The ransom note and staging

laini · Feb 16, 2007

This is something I have been thinking about and can't make sense of.

If the ransom note was written by the R's, then why stage this as a "sexual" assult? The ransom note says nothing about sexual motivations, etc.... It seems they could have staged the murder and used the ransom note (they, being the R's) without staging it as a sexual assult. If this was accidental or anger over bedwetting, then writing a kidnapping for $ note, then why do horrible things to your daughter's body when you don't have to? It doesn't have anything to do wtih the ransom note.

And if this was a sexual assult to begin with, then why a long ransom note saying nothing sexual. Am I making sense? :waitasec: Maybe because this was originally a sexual assault/molestation that got out of hand... and the sicko thought he could hide that it was sexual by making it look like a kidnapping gone bad? Maybe whoever did this wasn't smart enough to realize evidence of sexual abuse/assult would be found.

I go back and forth on all the theories. Nothing makes sense, and at tyhe same time every theory I read (well, almost every one) makes some sense. But I don't think a sexual assault would have been staged to cover an accident or head injury, because the ransom note said nothign sexual, so why would the R's do that to her body?

When I read all the stuff the Ramseys did do, didn't do, and things they said, I think it screams guilt. But when I see the photos of Jon Benet, I think there is no way they could have done this to her even in staging. How could they go on acting okay for years if they had done that?

On the other hand, how could they "not be angry" and want to "get on with their lives" right after she was murdered? No way!:doh:

Any thoughts?

JMO8778 · Feb 16, 2007

laini said:
On the other hand, how could they "not be angry" and want to "get on with their lives" right after she was murdered? No way!:doh:

Any thoughts?

that's it.

Solace · Feb 16, 2007

laini said:
This is something I have been thinking about and can't make sense of.

If the ransom note was written by the R's, then why stage this as a "sexual" assult? The ransom note says nothing about sexual motivations, etc.... It seems they could have staged the murder and used the ransom note (they, being the R's) without staging it as a sexual assult. If this was accidental or anger over bedwetting, then writing a kidnapping for $ note, then why do horrible things to your daughter's body when you don't have to? It doesn't have anything to do wtih the ransom note.

And if this was a sexual assult to begin with, then why a long ransom note saying nothing sexual. Am I making sense? :waitasec: Maybe because this was originally a sexual assault/molestation that got out of hand... and the sicko thought he could hide that it was sexual by making it look like a kidnapping gone bad? Maybe whoever did this wasn't smart enough to realize evidence of sexual abuse/assult would be found.

I go back and forth on all the theories. Nothing makes sense, and at tyhe same time every theory I read (well, almost every one) makes some sense. But I don't think a sexual assault would have been staged to cover an accident or head injury, because the ransom note said nothign sexual, so why would the R's do that to her body?

When I read all the stuff the Ramseys did do, didn't do, and things they said, I think it screams guilt. But when I see the photos of Jon Benet, I think there is no way they could have done this to her even in staging. How could they go on acting okay for years if they had done that?

On the other hand, how could they "not be angry" and want to "get on with their lives" right after she was murdered? No way!:doh:

Any thoughts?

It seems they are very understanding people.

santos1014 · Feb 16, 2007

I think...JMO...that once the staging all started..they lost track of things...thinking to themselves...OK...if she is kidnapped...there needs to be a ransom note.....if horrible,horrible things are done to her, most certainly things of a sexual nature...NOONE will NEVER believe that parent(s) could do that to their child...

and for many, many people...It worked..... Tis why they have so many supporters saying that exact thing.

To me, because the staging is in fact, so overblown, that is a giveaway as to who did it. .

Solace · Feb 16, 2007

santos1014 said:
I think...JMO...that once the staging all started..they lost track of things...thinking to themselves...OK...if she is kidnapped...there needs to be a ransom note.....if horrible,horrible things are done to her, most certainly things of a sexual nature...NOONE will NEVER believe that parent(s) could do that to their child...

and for many, many people...It worked..... Tis why they have so many supporters saying that exact thing.

To me, because the staging is in fact, so overblown, that is a giveaway as to who did it. .

I agree Santos. And is that not what the some of the grand jurors said, a parent would never do this.

coloradokares · Feb 16, 2007

santos1014 said:
I think...JMO...that once the staging all started..they lost track of things...thinking to themselves...OK...if she is kidnapped...there needs to be a ransom note.....if horrible,horrible things are done to her, most certainly things of a sexual nature...NOONE will NEVER believe that parent(s) could do that to their child...

and for many, many people...It worked..... Tis why they have so many supporters saying that exact thing.

Which is one of the reasons quite frankly for those with a sluething mentality over 2, you got to go :doh: What were they thinking. Just a bit overdone.......Patsy was nothing if not the master of "just a bit too much" I think they just started slinging mud in any direction and prayed something anything stuck. Whats inconceivable......apparently it worked.

laini · Feb 16, 2007

So what are your thoughts, everybody, on this... could this have been molestation that went too far. And the perv (family, friend, or otherwise) was not the proud type of child molester but was ashamed and made up the note to try to look like a kidnapping instead, the lesser of two evils in his mind than sexual molestation. I am curious why some don't think this is the case.

thanks!

santos1014 · Feb 16, 2007

laini said:
So what are your thoughts, everybody, on this... could this have been molestation that went too far. And the perv (family, friend, or otherwise) was not the proud type of child molester but was ashamed and made up the note to try to look like a kidnapping instead, the lesser of two evils in his mind than sexual molestation. I am curious why some don't think this is the case.

thanks!

I have so many mixed ideas about this case, it's hard to fit them together like a pretty playschool puzzle. I have definite ideas about the sexual abuse that JonBenet seems to have endured for some time, but then even that point has been thrown around so much, I am not sure where most stand on it now.
I am still uncertain what caused the horrific damage to her skull. I think I know, and then I change my mind. You think you have an idea, and then you go and look at it, and I agree with what another poster stated on another thread..its looks as though she had been shot, it is so extensive.
I go round and round in my head, but, in the end all I can do is follow and believe the forensics. Threads of P's sweater entwined IN the cord, the lack of evidence of any intruder, and (gasp) NO FOREIGN DNA. I do not care what anyone says about what is supposedly foreign DNA in her underpants...whoever did this would have left something of themselves on her......like some threads intertwined IN the knot of the cord.

again..JMO. Feel free to disect at will

BlueCrab · Feb 16, 2007

laini said:
On the other hand, how could they "not be angry" and want to "get on with their lives" right after she was murdered? No way!

laini,

Not much makes sense in this crime because, IMO, children were involved. It's the only way the whole Ramsey family was ready to forgive and get on with their lives. Every credible item of evidence fits this theory.

BlueCrab

Holdontoyourhat · Feb 16, 2007

laini said:
This is something I have been thinking about and can't make sense of.

If the ransom note was written by the R's, then why stage this as a "sexual" assult? The ransom note says nothing about sexual motivations, etc.... It seems they could have staged the murder and used the ransom note (they, being the R's) without staging it as a sexual assult. If this was accidental or anger over bedwetting, then writing a kidnapping for $ note, then why do horrible things to your daughter's body when you don't have to? It doesn't have anything to do wtih the ransom note.

And if this was a sexual assult to begin with, then why a long ransom note saying nothing sexual. Am I making sense? :waitasec: Maybe because this was originally a sexual assault/molestation that got out of hand... and the sicko thought he could hide that it was sexual by making it look like a kidnapping gone bad? Maybe whoever did this wasn't smart enough to realize evidence of sexual abuse/assult would be found.

I go back and forth on all the theories. Nothing makes sense, and at tyhe same time every theory I read (well, almost every one) makes some sense. But I don't think a sexual assault would have been staged to cover an accident or head injury, because the ransom note said nothign sexual, so why would the R's do that to her body?

When I read all the stuff the Ramseys did do, didn't do, and things they said, I think it screams guilt. But when I see the photos of Jon Benet, I think there is no way they could have done this to her even in staging. How could they go on acting okay for years if they had done that?

On the other hand, how could they "not be angry" and want to "get on with their lives" right after she was murdered? No way!:doh:

Any thoughts?

These are some good points, especially the sexual assault not reflected in the ransom note.

It might be helpful to consider that if a sexually assaulted and murdered 6 year old girl, with garrote and 2nd ligature still attached, were found in the desert, an investigator would probably conclude:

JBR was sexually assaulted and murdered (no accident)
The motive for murder was to prevent the victim from being able to identify her attacker.
The suspect is probably a male pedophile acting alone.

UKGuy · Feb 16, 2007

laini said:
This is something I have been thinking about and can't make sense of.

If the ransom note was written by the R's, then why stage this as a "sexual" assult? The ransom note says nothing about sexual motivations, etc.... It seems they could have staged the murder and used the ransom note (they, being the R's) without staging it as a sexual assult. If this was accidental or anger over bedwetting, then writing a kidnapping for $ note, then why do horrible things to your daughter's body when you don't have to? It doesn't have anything to do wtih the ransom note.

And if this was a sexual assult to begin with, then why a long ransom note saying nothing sexual. Am I making sense? :waitasec: Maybe because this was originally a sexual assault/molestation that got out of hand... and the sicko thought he could hide that it was sexual by making it look like a kidnapping gone bad? Maybe whoever did this wasn't smart enough to realize evidence of sexual abuse/assult would be found.

I go back and forth on all the theories. Nothing makes sense, and at tyhe same time every theory I read (well, almost every one) makes some sense. But I don't think a sexual assault would have been staged to cover an accident or head injury, because the ransom note said nothign sexual, so why would the R's do that to her body?

When I read all the stuff the Ramseys did do, didn't do, and things they said, I think it screams guilt. But when I see the photos of Jon Benet, I think there is no way they could have done this to her even in staging. How could they go on acting okay for years if they had done that?

On the other hand, how could they "not be angry" and want to "get on with their lives" right after she was murdered? No way!:doh:

Any thoughts?

laini,

If the ransom note was written by the R's, then why stage this as a "sexual" assult?

Just where did you get that idea?

The reason for the apparent lack of design, is its likely that there were multiple stagings, the last of which included the ransom note

It also highlights why you should never use the staging to generate a theory.

How could they go on acting okay for years if they had done that?

If you are looking at 1st degree homicide charges then your acting will probably be elevated to shakesperian hieghts.

imo it all makes sense if you assume that a homicide was committed.

.

Albert18 · Feb 16, 2007

I tend to think sexual abuse had nothing to do with what happened that night. Even if JB was sexually abused prior to that night, this was a little girl who was taken to the doctor practically every day, why would they all of a sudden be in a panic over sexual abuse.

Plus, it's the middle of the night and they have a dead child in their home, explaining and getting away with that makes any worry about sexual abuse seem quite petty.

I think they simply asked the question, how do young girls die? They are grabbed, sexually abused, and usually strangled. That is what they tried to duplicate.

I think Santos1014's explanation nails it.

UKGuy · Feb 16, 2007

Holdontoyourhat said:
These are some good points, especially the sexual assault not reflected in the ransom note.

It might be helpful to consider that if a sexually assaulted and murdered 6 year old girl, with garrote and 2nd ligature still attached, were found in the desert, an investigator would probably conclude:

JBR was sexually assaulted and murdered (no accident)

The motive for murder was to prevent the victim from being able to identify her attacker.

The suspect is probably a male pedophile acting alone.

Holdontoyourhat,

It might be helpful to consider that if a sexually assaulted and murdered 6 year old girl, with garrote and 2nd ligature still attached, were found in the desert, an investigator would probably conclude:

You left out the important point that if a 6-year old girl was discovered dead and sexually assaulted in the desert, then the 1st question would be: How did she get here?

In JonBenet's case she should have been dumped outdoors, preferably away from the house, then there is no need for a ransom note, since the perpetrator is obviously a nasty intruder. No dumping , and a rationale for a corpse in your house is required e.g 1 ransom note.

.

Holdontoyourhat · Feb 16, 2007

UKGuy said:
Holdontoyourhat,

You left out the important point that if a 6-year old girl was discovered dead and sexually assaulted in the desert, then the 1st question would be: How did she get here?

.

My 1st question would be why the perp left his murder weapon on the victim. It would only add to the evidence pool.

Maybe because the perp was interrupted and had to leave in a hurry, or maybe this was a 'calling card'.

UKGuy · Feb 16, 2007

laini said:
So what are your thoughts, everybody, on this... could this have been molestation that went too far. And the perv (family, friend, or otherwise) was not the proud type of child molester but was ashamed and made up the note to try to look like a kidnapping instead, the lesser of two evils in his mind than sexual molestation. I am curious why some don't think this is the case.

thanks!

laini,

I am curious why some don't think this is the case

Because some theories e.g. Steve Thomas' Toilet Rage lock you into a particular sequence of events, or variants of Lou Smits' Intruder Theory embrace a sexual assault and manufacture their own imagined version of events regardless of the forensic evidence.

.

UKGuy · Feb 16, 2007

Holdontoyourhat said:
My 1st question would be why the perp left his murder weapon on the victim. It would only add to the evidence pool.

Maybe because the perp was interrupted and had to leave in a hurry, or maybe this was a 'calling card'.

Holdontoyourhat,

Maybe, but in JonBenet's case that question might be erroneous.

.

Solace · Feb 16, 2007

Albert18 said:
I tend to think sexual abuse had nothing to do with what happened that night. Even if JB was sexually abused prior to that night, this was a little girl who was taken to the doctor practically every day, why would they all of a sudden be in a panic over sexual abuse.

Plus, it's the middle of the night and they have a dead child in their home, explaining and getting away with that makes any worry about sexual abuse seem quite petty.

I think they simply asked the question, how do young girls die? They are grabbed, sexually abused, and usually strangled. That is what they tried to duplicate.

I think Santos1014's explanation nails it.

I agree Albert. What could be the worst thing that happens when somebody grabs a little girl. They rape her and kill her. Parents never do that. No one will look at us. And they are absolutely right. Who would believe that parents would do this. Blue Crab cannot believe it. He just posted that the only answer is that the parents did not do it and someone else did, because there is no way parents would protect each other. (I hope I got that right BlueCrab and feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but that was the gist of your post). But I believe that Patsy did it and the remorse was overwhelming afterwards and John felt for her and helped her.

Holdontoyourhat · Feb 16, 2007

UKGuy said:
Holdontoyourhat,

Maybe, but in JonBenet's case that question might be erroneous.

.

You might be right.

Solace · Feb 16, 2007

BlueCrab said:
laini,

Not much makes sense in this crime because, IMO, children were involved. It's the only way the whole Ramsey family was ready to forgive and get on with their lives. Every credible item of evidence fits this theory.

BlueCrab

BlueCrab,

You just don't believe that John could feel overwhelming sympathy for Patsy if she did this thing. I think he could.

But Berke did not do it either because he was heard asking on the phone "what did you find" and "what can I do". So he does not know what has happened and John says "we are not talking to you". And then he goes back to bed. You could look at that as if he knows what he did and he is trying to find out if they found her. But that is really stretching it; He is 9 years old at the time. This is one blow to the head, not several. I don't think he could hit her that hard and crack her head wide open with one blow and I think he would have hit her more if he were trying to hurt her and we would have seen that. We don't.

An adult hit this child.

Toltec · Feb 16, 2007

Solace said:
BlueCrab,

You just don't believe that John could feel overwhelming sympathy for Patsy if she did this thing.

My belief is that they stuck together because they were both guilty of the staging/coverup.

JonBenet suffered acute and chronic sexual abuse. Being only six-years-old, she would have a limited amount of people around her.

That would include her immediate family, Grandpa, the Whites, Fernies, Stines, and her little friend Megan Kostanek.

On the night of Dec 23d, the Ramseys had guests over, including several children. There were approximately four male children.

Christmas day, Burke had his male friends over, and they played Nintendo in his room. JonBenet did not have female friends over, instead she sat by Burkes bedroom door and played with her jewelry-making kit.

I do not know how many male children there were at the Whites home.

If a male child molested JonBenet...he had plenty opportunity days before her murder.

The ransom note and staging

cemetery walker

..at the beach!

New Member

Nana to Madelynn and Ethan

New Member

New Member

cemetery walker

Nana to Madelynn and Ethan

New Member

Former Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Former Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Former Member

New Member

New Member

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics