Why were JB's arms over her head?

azwriter said:

I wouldn't call the ransom letter surplus. I see it as a blueprint, directed to LE, as to why there is a dead child in the basement of the parents' home. It isn't just the length of the ransom letter that is unusual. Look at the lack of specific directions for trading cash for child. Getting the ransom money should be a key part of any kidnapping. But the letter gives only a day (tomorrow) in its instructions to have Jon Benet returned. And there is a glaring omission as to which tomorrow or a reference to when the letter was penned in order to establish what day is meant as "tomorrow."
The letter pays much more attention to clues as to who and why Jon Benet was kidnapped: a small foreign faction; someone who knew John; someone who knew the amount of his latest bonus; someone who hated John and his business.
Those clues were meant to do one thing - point investigators away from the parents being involved.
jmo[/

You are exatly right about that and another real key is how many times the note says she dies I think in my opinion she was already dead at that point

Click to expand...

azwriter said:

I wouldn't call the ransom letter surplus. I see it as a blueprint, directed to LE, as to why there is a dead child in the basement of the parents' home. It isn't just the length of the ransom letter that is unusual. Look at the lack of specific directions for trading cash for child. Getting the ransom money should be a key part of any kidnapping. But the letter gives only a day (tomorrow) in its instructions to have Jon Benet returned. And there is a glaring omission as to which tomorrow or a reference to when the letter was penned in order to establish what day is meant as "tomorrow."

Click to expand...

The letter pays much more attention to clues as to who and why Jon Benet was kidnapped: a small foreign faction; someone who knew John; someone who knew the amount of his latest bonus; someone who hated John and his business.
Those clues were meant to do one thing - point investigators away from the parents being involved.
jmo

Click to expand...

JMO8778 said:

I think the RN outlined their first plan...to get her out of the house,and 'tomorrow' meant the day after Patsy found it..the 27th.picture Patsy walking down the stairs the morning of the 26th,as she wants us to believe she did...she picks up the note...as she's reading it...'tomorrow' means the 27th.


I think JR was clearly trying to set up former disgruntled AG employees,starting with Jeff Merrick and coworkers.I'll see if I can find his interview with Peter Boyles..he feels that that he and another person he knows were the '2 gentlemen' referred to in the note.And then JR kept pointing out JM to LE many times..that says it all,I think.and I think that's why it switches to JR's first name at the end..to imply it's someone who knows him on a first name basis...as Jeff surely did.they'd been friends for a long time.'I advise you not to provoke them' means JR knows who they are..but he is not to call them (of course not....he helped write the note !)

Click to expand...

coloradokares said:

www.http://dimwit.byethost5.com/jeff%20merr

That should be the addy for that interview for you.

Click to expand...

JMO8778 said:

thanks so much Ck....I had just went looking for it ! anyway,here's from a prior post of mine:

(notice the part where ST asks JM 'why does JR keep bringing up your name?'.so that happened to him not just once,but many times:

http://www.acandyrose.com/20060830Bo...effMerrick.htm

JR dictates RN to point to JM ---->JR keeps pointing out JM to LE

I think it fits.Esp. considering his 'this had to be an inside job' comment.

same way w the RN itself:

suspect(s) needed to point away from family members ---> RN written

..not only written,but written w. someone(s) in mind.

now go back and review the RN,not only what it says (b/c I fully believe he meant it to point to JM),but how JR's own wording also fits the note:

http://www.statementanalysis.com/ramseynote/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
here's the part I mean,at the bottom:

On October 12, 2000, the Ramsey's did a webcast interview with Newseum (www.newsuem.org). In the interview, John Ramsey makes the following statement:

"The justice system is a government organization. And hence, should be looked at with some degree of skepticism." ​

8. Many Ramsey supporters believe the Ramseys did subconsciously adopt the phrase "and hence" found in the ransom note. Okay. I will admit it is possible. But lets take a closer look at the phrase "and hence." When we look at the original ransom note we find the writer had crossed out a word. 13. delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be rested. If we
14. monitor you getting the money early, we might call you early to
15. arrange an earlier delivery of the money and hence a earlier
16. delivery pickup of your daughter.
The writer started to say that upon receiving the money he would "deliver" JonBenet to her parents. He then realized that a kidnapper would not deliver the hostage but would tell the authorities where she could be found. Therefore, he changed it to "pick-up." It is doubtful that a kidnapper would make this mistake.

More importantly, an examination of the author's writing style shows us that whatever comes before the phrase "and hence" comes after the phrase "and hence." 13. delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be rested. If we
14. monitor you getting the money early, we might call you early to
15. arrange an earlier delivery of the money and hence a earlier
16. delivery pickup of your daughter.
We see the same writing style in the Ramsey's Christmas message.

"Had there been no birth of Christ, there would be no hope of eternal life, and, hence, no hope of ever being with our loved ones again." ​

So, the Ramsey supporters would have us believe that the Ramseys not only adopted the word "hence" they also adopted the phrase "and hence" and they also adopted the killer's writing style! Possible but not probable.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: the RN,maybe a bit from both of them,since it included some womanly phrases..something to consider:

DOI,p. 246,PR: John and I wrote a message of appreciation to our friends to be printed on the back of the liturgy of the day.We thanked the people for their support throughout the past year and expressed how much their love meant to us.We also commented on the meaning of the Christmas season and why it was important to remember the real reason we celebrate this time of the year.In composing this expression of appreciation,John and I each had written a version.With both copies in hand,John dictated and I typed at the computer as we merged the two into one.Later Susan Stine and Roxy Walker made a few edits as they typed it into the litugical program.This edited version included the phrase and hence.Those two words turned out to be the next bombshell!

So maybe they had some experience doing this before? (i.e. -the ransom note?) Perhaps that's why so many pages were missing from the writing tablet...they each wrote a version,and then (with both copies in hand,just as PR says above) merged the 2 into one,as JR dictated and PR did the writing.
Something to think about,for sure.Perhaps a confession (of sorts) from PR???

Click to expand...

azwriter said:

I wouldn't call the ransom letter surplus. I see it as a blueprint, directed to LE, as to why there is a dead child in the basement of the parents' home. It isn't just the length of the ransom letter that is unusual. Look at the lack of specific directions for trading cash for child. Getting the ransom money should be a key part of any kidnapping. But the letter gives only a day (tomorrow) in its instructions to have Jon Benet returned. And there is a glaring omission as to which tomorrow or a reference to when the letter was penned in order to establish what day is meant as "tomorrow."
The letter pays much more attention to clues as to who and why Jon Benet was kidnapped: a small foreign faction; someone who knew John; someone who knew the amount of his latest bonus; someone who hated John and his business.
Those clues were meant to do one thing - point investigators away from the parents being involved.
jmo

Click to expand...

I wouldn't call the ransom letter surplus.

Click to expand...

coloradokares said:

Thanks! The one I sent is the actual audio recording! I bookmarked the one you sent as a transcript is invaluable!! If it is not a confession of sorts it certainly has their writing style all over it .... the use of and hence is as good as a fingerprint in my book any day. IE when I am reading the posts here I dont have to see who its from. I am right on the posts author at least 99% of the time even if I am skimming quickly.

Click to expand...

JMO8778 said:

I KWYM..I used to host an online chat room,and even when ppl changed their names,I could still tell who was who.so I can certainly understand the way the RN is written,the wording,Patsy's use of acronyms and her penchant for exclamation points,etc,(not just the physical writing),that they KNOW Patsy wrote it...and I think JR told her what to throw in to frame AG employees,and maybe he even dictated parts of it to her,or they combined the 2 somewhat..but the overall content of wording,or perhaps maybe the final selection of words,was done by her.

Click to expand...

JMO8778 said:

but then that would require someone carrying her dead body into the basement,while the house was still occupied,and LE likely watching/being around...I'm not sure they would have tried to imply that's what happened.
even so,that doesn't explain why they threw the 'you will also be denied her remains for proper buriel' line in.something I've noticed about the R's is they don't point out things without a motive behind it.so then when you combine that line with the way her body has been staged and then restaged..and JR's lies about the ligatures being tight when they weren't,I think they had a panic driven thought/ plan in mind to get her out of the house,that later changed,for whatever reason..lack of time,too afraid to go thru with it,couldn't go thru with it,they were given advice to go ahead and call 911 SOON,etc.

