patsy try to kidnap her own child?

2. There are no signs of an intruder, much less one that spent hours in the Ramsey house.

3. The Ramseys didn't follow instructions in the ransom note not to "talk" to anyone, thereby letting us know they didn't believe it was real from the very beginning.

4. Kidnappers don't molest, and molesters don't write fake ransom notes.

5. The Ramseys refused to cooperate with the investigation, and were more concerned with their "image" ... choosing to go on national TV rather than answers pertinent LE questions.

6. When asked investigative questions, Patsy lied, claimed she forgot, didn't know, and used every evasive tactic in the book.

7. The Ramseys said they wanted to know "why" JonBenet had to die, not "who" killed her ... because they already knew the "who."

8. The Ramseys didn't spend the rest of their lives trying to find JonBenet's killer as they said they would, or helping other victims of crime. They couldn't even keep up a website in honor of JonBenet, or keep the fraudulent SHOES foundation going. Why? Because they know it's all for nothing. They know there was no intruder and no killer loose, therefore, they have no motivation to spend the time, money and effort it takes to continue "the search" or be involved in crime victim issues.

These are just reasons off the top of my head that show JonBenet's death was no "kidnapping gone bad." There are many more.

What happened in the Ramsey household was "family dynamics gone bad." The Ramseys, contrary to what they'd have us believe, were not the perfect family. Dysfunction was at the core.

As I've said before, both Patsy and John were more concerned with "image" than "substance." Their big house, their planes and boats, their country club connections, their self-centered use of Christianity, their pageant winning daughter ... EVERYTHING in their lives was window dressing. It covered an ugly secret. Nothing in the Ramsey's life was what it seemed. The image they created for themselves became their god. What happened to JonBenet was sacrificed to that god. The image HAD to remain reality.


IMO

[Britt]

4. Kidnappers don't molest, and molesters don't write fake ransom notes.
Cherokee, excellent post.

Question for kidnapping-gone-wrong theorists: Did the intruder(s) intend to kidnap JB and collect the $118,000?

[K777angel]

I'm still waiting to hear at what point in this kidnapping did it "go wrong"?

If this is what you believe - that it was a 'kidnapping gone wrong' - then you are forced to admit that the crime scene left was exactly where he LEFT OFF
when it "went wrong." And is precisely why it makes absolutely no sense.
There is nothing at that crime scene and NO facts or evidence that indicate that any went wrong at all. In fact - it went perfectly well. Just exactly as the stager in her/his/their panic set it up.

A scene that had 'gone bad' might be one where they made it half way across the living room floor heading for the EXIT door (like any true kidnapper would be doing) and JonBenet was able to let out a big scream and in his panic he dropped her and grabbed a nearby object and whacked her in the head to shut her up. Then either picked her up and high-tailed it out the door - or left her where she was in fear of now getting caught.

But this is NOT what some intruder left in his 'gone bad' panic.
Instead - we are to believe that this kidnapper went upstairs and took JonBenet from her bed, walked down the stairs with her, set her down on the floor so he could lay out the 3 pages of letter he wrote, picked her back up, and .... ran out the door? No! He stayed IN THE HOUSE - goes down to the dark basement and found his way into a dark room where he trapped himself with her and no way to escape should someone happen upon him - and then proceeded to do all that was done to her leaving her on a blanket he spread out on the dirty floor to lay her on and wrapped her up in another blanket with her Barbie nightie laid close next to her! This is NOT the work of someone who came to that home to kidnap a child for R-A-N-S-O-M!!

The only thing "gone bad" in this whole sad crime is that justice was never served. That poor little girl death has never been avenged.
The Ramseys know who killed her.
The police know who killed her.
The DA's office know who killed her.
Why the double H toothpicks (as my dear mom used to say) isn't there someone with enough guts to come up against the whimps of Boulder and PROSECUTE????
Where is Vincent Bugliosi when we need him????? :boohoo:

[Maikai]

So nice to see you back and posting Angel. A nice voice of reason and needed as you make a point I hadn't thought to ask.

Perhaps Maikai will be so kind as to come and explain exactly what she means by "gone bad". Perhaps not.

I've been gone a few days......haven't had time to read all the posts.....

By "gone bad"......it means something went wrong, because this was an amateur who hadn't really thought things out. Perhaps JBR was struggling too much---much more than anticipated, and the garotte was constructed as a means of control...me may have gotten angry and reacted in anger, and killed her. I don't think he was cool, calm and collected, but operating on adrenalin, and fearful of detection. If the window was the only exit the perp could be sure was unarmed, he would have to figure out how to get her out that window, along with himself.

[Barbara]

I've been gone a few days......haven't had time to read all the posts.....

By "gone bad"......it means something went wrong, because this was an amateur who hadn't really thought things out. Perhaps JBR was struggling too much---much more than anticipated, and the garotte was constructed as a means of control...me may have gotten angry and reacted in anger, and killed her. I don't think he was cool, calm and collected, but operating on adrenalin, and fearful of detection. If the window was the only exit the perp could be sure was unarmed, he would have to figure out how to get her out that window, along with himself.

While I admire your stamina in this "gone bad" theory, let's take it apart and see if it makes sense.

JBR struggling......................so in a PANIC he finds a paintbrush, finds a rope, and CONSTRUCTS a garrotte?????? This takes time if you have a victim struggling AND you are fearful of detection. If you are a male perp struggling with a SIX YEAR OLD GIRL, would it take that much time and effort to control her? In your theory as well, you swear he had a stun gun, so why take the time to construct something when you can just stun her again?

Now you say he was not cool, calm and collected, and in this semi sense of panic and fear of detection. Yet he took the time to wipe her down and wrap her up in a "papoose-like" manner. Who would do that in a time of panic and fearing detection?

Fear of detection: Yet he laid in wait for hours in the Ramsey house. With a fear of detection, he would have to wait a lot longer than he did to know the family was asleep.

When a house is alarmed, and you go IN through a window and no alarm sounds, any person with a brain will then know that there is no alarm set. If a window is already open, then you also know there is no alarm. Alarms are set to ANY and ALL points of entry. When the window is unalarmed, the rest of the house is also unalarmed. He spent all those "hours" in the Ramsey house, getting familiar with the layout (if it is a stranger) so he would already know there was no alarm and no need for that window (a red herring BTW). If it was someone more familiar with the Ramseys, then they would already know there was no alarm, no dog, no need to enter or exit through a window. In either scenario, the "perp" would not need to take a child out of a window, when there were so many doors, UNalarmed

We spend a lot of time explaining why the intruder theories don't make sense and I give you a lot of credit for coming back time and time again to answer questions and clarify your theories, but I really hope that when things are explained via a different viewpoint, that of the intruder DID NOT do this, that it is not just wasted time to argue with some of us, but you really take it in and think about it. Not that we are determined to change your mind, but I do hope you at least have some question marks in your mind when things are explained from a different stance.

If you are just providing arguments so that you can go back to Webbsleuths and criticize us, where of course, we cannot respond, or just to add material to the juvenile BORG threads that are a way of life over there, then that is not being very nice. If you are really trying to expand your knowledge, then we are happy to help.

[K777angel]

I've been gone a few days......haven't had time to read all the posts.....

By "gone bad"......it means something went wrong, because this was an amateur who hadn't really thought things out. Perhaps JBR was struggling too much---much more than anticipated, and the garotte was constructed as a means of control...me may have gotten angry and reacted in anger, and killed her. I don't think he was cool, calm and collected, but operating on adrenalin, and fearful of detection. If the window was the only exit the perp could be sure was unarmed, he would have to figure out how to get her out that window, along with himself.

Maikai - please re-read what you wrote and really THINK about what you are proposing. Think about it with the known facts and evidence in this case.
I'll give you a head start. You suggest maybe JonBenet was "struggling too much" so the 'kidnapper' constructed the garrotte to control her.
Now THINK about what you are suggesting. In order for this to have occurred, the kidnapper picked up JonBenet from her bed and carried her down
stairs. (Now please tell me WHEN and HOW he laid those 3 pages of ransom note on those stair steps. Couldn't have been before he went up to get her as he'd step on them on the way down encumbered with the body of JonBenet. Then you must think he set JonBenet down on the ground and went to find the 3 pages of note he wrote and came back to lay them across the stair tread? This question MUST be answered by the intruder theorists.)
Ok, so he carries her down stairs and I guess we neglect the note placement
here - but instead of high-tailing it OUT the door, he heads down to the basement with her? Huh?? WHY? And we KNOW that no one exited out the window down there because John Ramsey found a chair shoved up against the door to that room. Unless this intruder is a ghost - how did he enter into the room with the window and manage to shove a chair up against the door on the other side of the door in the hallway?? This is a FACT that door was there. Along with the undisturbed dirt on the window well and the spider webs across the well - you can forget this exit for the 'kidnapper.'
But we KNOW he was down there. JonBenet was found there.
Why - if he didn't exit from the basement (and remember according to you intruder theorists, he had 'hours' to roam the house and plan where he would escape from) did he choose to go down to the basement at all??
Not to mention into the only room down there where he was TRAPPED while he did all those awful things to JonBenet.
You say he constructed the garrotte as JonBenet was 'struggling' more than he anticipated. Wait - I thought she was stun-gunned? She wouldn't have struggled at all.
Also, the cord & stick mechanism were constructed down in the basement.
So in your 'gone bad' theory, because we KNOW she was taken downstairs instead of out the door - the question of WHY he chose to go downstairs at all must be answered. It wasn't to exit because he DIDN'T exit from down in the basement. The chair, dirt and spiderwebs attest to this.
So why DID he then go down the stairs and not out the door to meet up with his fellow foreign faction to celebrate the retrieval of their ransom victim?
Afterall - this is supposed to be the whole purpose according to the note intruder theorists claim the kidnapper wrote. To kidnap and collect $118K in ransom money from John Ramsey.

To think an intruder theory through with the facts and evidence just does NOT work. On many, many levels.
And there is a very good reason it does not work - because it did not happen.

This was a familial homicide. For whatever reasonthat it took place in the house that night. The staging was obvious. The note makes it even more obvious that Patsy Ramsey was involved in the very least the staging of the crime.

Again, when attempting to show how it was a kidnapping 'gone bad' - it simply makes it more obvious that it was not. That scenario cannot fit the facts of the crime and make it work.

I

[Islander]

When a house is alarmed, and you go IN through a window and no alarm sounds, any person with a brain will then know that there is no alarm set. If a window is already open, then you also know there is no alarm. Alarms are set to ANY and ALL points of entry. When the window is unalarmed, the rest of the house is also unalarmed.

Barbara: I agree with your basic premise that an intruder, once in a house, can determine if an alarm system is armed. However, it is not always correct to say that if a window is unalarmed, the entire house is unalarmed. Whether all windows are armed depends, to a large degree, on what the security company recommends.

When we had our security system installed, the security company recommended alarming all of our exterior doors but very few exterior windows. In lieu of window alarms, they recommended motion detectors since we have no young children or pets. Motion detectors, at least in our system, can be armed independently of the doors and windows. Ironically, the security company recommended we not get our basement alarmed. Their position was that there was very little to steal in the basement, and if an intruder could get through the locked interior door leading to the first level of the house a motion detector would detect his presence.

Lou Smit stated that an intruder selected the infamous basement window to enter the house because it did not have a security sign on it. What Smit conveniently ignored is that alarm systems will most likely incorporate motion detectors to ensure adequate coverage when all windows and doors are not armed. In the Ramsey case, an intruder entering through the window would have had to worry about motion detectors not only in the basement, but also in upper levels of the house. If he made it to the first floor without the alarm going off, he could be pretty sure the motion detectors were not armed. By looking at the alarm control box usually mounted on a wall by the front door, he could probably determine if the windows and doors were armed. In other words, there would be no need for him to slither out the window. He could have, as you have suggested, simply walked out the front door.

[Britt]

By "gone bad"......it means something went wrong, because this was an amateur who hadn't really thought things out.
Thought what things out? Again I ask: Did the intruder(s) intend to kidnap JB and collect the $118,000?

If the window was the only exit the perp could be sure was unarmed, he would have to figure out how to get her out that window, along with himself.
Then why did he block the door to that room with the chair from the hall side, thereby eliminating that window as an escape route? Even Lou Smit couldn't make sense of that.

Barbara and K777angel covered the rest. Ditto what they said/asked.

[Shylock]

However, it is not always correct to say that if a window is unalarmed, the entire house is unalarmed.
I agree. Any intruder that saw a security system on the doors or windows would run like hell. He would have no way of knowing if he had tripped a motion detector and a silent alarm had already been called into the police.

Furthermore, someone already in the house would have no way of knowing if the alarm would be set when the family arrived home and went to bed.

[Barbara]

Thanks Islander and Shylock,

I stand corrected on that issue of alarms.

As Islander pointed out, you could have options with alarms, but I also, given her point would wonder what salesman would recommend motion detectors with small children AND a dog? Good point Islander

Shylock, you bring up an excellent point that didn't occur to me until you mentioned it. Serendipity! How would this intruder know that he hadn't tripped a "silent" alarm, given the theory that he entered the house and waited around? Pretty risky, no?

And the point about setting the alarm before going to bed is another excellent point I hadn't thought of.

What a smart imaginary intruder we have!

[Britt]

What a smart imaginary intruder we have!
And telepathic, too :)

[Maikai]

Maikai - please re-read what you wrote and really THINK about what you are proposing. Think about it with the known facts and evidence in this case.

I

Only the intruder can fill in the lines between the dots. The known facts are there was a ransom note, and JBR was found brutally assaulted in a room in the basement, and there is evidence it was an intruder. There could have been more than one---which might explain the open butler door,and the bat found on the north side of the house. Something happened in the basement that changed the plan to murder. It could be panic.....rage.....or a combination. Entering the house, and taking JBR from her bed seems somewhat organized....the basement crime scene seems disorganized.

[Maikai]

Thanks Islander and Shylock,

I stand corrected on that issue of alarms.

Shylock, you bring up an excellent point that didn't occur to me until you mentioned it. Serendipity! How would this intruder know that he hadn't tripped a "silent" alarm, given the theory that he entered the house and waited around? Pretty risky, no?

And the point about setting the alarm before going to bed is another excellent point I hadn't thought of.

What a smart imaginary intruder we have!

Not so smart---he saw the stickers and knew there "might" be an alarm. He knew enough about alarms to know a broken window isn't armed. Many security systems are set up so there's a call back first---so--if the phone didn't ring, he may have thought he didn't trip an alarm. I don't think he was really sure about the windows and doors--which is why he went out the same way he came in.

[Shylock]

Not so smart---he saw the stickers and knew there "might" be an alarm. He knew enough about alarms to know a broken window isn't armed.
I don't know what decade you're living in Maikai, but all modern alarm systems have a "fault" mode. An open or broken window will show up as a "fault" and you can tell the system to ignore it and arm itself normally.

And that still wouldn't tell him if he had tripped a motion detector and activated a silent alarm, OR if the Ramseys would turn the alarm on when they arrived home.

And why don't you explain to us how the world's greatest intruder also knew the Ramseys were not going to stop at the airport and arrive home with a half-dozen other family members they picked up for the holidays.

It's the little things that prove there was no intruder...

[Maikai]

I don't know what decade you're living in Maikai, but all modern alarm systems have a "fault" mode. An open or broken window will show up as a "fault" and you can tell the system to ignore it and arm itself normally.

And that still wouldn't tell him if he had tripped a motion detector and activated a silent alarm, OR if the Ramseys would turn the alarm on when they arrived home.

And why don't you explain to us how the world's greatest intruder also knew the Ramseys were not going to stop at the airport and arrive home with a half-dozen other family members they picked up for the holidays.

It's the little things that prove there was no intruder...

If the dog had been home.....if the Ramseys had left a day early.....if there would have been a houseful of guests....if they did have a motion detector...and on and on. A lot of things could have occurred and the crime wouldn't have happened. The little things don't prove there was no intruder, because none of what you posted occurred. The alarm wasn't set, and there was not a houseful of guests. If he did gain access earlier, after the Ramseys left for the White's, he could have sat back and waited for the phone to ring---if there was an answering machine, he would have heard the alarm company calling. Sure the rest of the house could have been armed, but he knew the broken basement window was not armed. He might not have known if the alarm was set after they went to bed--which is why he planned on going back through the basement.

[Barbara]

If the dog had been home.....if the Ramseys had left a day early.....if there would have been a houseful of guests....if they did have a motion detector...and on and on. A lot of things could have occurred and the crime wouldn't have happened. The little things don't prove there was no intruder, because none of what you posted occurred. The alarm wasn't set, and there was not a houseful of guests. If he did gain access earlier, after the Ramseys left for the White's, he could have sat back and waited for the phone to ring---if there was an answering machine, he would have heard the alarm company calling. Sure the rest of the house could have been armed, but he knew the broken basement window was not armed. He might not have known if the alarm was set after they went to bed--which is why he planned on going back through the basement.

Just for the record and certainly food for thought:

There are a lot more "ifs" and "mights" in the intruder theory than the other theories.

Again, Maikai, this was obviously a very clever and astute intruder to be aware of all that. The "amateur" doesn't really apply when you listen to the intruder theories carefully enough. Also, not every alarm company calls first. My security system at work automatically calls the police.

[Shylock]

There are a lot more "ifs" and "mights" in the intruder theory than the other theories.

And don't forget Barbara, this intruder was also a genetic scientist who was able to split his own DNA and leave a partial profile at the crime scene.

[Maikai]

Just for the record and certainly food for thought:

There are a lot more "ifs" and "mights" in the intruder theory than the other theories.

Again, Maikai, this was obviously a very clever and astute intruder to be aware of all that. The "amateur" doesn't really apply when you listen to the intruder theories carefully enough. Also, not every alarm company calls first. My security system at work automatically calls the police.

Just think of all the things that don't happen, because of the what ifs. Businesses and residences operate differently. Most residential systems have the company calling the resident first, because of all the false alarms. It doesn't mean someone couldn't be tied directly to the police station----it doesn't mean the intruder wasn't cognizant that an alarm might go off. It wasn't set, so it wasn't even an issue.

[Cherokee]

And don't forget Barbara, this intruder was also a genetic scientist who was able to split his own DNA and leave a partial profile at the crime scene.


:doh: Of course! That explains it. Here we've been told the intruder was some alley dwelling bum who thought he was a foreign faction ... but no! He was a genius in genetic engineering.

It's either that, or the intruder was a mutant without the full complement of human DNA.

No wonder the Ramseys don't want to know WHO killed JonBenet.



IMO

[Nedthan Johns]

Why is this motive so hard to believe? There's several reasons to think this crime was as it appears to be. An attempted kidnapping that went bad, because the perps were amatuers. We have:

*The note
*Several accessible ways into the home, with the most obvious the broken basement window
*Evidence that JBR was subdued and controlled
*Recent publicity in the newspaper that JR was a billionaire (not true, but that was the impression)
*A trophy-type child, who was touted in early articles as a former Little Miss Colorado. There would have been plenty of evidence of this in the house.

Once the idea was planted, the rest falls in place. The hastily constructed garrote could have been done as a form of control....there could have been more than one, and one bailed out early, leaving one with a struggling child--and in too deep to get out, if the perp was in a state of panic. If one, the same scenario---things had gotten out of hand, and he didn't know how to get out of it. The two-perp scenario makes sense to me because two together may do what one alone wouldn't have the nerve to--they would feed off of each other

Ned: Maikai, what I have gathered from your posts over the years is the urgency of understanding. You really go back and forth regarding this crime, which leads me to believe you are connected to the family in some fashion. Which is great, I am glad you are trying to understand and make sense of it all. It’s hard for me as well to grasp why ANY parent would do this to a child. It’s MUCH EASIER to believe an intruder did it, because NO one wants to believe parents would behave like this. Let’s review your comments above: You say the crime is “As It Appears To Be” wells lets discuss that for a minute. We have a ransom note with no kidnapped body. So it’s not really a kidnapping. We have sexual abuse, but with an object, NOT with penial penetration, so a sort of simulated rape. We have 2 injuries to the child, both of which would have killed her? So why the need to create 2 murder weapons? You state the perps were amatuers. If they were so amaturish how were they able to enter and exit the house without being seen, making noise, or leaving any evidence at all? You also go on to state we have:

*The note ( the note is the one piece of evidence that directly links Patsy Ramsey to this crime. Even experts on the Ramsey’s side could not rule her out and most agree it was most likely written by a woman. No one IMO needs to be an expert to see the simularities between Patsy’s and the ransom note writing. It’s common sense on this one.
*Several accessible ways into the home, with the most obvious the broken basement window. That window was the LEAST accessable and NOT an easy way to enter the house, altough well hidden was certainly the WORST way to exit the house when the intruder could have simply walked out the door.
*Evidence that JBR was subdued and controlled NO evidence at all that JBR was subdued or controlled. The ropes tied on her wrists were not tight enough to subdue a dog let alone a struggling screaming child. There is absolutely NO evidence to suggest a stun gun was used on JB except for Lou Smits loose theory from photographs that one MAY have been used. Even the own manufacturor of the air taser stun gun disagrees with him. This agreeument wouldn’t stand up in a court room. It’s Lou’s soft spokeness that wins him votes in this respect. He knows he cannot prove this theory 100%. There is already 2 cases that we posted about Maikai that shows 2 small children who were stun gunned in the recent months and neither one was subdued or passed out. IN fact just the opposite, they screamed even more.
*Recent publicity in the newspaper that JR was a billionaire (not true, but that was the impression) LOL Well if that was the motive, why didn’t these amatuer kidnappers at least try to collect their ransom?
*A trophy-type child, who was touted in early articles as a former Little Miss Colorado. There would have been plenty of evidence of this in the house. Sure there would have been, so what was the motive then for the intruder Maikai? Money? NO. Pedophile? NO. Just for the fun of it? What did the intruder get out of all the hours he spent in the Ramsey home?

[Maikai]

to make the DNA eligible for submittal into the national data bank......DNA that was found in a blood spot previously untested. Saying the Ramseys don't want to know who killed their daughter is absolutely untrue.

:doh: Of course! That explains it. Here we've been told the intruder was some alley dwelling bum who thought he was a foreign faction ... but no! He was a genius in genetic engineering.

It's either that, or the intruder was a mutant without the full complement of human DNA.

No wonder the Ramseys don't want to know WHO killed JonBenet.



IMO

[Cherokee]

to make the DNA eligible for submittal into the national data bank......DNA that was found in a blood spot previously untested. Saying the Ramseys don't want to know who killed their daughter is absolutely untrue.

Eligible or not, it was still not a full complement of markers. 9 1/2 markers is NOT anywhere near a full set of DNA. 13 markers is the MINIMUM of proof as set by the FBI to use in a court of law. That's the MINIMUM.

Do you know how small and minute that partial DNA sample has to be? To not be a complete set?

Do you know what it would take to split DNA and leave only a partial set of markers? It is almost impossible to do with primary transfer.

Secondary contaminated transfer? Maybe. Lab manipulation. Maybe.

Struggling with a child, hands all over her, bashing her head, putting a make-shift garotte around her neck, molesting her with a paint stick, wiping her down, tying rope around her wrists, puting a piece of duct tape over her mouth, placing her in a blanket and folding her up ... NOT A CHANCE!

There should have been primary transfer of DNA with all the contact between the "intruder" and JonBenet. Not some microscopic partial piece of hardly existant DNA.

Thousand year old mummies give us complete DNA. Partial DNA is not an easy thing to achieve.

Oh, and I left out two small words. I should have said "No wonder the Ramseys don't want THE WORLD to know who killed JonBenet." Thanks for the correction.



IMP

[vicktor]

The chair blocking the door is very important because you have to explain: why would an intruder bother to do that? The obvious answer IMO is that he wouldn't.

and the intruder never used the basement window at all ? I guess if I were an IDI theorist I'd go with this one,


Well that's a convenient rationalization for everything intruder theorists can't explain - "who knows why this maniac did what he did?" etc - however, "unusual" or not, what the intruder did has to make sense unless you're only interested in illogical fantasy-based theories.


And why oh why would he do this?

He didn't have to, but apparently did, so the conclusion is that he didn't leave by the basement window, and must have left thru the butlers door.

There are many cases every year of girls and young women abducted, raped sometimes abused, and killed by strangers. The perps do it because they enjoy it. A few will call or write to the police, taunting them. Same thing in the Ramsey case. The intruder decided he would try to take JB and assault her outside of others hearing. The note was written as a prop, where he pretends to be the bad guy out of crime movies, threatening someone. There are lots of burglars and car theives who enjoy the thrill of cops and robbers, the rush of getting away with something.

The "has to make sense" part speaks to motive. In murders police look for motive. Here, the only person to have a motive would have been John, IF HE WAS MOLESTING JB. Yet only 1/29 think John did it (so far). Thus the crime was likely one where there was no motive.

[Britt]

The "has to make sense" part speaks to motive. In murders police look for motive. Here, the only person to have a motive would have been John, IF HE WAS MOLESTING JB. Yet only 1/29 think John did it (so far). Thus the crime was likely one where there was no motive.
If you are willing to believe in a motiveless intruder with fantastical reasoning, then the same rationale must apply to a Ramsey-perp. You can't have it both ways. If the intruder requires no motive, then neither does a Ramsey.

However, since this was a staged crime with a "prop" ransom note, the relevant motive is self-preservation.

[vicktor]

If you are willing to believe in a motiveless intruder with fantastical reasoning, then the same rationale must apply to a Ramsey-perp. You can't have it both ways. If the intruder requires no motive, then neither does a Ramsey.

However, since this was a staged crime with a "prop" ransom note, the relevant motive is self-preservation.

It appears that that is true. The semantics of motive, is going to come in here somewhere also. In terms of motive, I was referring to committing the murder, rather than covering it up. IF the Ramseys were involved, of course they had motivation to stage and coverup. If an intruder did it, they also would have motivation for staging, if they felt it might deflect attention away from them. But the intruder probably wasn't thinking in terms of casting doubt in the R's direction.

[Britt]

If an intruder did it, they also would have motivation for staging, if they felt it might deflect attention away from them.
Why would a perp who was not known to be in the home in the first place need to "explain" the dead body? To deflect attention away from himself, he need only flee the scene leaving nothing behind.

[vicktor]

Why would a perp who was not known to be in the home in the first place need to "explain" the dead body? To deflect attention away from himself, he need only flee the scene leaving nothing behind.

O.K. that makes sense.

[Show Me]

What's so strange is the unprepared kidnapper/pedo HATED John sooo much....why the heck didn't he/they/neighborhood/foreign faction killed the sleeping John instead? The real target of his/hers/their anger?

Maikai...don't you find it ODD, John didn't even bother to mention the broken window or 'suspicious' van to the LE? Especially since he said he went looking thru the house for clues?

[BigAppleDetective]

It wasn't a ransom note. There was never a kidnapping. It was an EXHIBITIONIST'S note. She was an "Anonymous Letter Writer." The mentality of an anonymous letter writer is that of a sadistic controlling person who relishes ruining people's lives. She set out to ruin their lives, her own life and her mother's life. Patsy had NO MOTIVE to write a letter. Incompetents think Patsy wrote it. THEY are dumb as rocks. The handwriting - and it was written with the LEFT HAND - is that of a woman who has many similarities, aptitudes - interests and talents - the SAME as Patsy. Patsy was a journalism major, but the murderer writes sadistic porn and fanfiction for adolescent nerds who are obsessed with The Lord of the Rings and the Return of the King. Patsy loves decorating and costumes and glamour, and being the center of attention. Because Patsy is beautiful and charming and funny.
The murderer makes costumes, but she's homely and a wallflower and compensates by being an exhibitionist and wearing costumes and getting awards for them because she impresses these puerile nerds at Lord of the Ring conventions. Both women are college graduates. Both women fell in love with computer peripheral sales and marketing men. But Patsy MARRIED her guy, and the fiendish child-killing ***** murdered the beautiful daughter of her boyfriend's chief competitor just because this guy happened to say he didn't "like" him! And she said so in her stupid note. Now the boyfriend - who dumped her like a hot potato - is John Ramsey's old partner's NEW PARTNER. Yes friends - the chances of HER buddy becoming Ramsey's old partner's new partner - was about 10 in 7 Billion! [You have a better chance of winning the lottery!] But John Ramsey's star fell into the mud - and her sorry nerdy co-writer is now rich and successful. Do you know how unbelievably naive someone has to be to think NON-KIDNAPPERS leave 3 page ransom notes? Borderline psychotics who leave a trail of clues in their letters - leave notes. She also wanted to commit the crime of the century in Boulder Colorado in order to give the finger to the Boulder police department because they wouldn't hire her as a criminalist. She has many talents in common with Patsy. But Patsy is a decent HUMAN BEING and the perp is a devil-worshipping fiend. She's also into Vampires. [Google: Buffy + Cordelia + attache.] She sucked that little girl's blood [pin holes], PROBABLY took her DNA home too, and she took JonBenet's pulse, and monitored every tiny aspect of her death and TOLD HER OWN MOTHER in rich detail ABOUT THE PROCESS OF DYING because her MOM was obsessed with death for two years. And her mother loves repeating this crap on the internet, "The brain dies after the heart stops beating. The liver dies six hours later." "It was FUN to think about nothing but death for two years." She has multiple personalities and uses 5 different names. But she is NUMB to human feelings.
When she [her alter ego Scully] is told by X-files Muldaur that his little sister was kidnapped, her reply was, "You know what is WORSE? Being UNATTRACTIVE AS A CHILD."

[BrotherMoon]

It wasn't a ransom note. There was never a kidnapping. It was an EXHIBITIONIST'S note. She was an "Anonymous Letter Writer." The mentality of an anonymous letter writer is that of a sadistic controling person who relishes ruining people's lives. She set out to ruin their lives, her own life and her mother's life. Patsy had NO MOTIVE to write a letter. Incompetents think Patsy wrote it. THEY are dumb as rocks. The handwriting - and it was written with the LEFT HAND - is that of a woman who has many similarities, aptitudes - interests and talents - the SAME as Patsy. Patsy was a journalism major, and the murderer writes sadistic porn and fanfiction for adolescent nerds who are obsessed with The Lord of the Rings and the Return of the King. Patsy loves decorating and costumes and glamour, and being the center of attention.
The murderer makes costumes, but she's homely and a wallflower and compensates by being an exhibitionist and wearing costumes and getting awards for them because she impresses these puerile nerds at Lord of the Ring conventions. Both women are college graduates. Both women fell in love with computer peripheral sales and marketing men. But Patsy MARRIED her guy, and the fiendish childkilling ***** murdered the beautiful daughter of her boyfriend's chief competitor just because this guy didn't "like" him! And said so in her stupid note. Now the boyfriend - who dumped her like a hot potato - is John Ramsey's old partner's NEW PARTNER. Yes friend - the changes of her buddy becoming the old partner's new partner - was about 10 in 7 Billion! But John Ramsey's star fell into the mud - and her sorry nerdy co-writer is now rich and successful. Do you know how unbelievable naive someone has to be to think NON-KIDNAPPERS leave 3 page ransom notes? Borderline psychotics who leave a trail of clues in their letters - leave notes. She also wanted to commit the crime of the century in Boulder Colorado in order to give the finger to the Boulder police department because they wouldn't hire her as a criminalist. She has many talents in common with Patsy. But Patsy is a decent HUMAN BEING and the perp is a devil-worshipping fiend. She's also into Vampires. [Google: Buffy + Cordelia + attache.] She sucked that little girl's blood [pin holes], PROBABLY took her DNA home too, and she took her pulse, and monitored every tiny aspect of her death and TOLD HER OWN MOTHER in rich detail because her MOM was obsessed with death for two years. And her mother loves repeating this crap on the internet, "The brain dies after the heart stops beating. The liver dies six hours later." "It was FUN to think about nothing but death for two years."

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

[BigAppleDetective]

Sleep tight.