1022 users online (222 members and 800 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 33
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    342

    I've had it!

    So, the small foreign faction will gain victory if John gets them $118k. I've looked high and low and I just don't get it! Perp, you failed! No victory; no moral point to your action.

    But you sure know how to obfuscate, in the note and maybe after?

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by Rupert
    So, the small foreign faction will gain victory if John gets them $118k. I've looked high and low and I just don't get it! Perp, you failed! No victory; no moral point to your action.

    But you sure know how to obfuscate, in the note and maybe after?
    You probably didn't want me to reply but I will anyway. Is your problem that you don't know why the $118k was included in the note? Are you sick of reading all these posts but can't stop it? I am here to help.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    342

    Help!

    Quote Originally Posted by aussiesheila
    You probably didn't want me to reply but I will anyway. Is your problem that you don't know why the $118k was included in the note? Are you sick of reading all these posts but can't stop it? I am here to help.
    Aussiesheila,
    Thanks for your kind words.

    Yeah, I need help. Maybe you have the answer, but I think I need the perp to give us a further clue (peacefully please!) that can hook this thing once and for all. I mean what is the complaint? Why did the S.B.T.C Group have to killl JonBenet?

    118,000 people died by bombing somewhere in a 3rd world country?
    118,000 children were working in an asian sweatshop making Barbie dolls for Christmas?
    Does the Garrote / Bash have to do with some winter solstice Irish / Celtic ritual for spell casting?
    What's with the Esprit magazine mark-up? What does a bonus of $118 have to do with sweatshop Barbies?
    Whatever other dumb theory?

    A puzzle is useless, unless it can ultimately be figured out.

    Actually, my main point is that if an intruder did it, the perp failed to get his message clearly across. That suggests a good chance that there was simply no point at all. Therefore, it was just a collage of coverups: "We" becomes "I". The perp was no stellar activist; just a pervert. Given post crime behaviour, anyone could have done this and no wonder the R's were dogged by suspicion.

    If it was an intruder with a political point to make, the perp failed to get the message across. Using Bluecrab's word: "obfuscation", I then conclude that was all that was intended by the note. Chances are then that it was either an intruder or family member that had knowledge of all these coincidences (bonus, groups, barbie doll, ...) and kidnap movie crime quotes.

    If it was somebody sooooo.... close to the family, then why hasn't one of them figured it out by now?

    I certainly enjoy reading all the posts. It's been good to meet you folks through this cyber world. You all care for another human who didn't get to live her life.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Rupert
    Aussiesheila,
    Thanks for your kind words.

    Yeah, I need help. Maybe you have the answer, but I think I need the perp to give us a further clue (peacefully please!) that can hook this thing once and for all. I mean what is the complaint? Why did the S.B.T.C Group have to killl JonBenet?

    118,000 people died by bombing somewhere in a 3rd world country?
    118,000 children were working in an asian sweatshop making Barbie dolls for Christmas?
    Does the Garrote / Bash have to do with some winter solstice Irish / Celtic ritual for spell casting?
    What's with the Esprit magazine mark-up? What does a bonus of $118 have to do with sweatshop Barbies?
    Whatever other dumb theory?

    A puzzle is useless, unless it can ultimately be figured out.

    Actually, my main point is that if an intruder did it, the perp failed to get his message clearly across. That suggests a good chance that there was simply no point at all. Therefore, it was just a collage of coverups: "We" becomes "I". The perp was no stellar activist; just a pervert. Given post crime behaviour, anyone could have done this and no wonder the R's were dogged by suspicion.

    If it was an intruder with a political point to make, the perp failed to get the message across. Using Bluecrab's word: "obfuscation", I then conclude that was all that was intended by the note. Chances are then that it was either an intruder or family member that had knowledge of all these coincidences (bonus, groups, barbie doll, ...) and kidnap movie crime quotes.

    If it was somebody sooooo.... close to the family, then why hasn't one of them figured it out by now?

    I certainly enjoy reading all the posts. It's been good to meet you folks through this cyber world. You all care for another human who didn't get to live her life.
    Aunt Sheila's Advice Column:

    Dear Rupert,

    If you want to help yourself emerge from your agonies you must give up your foolish idea that the writer of the ransom note was who he/they purport to be.

    Try it, it may be difficult at first, but if you put plenty of effort into the task and achieve this goal you will be well rewarded, I promise you. All will become crystal clear and you will feel relaxed and comfortable.

    Then, if you take the next step and read the note again and can come to see it in the way I suggest, you will be a new man.

    If you start with the second paragraph where the instructions begin about the ransom amount, try to go with the idea that the $118,000 demanded by the 'kidnappers' was designed by the composer of the note to direct suspicion at an employee of Access Graphics as being one of the kidnappers.