Click to expand...

DeeDee249 said:

No, actually it wouldn't. First of all, because I believe she was killed in the basement. Second, the house was only occupied by the Rs. All this occured before the 911 call, so there was no LE around watching, no group of friends there yet.
Sure, they could have called 911 without writing the note. But that would make the discovery of their daughters dead in the basement point to them even more. Remember, she was dead already at the time the note was written. How else to explain that? The note gave a result (a strangled child) for a cause (the 911 call they HAD to make).
They HAD to make the 911 call at that point. Now having made the call, and KNOWING the body was in the basement, what explanation could they give? Just saying she is "missing" doesn't work. Why? Because a reasonable, innocent parent SEARCHES THE HOUSE for a missing child first, especially in the absence of a ransom note. And though there were several people who said they did not even know the wineceller existed, the Rs CERTAINLY knew it existed and should have checked it along with every other nook and cranny.
Imagine calling 911, telling LE she is missing, having them arrive "Have you searched the house, Mr & Mrs R? NO??? Why not?" Then she turns up dead in the house.
OR "YES? Oh, you found her dead in the basement? Oh, how did that happen?"
OR "You say you searched every room except this here wineceller? Why'd you skip this room? Well what a coincidence- you skip this one room, and right here, behind door #3 is your daughter's strangled corpse".
See, without kidnappers to blame it on, the whole thing points to a parent. The intruder scenario falls apart with out the RN. The RN gives a reason for the "intruder" to have taken the child. And calling LE in gives the reason for the "intruder" to have killed the child.

Click to expand...

coloradokares said:

Thanks! The one I sent is the actual audio recording! I bookmarked the one you sent as a transcript is invaluable!!

Click to expand...

JMO8778 said:

it's interesting to listen to it too...you can hear the sincerity in JM's voice...he's telling the truth.

Click to expand...

rashomon said:

DeeDee: I think in the # 36 post on this thread, JMO 8778 meant that the Ramseys wanted to make it appear as if the alleged intruders killed Jon Benet after becoming aware that the Ramseys had called the police after all, i. e. the small foreign faction carried out the threat in the ransom note. But for that the body would have had to be put back in the basement by the SFF with the police already in the house. And the Ramseys' panicked minds failed to assess the absurdity of such a scenario.

Click to expand...

BOESP said:

I wonder how the Ramseys explained the mucous from JonBenet's nose being under the tape on her mouth instead of over the tape (per Mary Lacy statement in the Merrick interview transcript cited here above).

This was the first I'd read about the mucous being only under the tape. That's just one more piece of evidence indicating someone staged this scene. There should have been mucous on top of the tape as well as under it if JonBenet was alive when the killer applied the tape.

Also, a thank-you to ACandyRose for the Merrick transcript (and all the other work she/he has done). :clap:

Click to expand...

rashomon said:

DeeDee: I think in the # 36 post on this thread, JMO 8778 meant that the Ramseys wanted to make it appear as if the alleged intruders killed Jon Benet after becoming aware that the Ramseys had called the police after all, i. e. the small foreign faction carried out the threat in the ransom note. But for that the body would have had to be put back in the basement by the SFF with the police already in the house. And the Ramseys' panicked minds failed to assess the absurdity of such a scenario.

Click to expand...

DeeDee249 said:

Actually, I did mean that. I feel they DID want to infer that JBR was killed because they called police, and that the killers either somehow snuck the body back into the house (silly, because LE arrived within a few minutes of the call) OR the kidnappers were still hiding in the basement and killed her when they heard them make the call. This theory falls apart when you consider how the kidnappers heard the call from the basement, and how they got out of the house themselves. It was light outside then, and the parents were up, LE came quickly, and anyone awake at that time, neighbors as well as the Rs, could have seen them running away. The absence of footprints too.

Click to expand...

DeeDee249 said:

Yes, true. They DIDN'T think it through. They hadn't counted on anyone else thinking it through, either!
But that was definitely the reason for the RN. To show that she was killed to "punish" them for calling police. And that was their way to explain the dead body in the house.

Click to expand...