09-04-2006, 12:21 PM #1Registered User
- Join Date
- Aug 2006
I've read enough! Ramseys done it.
I've read enough! I'm new to this case and have been going through accounts and reports for only a few days and I've already firmed to a RDI position with a hypothesis. It seems clear enough to me.
The ransom note is the thing to consider. From the start I figured that the ransom note must be the key. While all else is muddled, the perp has been good enough to provide three solid pages of clues. I think the note gives 'em away. Or rather the clue that gives the whole thing away, in my opinion, is that Patsy reported that she came down the spiral stairs and when she saw the note she thought it was a note from the housekeeper.
For me - that's bingo! There's the key!
Ramseys did it. Not sure why or which of them, but there they are on the night of 26th Dec. with a dead daughter. They decide to cover up the crime (or accident). Their plan is to set up a kidnapping scenario to implicate their housekeeper.
The whole purpose of the ransom note is to immediately point to the housekeeper. Its position at the base of the stairs suggests the housekeeper, too.
Forget the body for now. Imagine you are at the crime scene that morning. Girl gone. Ransom note. No sign of forced entry. JR insists all is intact. Yet the cops present think something is not right about the scene. They sense staging of some kind.
The question to ask is - "Staged to lead the cops to what conclusion?" What do the Ramseys want the cops to think?
The answer is - staged to lead the cops to suspect the housekeeper and/or people connected to her.
This is all the Ramseys have got. They figure they there is a chance they might be able to direct the cops to the housekeeper. The housekeeper had asked for a loan of $2000 from the Ramseys on 24th Dec. When Jonbenet was killed on the 25th/early 26th, this request provided the Ramsey's with a plan. Who had a motive so they could try to frame them? The housekeeper had a financial motive. Try to frame her. Its not a brilliant plan, but all they've got.
The whole kidnapping scenario is designed to point to the housekeeper. Consider:
*Patsy mistakes the ransom note for a note from her housekeeper. Direct identification.
*The note is written to suggest that the author knows the Ramseys but is envious of their wealth. (fat cat!)
*The note refers to $118,000, an allusion to Ramsey's Christmas bonus. Who might know this? The housekeeper might know their business.
*Patsy tells cops that the handwriting in the note reminds her of the housekeeper's handwriting.
*John insists that he personally secured the house and that nothing had been unlocked or broken into. He wants to lead the cops to the conclusion that someone with a key must have done it. Who? Housekeeper. When cops ask him "Who else had a key?" he immediately suggested the housekeeper.
*The use of pen and paper from the house suggests the housekeeper. Note that JR offered the notepad to the cops when they requested writing samples. He wanted them to find it. Who would know where writing utensils are located in the house? Housekeeper. (Expected to write a note to remind them about the money.)
*When asked who had a key to the house Patsy stated, "The only person in Colorado with a key is my housekeeper Linda Hoffman-Pugh.”
*Arndt questioned Patsy on who might be responsible for the kidnapping. Patsy offered the housekeeper. "Linda asked to borrow money from me on December 24. She needed $2,000 – for family dental work, I think. I was suppose to leave her a check on the kitchen counter before we left for Michigan."
The whole scene is designed to point at the housekeeper! I think that is all you need to know.
Question: Where did you find the note maam?
Answer: I came down the spiral stairs. When I saw the note I thought it was a note from the housekeeper, and....
Enough said right there. The note is phoney and the Ramseys want to direct the investigation to the housekeeper.
That's my reading of it for what it is worth.
When the housekeeper-did-it ruse doesn't work the Ramseys go for an anonymous-intruder-did-it. After that they got lucky.
The ransom note itself is a deliberate piece of dissimulation. It suggests various motives. Political. Financial. Personal dislike of JR. It is incoherent in this sense. But it is designed to point to the housekeeper. That much is coherent. The equation of the ransom note with the anticipated note from the housekeeper is the key to understanding this piece of dissimulation.
Again: The whole scene is designed to point at the housekeeper! I think that is all you need to know. on that basis, Ramseys done it. Why and exactly how? Don't know. But in the ransom note and the staging of the kidnapping they were pitching the whole thing so the cops would suspect the housekeeper. Has to be Ramseys.
09-04-2006, 12:51 PM #2Registered User
- Join Date
- Aug 2006
In another thread JBean writes:
"I guess IMO for the R's to go to such elaborate lengths to stage a kidnap/murder, including that dadgum RN,but to fail to make a clear POE is just another oddity of the case. Seems it would be first on the agenda, espcially if they said the house was locked up."
I couldn't work that out either, but there is a perfectly logical answer to that. It was important that there was no forced entry. This could only point to someone with a key. Listen to Patsy's words that morning:
"The only person in Colorado with a key is my housekeeper Linda Hoffman-Pugh.”
The staging of the kidnapping with RN to point to the housekeeper required that there be no point of entry. When the housekeeper plan fails, then the Ramseys change their approach. At first it was - "No, no. No sign of forced entry. I checked the doors and windows myself." But later the story of the broken window is developed to sow doubt about intruders because the housekeeper story didn't hold.
09-04-2006, 12:51 PM #3
Interesting Post! My husband came up with similar conclusions with little research of the case as well. I attribute it to the 'problem solving male mind'. Generally, males, or at least the ones I am surrounded by, see a problem, assess it, solve it, and are finished with it.
Eventually, the R's seemed to attempt to cast suspicion on everyone imanigable to remove suspicion from themselves. In interviews, they did eventually state that there were several housekeys floating around. They said that their neighbors had been given at least one key possibly two when they 'lost' one key. These were to be used by the R's in case they accidently locked themselves out of the house. Melinda had a key and so did JAR, if my memory serves me correctly.
Patsy saying when she saw the note on the spiral staircase and assumed it was from the housekeeper concerning the $2,000.00 she needed to borrow from the R's NEVER struck me as being odd, until reading your post.
It is approximately 5:50AM when PR discovers the note. The housekeeper was not at the home when the R family went to bed around 10:00 PM the night before. The picture of the staircase shows that PR used this staircase during the evening of the 25th because the reasonably large clear plastic bag of clothing she packed to take to Mich. is placed in front of and a little to the side of the bottom stair. She placed it there shortly before going to sleep according to her statements. It is about 5:50AM!!! When did PR think the housekeeper could have or would have logically placed the 'note about the money she wanted to borrow' on the spiral staircase?
And another thing....that bag of clothes is sitting at the bottom of the spiral staircase, partially blocking the stairs seriously causes me to ponder. If an intruder were using those precarious spiral stairs for something as serious as going undetected in order to carry a child down, don't you think he/she would have kicked the bag over so as not to block his/her safe, careful exit down the stairs?
You see... I'm one of those 'female types' who has to dig deep, tear every shread apart and put it back together before I can 'solve a problem'...
09-04-2006, 01:00 PM #4Registered User
Originally Posted by angelwngs
- Join Date
- Aug 2006
09-04-2006, 01:01 PM #5hanger
Originally Posted by Plenum7
- Join Date
- Aug 2005
09-04-2006, 01:02 PM #6Registered User
- Join Date
- Jul 2006
Your theory make alot of sense Plenum.
The two gentlemen may very well be the housekeepers husband and his friend.
The R's may have thought that LHP was with her husband on Christmas and that their alibi would not be strong enough with only the two 'suspects' giving alibi to eachother.
09-04-2006, 01:03 PM #7Originally Posted by Plenum7
There are people sitting on death row with less evidence against them.
The biggest problem is did Patsy do the crime or was she covering it up. That is why this case will never be truly solved.
09-04-2006, 01:16 PM #8Originally Posted by Plenum7
I am with you on this one...Excellent point that the R's 1st pointed to the housekeeper having a key 'in order to make it look as if the housekeeper did it and then when that plan fell apart they altered their plan'. Since the R's did NOT point out an "obvious and unquestionable" point of entry for an intruder, I concluded one of two scenerioes 'could have' happened.
1. Someone who hated JR, using a key they made sometime earlier entered and exited the home on the 25th-26th. They had studied the R family intensely including the interior of the home, their habits, schedules likes and dislikes, even down to JBR's favorite nightgown, PR's handwriting. They chose the 25th of Dec.to add to the pain this event would inflict upon JR, with Christmas being a 'happy family time', and then they miraculously planted evidence to make it look as if the R's did it and perfectly exicuted the crime.
2. The other is much simpler, more believable, and more logical. The R's did it. (1, 2 or 3 of the R's could have been involved) If so, it most likely began as an accident or an act of rage) either having been covered up by them afterwards.
The shortest distance between two points is a straight line....
Your notice of the 1st responses about the KEY issue only convinces me more that #2 is most probable and that the housekeeper and her husband were initially intended to be the perps.
Thanks for your posts!
09-04-2006, 01:26 PM #9Originally Posted by Tricia
Wayne Williams. Atlanta Child "Killer". Evidence: Fibers
(But then Wayne Williams didn't have much money for a team of lawyers. He did not personally know many officials in infleuencial positions such as LE, DAs, or governors.) Hummm....
09-04-2006, 01:51 PM #10
"If you are trying to implicate someone,wouldn't you want to make sure they didn't have a solid alibi?"
I think they knew her habits enough to take the chance.
"I think if they did it they would want to broaden it to any intruder."
They TRIED! They named everyone and his brother!
"There are people sitting on death row with less evidence against them."
Those people didn't have million-dollar lawyers who happened to be business partners with the DA!
"Wayne Williams. Atlanta Child "Killer". Evidence: Fibers"
This is a revelation. I never came at it from the idea that they were trying to stick it on someone specific.
09-04-2006, 01:59 PM #11Registered User
- Join Date
- Aug 2006
Great post. And it does explain the point of entry mystery.
09-04-2006, 02:05 PM #12
Yes, it does, doesn't it?Hi, I'm SuperDave. I do BAD things to BAD people.
Vae Victus! (May the conquered suffer!)
Celerem vindictam manu! (Swift hand of vengeance!)
09-04-2006, 02:12 PM #13
This is a revelation. I never came at it from the idea that they were trying to stick it on someone specific.[/QUOTE]
Me too! I'm thankful for the fresh new perspectives here! It was so obvious and we all missed it! Originally, "they" apparently WERE trying to 'stick it to someone specific.'
Reasonable Doubt... Two little words that hold such a wide spectrum of Boulder Blunders:
~keys to the home, (easily reproduced at any hardware store or gas station)
~no DNA match
~a compromised crime scene
~fibers belonging to family members living in the same home
~a contrived crime scene, which, no matter how absurd and uncharacteristic, WORKED! (whether an intruder did it or the R's did it...it WAS contrived and it has accomplished its intent to create enough confusion as to create reasonable doubt, so far.)
09-04-2006, 02:29 PM #14Registered User
- Join Date
- May 2006
Plenum--well done--excellent posts
09-04-2006, 02:29 PM #15Registered User
My problem with your theory is this.If you are trying to implicate someone,wouldn't you want to make sure they didn't have a solid alibi?
- Join Date
- Jun 2005