    If you read the note further, you will see that the composer is trying to reassure John that it might take a long time for the 'kidnappers' to get in touch and that John should not try to rush things. If you think about this you will realise that the 'kidnapper' seems to be buying more time. I have to tell you now that the composer of the note was not a 'kidnapper'. Now this might come as a bit of a shock, but be strong, you can cope. The composer was covering up for a group of pedophiles who had been regularly abusing JonBenet and who had stupidly allowed a newcomer to join their group on Christmas night and who turned out to be a stungun wielding psychopathic killer. The note composer knew it might take some time to get JonBenet's body from where it was hidden in the cellar, out of the house undetected and dumped in a remote part of the mountains. So the composer was really buying time for the coverup.

    Once you have come to terms with this concept, continue reading to where the note moves on to the next important part of the strategy which is that the 'kidnapper' is aiming to frighten John into not calling the police. You can see can't you, that this might be much better for some kind of coverup plan if they could keep the police off the scene. What you must realise now is that the composer of the note was not the writer, this shouldn't be too difficult.

    So, if you will, take a look at the handriting. Do you notice how shaky it is? The writer seems to be trembling. Why? You wouldn't think it would be because he/she is nervous and fearful of getting caught otherwise why hang around for such a long time to write an uneccessarily long note? What about if I suggest to you that the writer is the mother of a girl who she knows has just been murdered and is writing under duress? Now I know this is the hardest bit to believe and it will take some time to accept. But you can do it if you try.

    OK so the mother is involved in the coverup. Got that? Not too much of a struggle I hope. Now, I'm sure you can appreciate that in spite of this, she is profoundly distraught and highly emotional. As you continue reading the note can you see her getting angry? This is her sick way of coping. She is angry at her husband who actually had nothing to do with any of this. But angry she is and she really lets fly, she even seems to be blaming him for what has happened, absolving herself of any responsibility. Are you beginning to see into her character now Rupert? This is very important, it is central to how a whole ugly situation was able to exist and ultimately culminate in her daughter's murder.

    Last little bit now. Hang in there. The end of the note. The mother has come to her senses momentarily. Oh yes, there is supposed to be a terrorist group responsible. Better add a 'Victory!' that will add a touch of authenticity.

    Back to herself again. 'S.B.T.C.' saved by the cross. A desperate plea for herself. She has betrayed her daughter, but she is a good Christian. She will survive all this, she hopes.

    Now will you survive Rupert? I hope you do and I hope I have helped

    Aunt Sheila

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    14,796
    Really good post, Aunt Sheila. I think you do have a clue.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    342

    Smile Hallelujia! I'm a New Man!

    Dear Auntie,

    I agree no kidnapper here.

    I concluded that the writer was trying to point away.

    If the $118,000 demanded by the 'kidnappers' was designed by the composer of the note to direct suspicion at an employee of Access Graphics, yeah then it's pretty simple.

    Yeah, the kidnapper is trying to buy more time.

    "The composer was covering up for a group of pedophiles who had been regularly abusing JonBenet and who had stupidly allowed a newcomer to join their group on Christmas night and who turned out to be a stungun wielding psychopathic killer." - okay this is where it gets shocking!

    But, I am aware of the local pedophile stories (even the Baptist guy).

    "The note composer knew it might take some time to get JonBenet's body from where it was hidden in the cellar, out of the house undetected and dumped in a remote part of the mountains."

    This is even more of a shocker!

    "What you must realise now is that the composer of the note was not the writer, this shouldn't be too difficult."

    That would fit with your theory (more than one, hence one dictation - OK)

    "What about if I suggest to you that the writer is the mother of a girl who she knows has just been murdered and is writing under duress?"

    OK, again consistent with your theory.

    "As you continue reading the note can you see her getting angry? This is her sick way of coping. She is angry at her husband who actually had nothing to do with any of this. But angry she is and she really lets fly, she even seems to be blaming him for what has happened, absolving herself of any responsibility. Are you beginning to see into her character now Rupert? This is very important, it is central to how a whole ugly situation was able to exist and ultimately culminate in her daughter's murder."

    Wow! If that is really what she is like, then yes it would explain it all. Weird. I have read of this theory before.

    I suppose Victory! could go with 'S.B.T.C.' saved by the cross."

    "A desperate plea for herself. She has betrayed her daughter, but she is a good Christian. She will survive all this, she hopes."

    Wild theory, but consistent. But why would JR go along with this? I am also aware that facts can be interpreted to fit theories.

    Thanks,
    Rupert

    One minor little thing: I note there was no period after S.B.T.C
    Chinese and Japanese use period as separator (of course in their own language). Maybe she knew this or just simply forgot the period.
    I guess I got a little too deeeep into this?

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Rupert
    But why would JR go along with this?
    IMO it wasn't a case of John 'going along with it', he slept through everything and it wasn't until Patsy 'found' the note and screamed at him that he became aware that anything was wrong. He genuinely thought JonBenet had been kidnapped right up until he found the body, if you believe my theory.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,670
    Quote Originally Posted by aussiesheila
    Aunt Sheila's Advice Column:

    Dear Rupert,

    If you want to help yourself emerge from your agonies you must give up your foolish idea that the writer of the ransom note was who he/they purport to be.

    Try it, it may be difficult at first, but if you put plenty of effort into the task and achieve this goal you will be well rewarded, I promise you. All will become crystal clear and you will feel relaxed and comfortable.

    Then, if you take the next step and read the note again and can come to see it in the way I suggest, you will be a new man.

    If you start with the second paragraph where the instructions begin about the ransom amount, try to go with the idea that the $118,000 demanded by the 'kidnappers' was designed by the composer of the note to direct suspicion at an employee of Access Graphics as being one of the kidnappers.

    If you read the note further, you will see that the composer is trying to reassure John that it might take a long time for the 'kidnappers' to get in touch and that John should not try to rush things. If you think about this you will realise that the 'kidnapper' seems to be buying more time. I have to tell you now that the composer of the note was not a 'kidnapper'. Now this might come as a bit of a shock, but be strong, you can cope. The composer was covering up for a group of pedophiles who had been regularly abusing JonBenet and who had stupidly allowed a newcomer to join their group on Christmas night and who turned out to be a stungun wielding psychopathic killer. The note composer knew it might take some time to get JonBenet's body from where it was hidden in the cellar, out of the house undetected and dumped in a remote part of the mountains. So the composer was really buying time for the coverup.

    Once you have come to terms with this concept, continue reading to where the note moves on to the next important part of the strategy which is that the 'kidnapper' is aiming to frighten John into not calling the police. You can see can't you, that this might be much better for some kind of coverup plan if they could keep the police off the scene. What you must realise now is that the composer of the note was not the writer, this shouldn't be too difficult.

    So, if you will, take a look at the handriting. Do you notice how shaky it is? The writer seems to be trembling. Why? You wouldn't think it would be because he/she is nervous and fearful of getting caught otherwise why hang around for such a long time to write an uneccessarily long note? What about if I suggest to you that the writer is the mother of a girl who she knows has just been murdered and is writing under duress? Now I know this is the hardest bit to believe and it will take some time to accept. But you can do it if you try.

    OK so the mother is involved in the coverup. Got that? Not too much of a struggle I hope. Now, I'm sure you can appreciate that in spite of this, she is profoundly distraught and highly emotional. As you continue reading the note can you see her getting angry? This is her sick way of coping. She is angry at her husband who actually had nothing to do with any of this. But angry she is and she really lets fly, she even seems to be blaming him for what has happened, absolving herself of any responsibility. Are you beginning to see into her character now Rupert? This is very important, it is central to how a whole ugly situation was able to exist and ultimately culminate in her daughter's murder.

    Last little bit now. Hang in there. The end of the note. The mother has come to her senses momentarily. Oh yes, there is supposed to be a terrorist group responsible. Better add a 'Victory!' that will add a touch of authenticity.

    Back to herself again. 'S.B.T.C.' saved by the cross. A desperate plea for herself. She has betrayed her daughter, but she is a good Christian. She will survive all this, she hopes.

    Now will you survive Rupert? I hope you do and I hope I have helped

    Aunt Sheila
    Do you seriously believe that Patsy Ramsey would cover up for a group of pedophiles who had not only sexaully abused, but also killed her daughter? But why?
    So you think Patsy pimped JonBenet to pedophiles? For this is the only logical reason if she was involved in a cover-up. For why do people cover up? Only if their own interests are involved.

  9. #9
    rashomon,

    Yes I do seriously believe that Patsy Ramsey would cover up for a group of pedophiles who sexually abused her daughter, because IMO they were her close friends and one was even a close relative.

    'Pimping' is the not an appropriate term here, I would describe it more as a case of 'turning a blind eye'. I have explained why she would do this in other of my posts. If I thought you were really interested I would look them up for you and list them.

    I should point out though that I do not think she was covering up for the KILLER. This person was not a regular member of the pedophile group, in fact, he was a complete newcomer and the regular group had not expected JonBenet to be killed, that was never their intent, IMO.

    There would have been no need for Patsy to have been involved in any coverup at all if the person who killed her had acted alone, and there had not been that group of pedophiles who had regularly abused JonBenet for years unwittingly allowing a killer to join them in one of their sessions with JonBenet IMO.

    ie Patsy was only involved in covering up for the pedophiles to whom she was close and their PRESENCE at the murder scene.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    2,996
    Jeez, you oppose the use of the word 'pimping' yet you believe Patsy covered up for those PRESENT at the murder scene and has kept quiet about the person guilty of killing her baby, even though she didn't know them?
    Above is my opinion only


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,399
    There's no way Patsy would allow her daughter to be used as a sexual toy for some group of pedophiles (where is the gain for her or JonBenet in that situation?), and there's no way she'd cover for some stranger. I believe she's covering something up, but not a pedophile ring that was abusing her daughter with her permission and assistance.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,670
    Quote Originally Posted by Nuisanceposter
    There's no way Patsy would allow her daughter to be used as a sexual toy for some group of pedophiles (where is the gain for her or JonBenet in that situation?), and there's no way she'd cover for some stranger. I believe she's covering something up, but not a pedophile ring that was abusing her daughter with her permission and assistance.
    My thoughts exactly.

    And aussisheila, you don't seriously think that Patsy would have put her pedophile 'friends' above her daughter (turning a blind eye to their abuse of JonBenet)? Isn't that completely absurd?

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by rashomon
    My thoughts exactly.

    And aussisheila, you don't seriously think that Patsy would have put her pedophile 'friends' above her daughter (turning a blind eye to their abuse of JonBenet)? Isn't that completely absurd?
    Actually rashomon, I think Patsy put herself ahead of her daughter all the time. I think Patsy was an extremely self-centred person and that her own social standing in Boulder with the wealthy elite was more important to her than whether or not JonBenet suffered 'a little bit of sexual abuse' as Nedra put it. Besides, I don't think Patsy considered 'a little bit of sexual abuse' as big deal. Since I think she suffered sexual abuse herself as a child, she saw it more or less as 'normal' IMO.

    So yes rashomon, I do seriously think that Patsy put her social standing with her pedophile 'friends' above her daughter. And I don't see it as an absurd suggestion at all.

    I am well aware the most people are of the same opinion as you rashomon, and I do really find it quite strange that there are people on this forum, the majority it seems; who are incredibly contemptuous of Patsy and who vilify her to the nth degree and have her bashing in the head of her own daughter, strangling her to death with a garotte, and sticking a paintbrush up her vagina; yet when I advance the theory that Patsy turned a blind eye to her daughter's sexual abuse that I don't think Patsy would ever have actually witnessed and probably only suspected because of JonBenet's health problems; people throw up their hands in horror, aghast at the thought that I could suggest such a thing. I don't get it.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    30,906
    Quote Originally Posted by aussiesheila
    Actually rashomon, I think Patsy put herself ahead of her daughter all the time. I think Patsy was an extremely self-centred person and that her own social standing in Boulder with the wealthy elite was more important to her than whether or not JonBenet suffered 'a little bit of sexual abuse' as Nedra put it. Besides, I don't think Patsy considered 'a little bit of sexual abuse' as big deal. Since I think she suffered sexual abuse herself as a child, she saw it more or less as 'normal' IMO.

    So yes rashomon, I do seriously think that Patsy put her social standing with her pedophile 'friends' above her daughter. And I don't see it as an absurd suggestion at all.

    I am well aware the most people are of the same opinion as you rashomon, and I do really find it quite strange that there are people on this forum, the majority it seems; who are incredibly contemptuous of Patsy and who vilify her to the nth degree and have her bashing in the head of her own daughter, strangling her to death with a garotte, and sticking a paintbrush up her vagina; yet when I advance the theory that Patsy turned a blind eye to her daughter's sexual abuse that I don't think Patsy would ever have actually witnessed and probably only suspected because of JonBenet's health problems; people throw up their hands in horror, aghast at the thought that I could suggest such a thing. I don't get it.
    Oh, I have no problem with the theory that Pasty turned a blind eye when it came to sexual abuse perpetrated on Jon Benet. I just don't think it was a pedophile ring.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    8,882
    Quote Originally Posted by Linda7NJ
    Oh, I have no problem with the theory that Pasty turned a blind eye when it came to sexual abuse perpetrated on Jon Benet. I just don't think it was a pedophile ring.
    pedophile ring is a general phrase used by the media to inflate stories, it may be more correct to suggest JonBenet suffered multiple abuse either in a social setting e.g. as part of a 'liberal lifestyle' or at the hands of individuals who may have been aware of each other but were operating independently.

    If there were prior sexual abuse, then it might explain the need for an extensive coverup, that goes beyond that of say a domestic homicide?

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast