Page 4 of 48 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 14 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 716
  1. #46
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    188

    The Ransom Call

    Quote Originally Posted by docg View Post
    Excellent question! Good!

    I really can't see into John Ramsey's mind (thank God), but if he was as crafty as I think he was, his plan would have included a stopover at a phone booth, after going to the bank to collect the ransom cash. He'd have called his home phone and allowed his voice mail machine to take the call. He wouldn't have said anything, natch. Just kept the connection going for as long as possible. When he got home, he would have erased the "message." There would now be a record of a call to his home from a phone booth. This would be the "kidnapper's" call. Dangerous for sure. But he might have gotten away with it.
    I see the Ransom call as a hole in this theory because of the Ramsey’s refusal to release their phone records. Above is suggesting that JR would have used the phone records as a backup to the ransom call. Then why didn’t he want to release them to the police? Unless there is also an assumption that after PR called 911 and messed up his plan, JR then made a call that he wanted kept private?? I don’t think so. I think he made at least one call shortly after JBR death that he wouldn’t be able to explain later.


  2. The Following User Says Thank You to pistolina For This Useful Post:


  3. #47
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,462
    Quote Originally Posted by OpenMind4U View Post
    LOL...yes, RN sounds very childish or at the best, like some derail adult who cannot stop bla-bla-bla...In regards of your question, yes, according to Patsy's depo, she has some wine (if I remember this correctly). Plus, Patsy takes pretty strong medication on daily basis.
    I'm too lazy to look up Patsy's quotation right now but OM4U your statement above is how I remember it too.


  4. The Following User Says Thank You to BOESP For This Useful Post:


  5. #48
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    732
    Quote Originally Posted by dodie20 View Post
    Well, that note wasn't whipped out in a couple of minutes...taking into account, the practice notes, and what looks like back and forth referece checking, (books, bible, etc.), I think 90 minutes to get it written, sounds plausible. moo.
    Well, depends. As you remember from AR, JBR Bloomy and longjohn pants have the urine stain on the front which corresponds with urine stain on the carpet near WC, indicating that she dies (from strangulation) right at that spot, lying face down. So, all the cleaning, wiping her crotch area, changes her cloth, apply tape on her mouse, changing her position from being face-up to face-down, applying the rope/constructing 'garotte' on her neck should be done BEFORE the strangulation, agree? So, all of that should be done in these 90 minutes. Now, let's read RN again. Do you think RN was written before or after strangulation? Would you agree that such a 'promps' like 'garotte', robe on her neck and wrists, the tape on her mouse would more assosiated with the 'kidnapper' RN? If yes, then RN was written AFTER strangulation. Hence, reference to beheaded. JMO


  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to OpenMind4U For This Useful Post:


  7. #49
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    6,965
    Quote Originally Posted by docg View Post
    No holes. It could have worked, because there would have been NO evidence implicating anyone in the house. Why would LE expect to see direct evidence of a phone call, other than a record the call was made?

    And sure the police would have suspected something fishy. But without evidence how could they make a case?

    I'm curious. What do you make of that note? What do you think it was intended to achieve?
    docg,
    The ransom note is crime-scene staging. Its normally a mistake to generate theories using the staging as forensic evidence.

    I reckon the ransom note is nothing more than a diversion. It is someone's attempt at a dramatic ransom note, with the emphasis on drama. It was intended as a rationale for the disappearance of JonBenet, and in the main it achieved its purpose, too successfully for John, who eventually had to discover JonBenet.

    I reckon JonBenet had already been staged somewhere else in house probably her bedroom, in which the pink barbie nightgown and doll, played some role. Assuming the bedroom staging was basic, the R's must have realized they would be arrested on the spot, if they reported a dead JonBenet found assaulted in her bed.

    So they needed her to be removed from the primary crime-scene, allowing them to remove any incriminating forensic evidence, e.g. blood-stained underwear etc.

    So they cleaned up JonBenet, redressed her in the size-12's, white Gap-Top, longjohns, and wrapped her in a white blanket, then likely carried her down the spiral staircase to the basement?

    Also at the same point in time or slightly later they gathered up the items that were found lying next to JonBenet and dumped those along with JonBenet into the wine-cellar.

    So now its time to construct the ransom note which will justify dialling 911 and report a missing person. This is what it was intended to achieve.

    There are two main elements to the staging:

    1. Wine-Cellar.

    2. Ransom Note.

    Both combine to enact an Abduction Scenario. This was successful, nobody has been convicted and nobody knows much of what took place that night, precisely because the staging obsfucated the forensic evidence.

    So most amateur sleuths fill in the gaps left by the staging with their own hunches and conjecture, some is correct, mostly its simply guesswork.



    .


  8. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to UKGuy For This Useful Post:


  9. #50
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    141
    Quote Originally Posted by BOESP View Post
    I disagree. The archive and recent posts point out many holes in that theory and there is no need to repeat the posts. It takes a bit of effort to "research" the archives but it is a worthwhile effort in my view. It's up to docg to prove his theory instead of asking others to disprove it.
    I've done the research, BOESP. Can't find a single hole. What people call "holes" are often "unfounded, illogical theories" of their own.


  10. #51
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    732
    Quote Originally Posted by sandover View Post
    I've done the research, BOESP. Can't find a single hole. What people call "holes" are often "unfounded, illogical theories" of their own.
    Are you saying that people who doesn't agree with DocG theory didn't do the research or/and not capable to have the logical, founded theory on their own??!!! .....


    Sounds familiar: 'whoever is not with us - he/she against us!'...


  11. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to OpenMind4U For This Useful Post:


  12. #52
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    2,462
    Quote Originally Posted by sandover View Post
    I've done the research, BOESP. Can't find a single hole. What people call "holes" are often "unfounded, illogical theories" of their own.
    Asking others to "prove me wrong," which is what docg and Chrishope have asked, violates one of the first premises of logical theories.

    I am happy though that you understand docg's usage of "holes."


  13. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to BOESP For This Useful Post:


  14. #53
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    632
    Quote Originally Posted by sandover View Post
    I've done the research, BOESP. Can't find a single hole. What people call "holes" are often "unfounded, illogical theories" of their own.
    Sandover, did you see my question to DocG above regarding the ransom note handwriting and Patsy recognizing it or not?

    If you missed it, would you mind reading it, and let me know your thoughts on it?

    Haven't got a response from DocG yet, but afraid it might get looked over or go unnoticed....


  15. #54
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Whaleshark View Post
    DocG,

    Quick question -

    If you think John would have wanted to get rid of the note by saying the kidnappers asked for it back, because he wouldn't want his handwriting recognized by the police... And the note was for Patsy to find, etc....

    Do you think she would not have, or did not recognize his handwriting?

    P.S. - ....Surely if we think we recognize John's handwriting and verbiage based on writing samples of his that we have seen, and what we know about him, then Patsy must know her own husband's handwriting and verbiage as well?
    I've wondered about this. If PR wrote the note, JR should have recognized the writing and vice versa. I've also wondered why the note wasn't written in print, or typed, or as dramatic as it all was, why weren't the letters cut from magazines and glued on? This isn't really a hole in the JR theory, but it is something to consider...PR said it was her idea to call 911, while JR says it was his. Well, in an interview, BR backed up JR's version, and said he overheard his parents talking and it was his dad who said the cops needed to be called. For the JR theory to hold up, we have to assume that BR was lying, and to tell you the truth, that's when theories start getting into trouble. I've read all kinds of detailed theories, about what led to this and what happened next, but really, in the 911 situation, there's not much room for speculation, because BR backed up his father, not his mother. moo


  16. #55
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    632
    ...I already read your blog.... I have been an open proponent to your theory...

    But basically, you are saying Patsy didn't recognize his handwriting, and/or didn't want to, but we do...

    Just wanted your reasoning on that....

    However, I do think some could see a significant hole with this..

    ...just saying.


  17. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Whaleshark For This Useful Post:


  18. #56
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    732
    Quote Originally Posted by docg View Post
    My guess is that he was probably working on the note. Apparently the head blow didn't kill her, so when he returned to the body he'd have noticed she was still breathing. I think he must have decided to finish her off by strangling her, but was afraid to touch her directly for fear his prints or DNA might be found. Which would explain the ligature strangulation. The "garotte" was imo not staging but a crude tool to make the strangulation easier.

    All the above is just guess work since we have no way of telling what actually happened or what was going through his (very sick) mind.
    In another word, you think that RN was written before the strangulation, right?


  19. #57
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,878
    Quote Originally Posted by BOESP View Post
    Asking others to "prove me wrong," which is what docg and Chrishope have asked, violates one of the first premises of logical theories.

    I am happy though that you understand docg's usage of "holes."
    When have I asked anyone to prove me wrong?
    I'm just playing detective here. I have no idea who killed JonBenet. It's just an opinion.


  20. #58
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,878
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy View Post
    KoldKase,

    Exactly!

    Fibers from the parents are to be found on JonBenet. Patsy's at various locations and John's on JonBenet's crotch. Claiming secondary transfer for that is absolute nonsense. The evidence is simply being tailored to fit the theory.
    You keep misunderstanding, and I'm not sure why. No one is saying that it was secondary transfer. We are saying there is no way to tell. It could be primary, or it could be secondary. With no way to tell, PR's fiber evidence is inconclusive.

    Again I'll ask you if you know of a way to determine whether the fibers were transferred by primary or secondary contact, please share that with us.

    The evidence is not being tailored. We are simply pointing out that the red jacket fibers are inconclusive.

    Then there is the requirement for John to make a ransom demand phone call. How does he get a pass to leave the house in the first place, never mind be alone if he did, surely LEA would want to monitor him?

    Of course LEA would wiretap the call, if JR ever thought this one through, he would have recognized immediately that it would fall down at this point. Bear in mind wiretapping would convey the location of the phone booth, and likely lead to JR being arrested on the spot. Epic Fail!

    So to the ransom note and its many incarnations, all left behind, this does not sound like John, he is more methodical than that.

    Then there is the size-12's. If Patsy is ignorant about the size-12's, why is she covering for John by fabricating stories about placing the size-12's into JonBenet's underwear drawer, yet when LEA look into the drawer, there are no size-12's to be seen?

    Its an interesting theory, and no doubt JR probably thought about something similar. Relocating JonBenet outdoors would have lent the abduction theory so much more credibility.

    For me it has far too many holes, it requires patches and provisos alike secondary transfer, or LEA allowing JR to wander the streets.

    When its manifestly obvious that the R's cobbled the wine-cellar crime-scene together fairly quickly, dumping JonBenet and other evidence in there, out of sight.

    They expected JonBenet to be found reasonably quickly. And they likely were simply going to wing it, play it by ear, with the help of their legal team, and whatever else money could buy. They patently never anticipated the incompetence of the BPD, and Det. Arndt asking JR to search for JonBenet!

    If you follow JR's public comments on the case you can see, by stepwise refinement, as he goes from an inside job to slowly constructing an intruder, a message he obviously conveyed to Lou Smit. Who then presented the media with a psychotic pedophile who had a fetish for Erotic Asphyxiation, e.g. justifying the garrote.



    .
    I'm just playing detective here. I have no idea who killed JonBenet. It's just an opinion.


  21. #59
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,878
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy View Post
    KoldKase,

    Exactly!

    Fibers from the parents are to be found on JonBenet. Patsy's at various locations and John's on JonBenet's crotch. Claiming secondary transfer for that is absolute nonsense. The evidence is simply being tailored to fit the theory.
    You keep misunderstanding, and I'm not sure why. No one is saying that it was secondary transfer. We are saying there is no way to tell. It could be primary, or it could be secondary. With no way to tell, PR's fiber evidence is inconclusive.

    Again I'll ask you if you know of a way to determine whether the fibers were transferred by primary or secondary contact, please share that with us.

    The evidence is not being tailored. We are simply pointing out that the red jacket fibers are inconclusive.

    Then there is the requirement for John to make a ransom demand phone call. How does he get a pass to leave the house in the first place, never mind be alone if he did, surely LEA would want to monitor him?

    Of course LEA would wiretap the call, if JR ever thought this one through, he would have recognized immediately that it would fall down at this point. Bear in mind wiretapping would convey the location of the phone booth, and likely lead to JR being arrested on the spot. Epic Fail!

    So to the ransom note and its many incarnations, all left behind, this does not sound like John, he is more methodical than that.

    Then there is the size-12's. If Patsy is ignorant about the size-12's, why is she covering for John by fabricating stories about placing the size-12's into JonBenet's underwear drawer, yet when LEA look into the drawer, there are no size-12's to be seen?

    Its an interesting theory, and no doubt JR probably thought about something similar. Relocating JonBenet outdoors would have lent the abduction theory so much more credibility.

    For me it has far too many holes, it requires patches and provisos alike secondary transfer, or LEA allowing JR to wander the streets.

    When its manifestly obvious that the R's cobbled the wine-cellar crime-scene together fairly quickly, dumping JonBenet and other evidence in there, out of sight.

    They expected JonBenet to be found reasonably quickly. And they likely were simply going to wing it, play it by ear, with the help of their legal team, and whatever else money could buy. They patently never anticipated the incompetence of the BPD, and Det. Arndt asking JR to search for JonBenet!

    If you follow JR's public comments on the case you can see, by stepwise refinement, as he goes from an inside job to slowly constructing an intruder, a message he obviously conveyed to Lou Smit. Who then presented the media with a psychotic pedophile who had a fetish for Erotic Asphyxiation, e.g. justifying the garrote.



    .
    I'm just playing detective here. I have no idea who killed JonBenet. It's just an opinion.


  22. The Following User Says Thank You to Chrishope For This Useful Post:


  23. #60
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,878
    Quote Originally Posted by UKGuy View Post
    KoldKase,

    Exactly!

    Fibers from the parents are to be found on JonBenet. Patsy's at various locations and John's on JonBenet's crotch. Claiming secondary transfer for that is absolute nonsense. The evidence is simply being tailored to fit the theory.
    You keep misunderstanding, and I'm not sure why. No one is saying that it was secondary transfer. We are saying there is no way to tell. It could be primary, or it could be secondary. With no way to tell, PR's fiber evidence is inconclusive.

    Again I'll ask you if you know of a way to determine whether the fibers were transferred by primary or secondary contact, please share that with us.

    The evidence is not being tailored. We are simply pointing out that the red jacket fibers are inconclusive.

    Then there is the requirement for John to make a ransom demand phone call. How does he get a pass to leave the house in the first place, never mind be alone if he did, surely LEA would want to monitor him?

    Of course LEA would wiretap the call, if JR ever thought this one through, he would have recognized immediately that it would fall down at this point. Bear in mind wiretapping would convey the location of the phone booth, and likely lead to JR being arrested on the spot. Epic Fail!

    So to the ransom note and its many incarnations, all left behind, this does not sound like John, he is more methodical than that.

    Then there is the size-12's. If Patsy is ignorant about the size-12's, why is she covering for John by fabricating stories about placing the size-12's into JonBenet's underwear drawer, yet when LEA look into the drawer, there are no size-12's to be seen?

    Its an interesting theory, and no doubt JR probably thought about something similar. Relocating JonBenet outdoors would have lent the abduction theory so much more credibility.

    For me it has far too many holes, it requires patches and provisos alike secondary transfer, or LEA allowing JR to wander the streets.

    When its manifestly obvious that the R's cobbled the wine-cellar crime-scene together fairly quickly, dumping JonBenet and other evidence in there, out of sight.

    They expected JonBenet to be found reasonably quickly. And they likely were simply going to wing it, play it by ear, with the help of their legal team, and whatever else money could buy. They patently never anticipated the incompetence of the BPD, and Det. Arndt asking JR to search for JonBenet!

    If you follow JR's public comments on the case you can see, by stepwise refinement, as he goes from an inside job to slowly constructing an intruder, a message he obviously conveyed to Lou Smit. Who then presented the media with a psychotic pedophile who had a fetish for Erotic Asphyxiation, e.g. justifying the garrote.



    .
    I'm just playing detective here. I have no idea who killed JonBenet. It's just an opinion.


Page 4 of 48 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 14 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Chaos Theory-A Unified Theory of Muppet Types
    By Jacie Estes in forum Up to the Minute
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-09-2012, 12:21 PM
  2. Fire in the hole - New teen fad?
    By Paladin in forum Up to the Minute
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 08-10-2007, 05:21 PM
  3. Ozone Hole May Disappear by 2050
    By Dark Knight in forum Up to the Minute
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05-24-2006, 07:39 PM
  4. OK WHO poked a hole in the sky?????
    By blueclouds in forum Bizarre and Off-Beat News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-17-2004, 11:43 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •