This is my #1 reason to disbelieve intruder theory.
Day Number 1 What Convinces You There Was No Intruder/12 Days of JonBenet
- Thread starter Tricia
- Start date
This is my #1 reason to disbelieve intruder theory.
s(he) be(lie)ve(d)
Member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2016
- Messages
- 150
- Reaction score
- 12
It stank of something foul from day one!
Kadoober
Get Me A Vodka Rocks… And A Piece Of Toast.
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2014
- Messages
- 3,290
- Reaction score
- 17,405
Everything about the note.
Even the 'small' foreign faction smells funny. No group who have actually kidnapped a small child and are threatening to behead her are going to point out the small stature of their group. I know this seems silly and nitpicky, but the first time I read it 'small' jumped right out at me.
The amount of the ransom, of course.
The completely unnecessary bit about making sure to bring the proper sized 'attache'.
And at the end, the sudden need to make very sure that this letter is addressed to JOHN. No mention of his name at all, until 'Don't grow a brain, JOHN.' 'Don't underestimate us JOHN'. 'It is up to you now, JOHN!'
It's like all of the sudden PR realized she needed to push this whole letter thing away from herself, and shoved it at JOHN.
Not to mention the obvious, that if a 'small foreign faction' was willing to hang around while one of them wrote this note, and 'somehow' Jon Benet was killed at that time, that they certainly would have taken the note with them when they left. What possible benefit would there have been in demanding ransom for a girl that they aren't taking with them? It is so clearly a very poor attempt to turn attention away from the inhabitants of the house.
Even the 'small' foreign faction smells funny. No group who have actually kidnapped a small child and are threatening to behead her are going to point out the small stature of their group. I know this seems silly and nitpicky, but the first time I read it 'small' jumped right out at me.
The amount of the ransom, of course.
The completely unnecessary bit about making sure to bring the proper sized 'attache'.
And at the end, the sudden need to make very sure that this letter is addressed to JOHN. No mention of his name at all, until 'Don't grow a brain, JOHN.' 'Don't underestimate us JOHN'. 'It is up to you now, JOHN!'
It's like all of the sudden PR realized she needed to push this whole letter thing away from herself, and shoved it at JOHN.
Not to mention the obvious, that if a 'small foreign faction' was willing to hang around while one of them wrote this note, and 'somehow' Jon Benet was killed at that time, that they certainly would have taken the note with them when they left. What possible benefit would there have been in demanding ransom for a girl that they aren't taking with them? It is so clearly a very poor attempt to turn attention away from the inhabitants of the house.
s(he) be(lie)ve(d)
Member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2016
- Messages
- 150
- Reaction score
- 12
A kidnapping by a group/faction turned into an intruder who raped and murdered that little girl. That's a lot of people and crime going on in one house during a single night. But really, when she was found in her own home wrapped in her own blanket, I knew it was someone in her own family.
Hi All,
I'm a long-time lurker & first-time poster. I agree with all of the excellent points already brought up by everyone here. These are some of the many reasons I'm convinced there was no intruder:
1. Evidence of prior sexual abuse based on the autopsy. This one is HUGE for me. It points to someone close to JonBenet and who had easy and *repeated* access to JonBenet -- NOT a one-time intruder. Here's one of the many areas where I believe the A&E documentary that aired earlier this week got it wrong. They had a medical expert on camera saying that he didn't believe there was any credible evidence of prior sexual abuse based on the autopsy report. He chalked it up to "vaginitis." But Ive never heard of vaginitis leaving damage to the *hymen*, and that is what was found during the autopsy. So I guess it's a matter of which expert you want to believe. However, if Im recalling correctly, I think more than 1 medical examiner has reached the conclusion that prior sexual abuse had occurred based on the autopsy findings.
2. As Tricia & others have stated, the ransom note is a huge indicator of no intruder for me. Not only because of the many similarities in the letter formations themselves, but also in the linguistics/language mechanics ("And hence" for example), formatting (indented paragraphs), and use of the acronym ("S.B.T.C") with periods at the end. (Patsy loved inventing/using private acronyms in her letters & there are multiple examples of this from her previous correspondence with friends/loved ones). Heres another area where the A&E documentary got it wrong when they said no experts were able to conclude that Patsy wrote the note -- that is completely not true. There were multiple experts who DID conclude Patsy wrote it. They differed in their degree of certainty that she was the writer, but more than 1 nationally recognized expert opined that PR was the author.
3. The length of the ransom note -- it seems highly unlikely to me that an intruder would take the time to write a practice note, and then write out the multi-page "manifesto" left on the stairs -- AND DO ALL OF THIS INSIDE THE HOME when they could be discovered at any time. If this was an intruder, a short note would have been prepared ahead of time, not written at the scene with paper and pen from the home.
4. The fact that the ransom note was left at all -- if this note was written by an intruder who had originally intended to kidnap JonBenet and then somehow got "carried away" with his gruesome torture of her in the basement resulting in her murder, why would the intruder leave a note at all?? An intruder would want to get the heck out, as others on this thread have already noted. They wouldn't leave this long rambling note behind (in their own handwriting, no less) as a key piece of evidence for police to find.
5. No Ramsey fingerprints on the note. PR said she "couldn't remember" if she handled the note or not when she found it on the stairs. But wouldn't this be the logical thing anyone would do? You come downstairs at 6 in the morning and see a multi-page note laying on the stairs that wasn't there when you went you to bed. At this point, you have no idea what it says or who wrote it. Wouldn't the natural thing be to bend over, pick it up, and look at it to see what it was? JR said he *did* move the note "from the stairs to the floor," and then knelt down and read it from the floor. Neither of their stories ring true for me. Their fingerprints *should* have been on the note if they were innocently stumbling on this for the first time. The fact that they weren't on the note suggests to me that they purposefully didn't handle it because they already knew what it said, and the author had worn gloves while writing it so that they *wouldn't* leave their fingerprints on it. But IMO, they forgot about that one small detail that this was one area of the crime scene where their fingerprints *should* have been if they were, in fact, innocent.
6. No plausible point of entry for an intruder. Kolar effectively debunked the Lou Smit basement window theory with the cobweb and glass shard. And JR himself said all other doors/windows were locked. So if it was an intruder, the only way for them to get in would be if they had a key. Of course, this is possible, but then I guess you have to assume that this intruder was also using this key to gain entry into the house and repeatedly abuse JonBenet in the weeks/months preceding her murder. And to that I say hogwash.
7. Parent lies & behaviors on Dec. 26: As others have noted, if you found a note saying your daughter had been kidnapped, wouldnt you be frantically running all over the house yelling her name over and over and searching desperately for her? Wouldnt you wake her supposedly sleeping brother to make sure he was okay and then find out if he had seen/heard anything?? Yet PR & JR both said BR slept through all of this. (Did anyone else catch that BR himself debunked this statement on the A&E documentary when he said that PR *did* come into his room that morning and flipped on the lights?) In their initial police statements, they both said BR was sleeping. Why lie about this unless you are hiding something?
Same goes for the 911 call if other voices are on that tape and those voices include BR, he wasnt sleeping. Again why lie unless you have a reason to do so?
Then theres the passing of the 11 a.m. deadline given in the ransom note for a phone call and neither parent comments to police or to each other about this?? Wouldnt you be going nuts if it was you in this situation, asking the cops what it meant that the kidnappers hadnt called by the 11 a.m. deadline?
Then theres the pineapple. PR and JR say JonBenet was zonked out and already asleep when they got home from the Whites party and from dropping off a gift at a friends house. They say they put her straight to bed. But the autopsy suggests that she had a late-night fruit snack based on raw pineapple found in digestive track. Theres a bowl of pineapple found in the Ramsey kitchen with BRs fingerprints on it. So again why lie about this unless you are hiding something?
8. PRs timeline for morning of Dec. 26: Ive never seen this posted anywhere else, so maybe Im the only one bothered by PRs stated timeline of what happened the morning of Dec. 26 and maybe Im just overthinking this, but here goes
PR told police that she woke up around 5:30 a.m. on Dec. 26. This is confirmed by JR, who says that when he woke up before the alarm went off (at 5:25 a.m.), PR was still in bed. PR then says she got dressed/ready for the upcoming trip to MI, and went to the next floor down (the kids bedroom level), where she stopped by JonBenets bedroom at about 5:45 a.m. and noted that her daughter was not in her room. (She later changed this story, telling a different version.) She messes with some laundry/clothes for the trip, and then proceeds down the spiral stairs, where she finds the 3-page ransom note. She quickly skims the note, screams for JR, shows JR the note, and then calls 911 at 5:52 a.m. This was what she originally told Officer French (the first officer to arrive on the scene at 5:56 a.m.).
In a later version told to police during the April 30 1997 interview, she said she found the note FIRST, and then rushed up to JonBenets room to find her missing.
But whichever version you want to go with, the timeline strikes me as a bit hard to believe. If PR really was sleeping and only woke up at 5:30 a.m., this gives her just 15 minutes to get dressed and do her whole morning grooming routine before stopping on the next floor down to mess with some laundry at 5:45 and then discover the ransom note shortly thereafter. Folks, this is PR we are talking about here an ex-beauty queen who prided herself on her appearance and who, according to police reports, was freshly groomed and in full makeup when they arrived on the scene. I tend to doubt that her morning beauty routine was just a low-maintenance 15-minute thing. Shed have had to wash her face, moisturize her face and let that dry, get dressed (in the prior nights clothes which I also find very unusual), heat up the curling iron, fix/curl her hair, and then apply her makeup (which for PR, wasnt just a quick dab of chapstick and swipe of mascara and call it good.)
I guess what Im saying is, I dont buy the timeframe. I dont think PR couldve gotten all of this done in just 15 minutes (by her own reported timeline) I think shed been up a lot longer than that. Of course, I could be wrong. And Im not saying this is one of the main reasons I dont buy the intruder theory, but its always bothered me and I guess Im just wondering if anyone else has thought about this timeline as well?
Im sorry about the length of this post! I admire all of the work you all have done on this case and I hope those responsible who remain alive can be brought to justice some day!
I'm a long-time lurker & first-time poster. I agree with all of the excellent points already brought up by everyone here. These are some of the many reasons I'm convinced there was no intruder:
1. Evidence of prior sexual abuse based on the autopsy. This one is HUGE for me. It points to someone close to JonBenet and who had easy and *repeated* access to JonBenet -- NOT a one-time intruder. Here's one of the many areas where I believe the A&E documentary that aired earlier this week got it wrong. They had a medical expert on camera saying that he didn't believe there was any credible evidence of prior sexual abuse based on the autopsy report. He chalked it up to "vaginitis." But Ive never heard of vaginitis leaving damage to the *hymen*, and that is what was found during the autopsy. So I guess it's a matter of which expert you want to believe. However, if Im recalling correctly, I think more than 1 medical examiner has reached the conclusion that prior sexual abuse had occurred based on the autopsy findings.
2. As Tricia & others have stated, the ransom note is a huge indicator of no intruder for me. Not only because of the many similarities in the letter formations themselves, but also in the linguistics/language mechanics ("And hence" for example), formatting (indented paragraphs), and use of the acronym ("S.B.T.C") with periods at the end. (Patsy loved inventing/using private acronyms in her letters & there are multiple examples of this from her previous correspondence with friends/loved ones). Heres another area where the A&E documentary got it wrong when they said no experts were able to conclude that Patsy wrote the note -- that is completely not true. There were multiple experts who DID conclude Patsy wrote it. They differed in their degree of certainty that she was the writer, but more than 1 nationally recognized expert opined that PR was the author.
3. The length of the ransom note -- it seems highly unlikely to me that an intruder would take the time to write a practice note, and then write out the multi-page "manifesto" left on the stairs -- AND DO ALL OF THIS INSIDE THE HOME when they could be discovered at any time. If this was an intruder, a short note would have been prepared ahead of time, not written at the scene with paper and pen from the home.
4. The fact that the ransom note was left at all -- if this note was written by an intruder who had originally intended to kidnap JonBenet and then somehow got "carried away" with his gruesome torture of her in the basement resulting in her murder, why would the intruder leave a note at all?? An intruder would want to get the heck out, as others on this thread have already noted. They wouldn't leave this long rambling note behind (in their own handwriting, no less) as a key piece of evidence for police to find.
5. No Ramsey fingerprints on the note. PR said she "couldn't remember" if she handled the note or not when she found it on the stairs. But wouldn't this be the logical thing anyone would do? You come downstairs at 6 in the morning and see a multi-page note laying on the stairs that wasn't there when you went you to bed. At this point, you have no idea what it says or who wrote it. Wouldn't the natural thing be to bend over, pick it up, and look at it to see what it was? JR said he *did* move the note "from the stairs to the floor," and then knelt down and read it from the floor. Neither of their stories ring true for me. Their fingerprints *should* have been on the note if they were innocently stumbling on this for the first time. The fact that they weren't on the note suggests to me that they purposefully didn't handle it because they already knew what it said, and the author had worn gloves while writing it so that they *wouldn't* leave their fingerprints on it. But IMO, they forgot about that one small detail that this was one area of the crime scene where their fingerprints *should* have been if they were, in fact, innocent.
6. No plausible point of entry for an intruder. Kolar effectively debunked the Lou Smit basement window theory with the cobweb and glass shard. And JR himself said all other doors/windows were locked. So if it was an intruder, the only way for them to get in would be if they had a key. Of course, this is possible, but then I guess you have to assume that this intruder was also using this key to gain entry into the house and repeatedly abuse JonBenet in the weeks/months preceding her murder. And to that I say hogwash.
7. Parent lies & behaviors on Dec. 26: As others have noted, if you found a note saying your daughter had been kidnapped, wouldnt you be frantically running all over the house yelling her name over and over and searching desperately for her? Wouldnt you wake her supposedly sleeping brother to make sure he was okay and then find out if he had seen/heard anything?? Yet PR & JR both said BR slept through all of this. (Did anyone else catch that BR himself debunked this statement on the A&E documentary when he said that PR *did* come into his room that morning and flipped on the lights?) In their initial police statements, they both said BR was sleeping. Why lie about this unless you are hiding something?
Same goes for the 911 call if other voices are on that tape and those voices include BR, he wasnt sleeping. Again why lie unless you have a reason to do so?
Then theres the passing of the 11 a.m. deadline given in the ransom note for a phone call and neither parent comments to police or to each other about this?? Wouldnt you be going nuts if it was you in this situation, asking the cops what it meant that the kidnappers hadnt called by the 11 a.m. deadline?
Then theres the pineapple. PR and JR say JonBenet was zonked out and already asleep when they got home from the Whites party and from dropping off a gift at a friends house. They say they put her straight to bed. But the autopsy suggests that she had a late-night fruit snack based on raw pineapple found in digestive track. Theres a bowl of pineapple found in the Ramsey kitchen with BRs fingerprints on it. So again why lie about this unless you are hiding something?
8. PRs timeline for morning of Dec. 26: Ive never seen this posted anywhere else, so maybe Im the only one bothered by PRs stated timeline of what happened the morning of Dec. 26 and maybe Im just overthinking this, but here goes
PR told police that she woke up around 5:30 a.m. on Dec. 26. This is confirmed by JR, who says that when he woke up before the alarm went off (at 5:25 a.m.), PR was still in bed. PR then says she got dressed/ready for the upcoming trip to MI, and went to the next floor down (the kids bedroom level), where she stopped by JonBenets bedroom at about 5:45 a.m. and noted that her daughter was not in her room. (She later changed this story, telling a different version.) She messes with some laundry/clothes for the trip, and then proceeds down the spiral stairs, where she finds the 3-page ransom note. She quickly skims the note, screams for JR, shows JR the note, and then calls 911 at 5:52 a.m. This was what she originally told Officer French (the first officer to arrive on the scene at 5:56 a.m.).
In a later version told to police during the April 30 1997 interview, she said she found the note FIRST, and then rushed up to JonBenets room to find her missing.
But whichever version you want to go with, the timeline strikes me as a bit hard to believe. If PR really was sleeping and only woke up at 5:30 a.m., this gives her just 15 minutes to get dressed and do her whole morning grooming routine before stopping on the next floor down to mess with some laundry at 5:45 and then discover the ransom note shortly thereafter. Folks, this is PR we are talking about here an ex-beauty queen who prided herself on her appearance and who, according to police reports, was freshly groomed and in full makeup when they arrived on the scene. I tend to doubt that her morning beauty routine was just a low-maintenance 15-minute thing. Shed have had to wash her face, moisturize her face and let that dry, get dressed (in the prior nights clothes which I also find very unusual), heat up the curling iron, fix/curl her hair, and then apply her makeup (which for PR, wasnt just a quick dab of chapstick and swipe of mascara and call it good.)
I guess what Im saying is, I dont buy the timeframe. I dont think PR couldve gotten all of this done in just 15 minutes (by her own reported timeline) I think shed been up a lot longer than that. Of course, I could be wrong. And Im not saying this is one of the main reasons I dont buy the intruder theory, but its always bothered me and I guess Im just wondering if anyone else has thought about this timeline as well?
Im sorry about the length of this post! I admire all of the work you all have done on this case and I hope those responsible who remain alive can be brought to justice some day!
Kadoober
Get Me A Vodka Rocks… And A Piece Of Toast.
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2014
- Messages
- 3,290
- Reaction score
- 17,405
That's a great first post, rojamom (and WELCOME!).
Your point #5 is something I wasn't aware of, and it seems especially damning. I can't imagine, whether the note was 'found' before or after JB was discovered missing that one wouldn't immediately pick it up to read.
The only explanation for the lack of fingerprints is that they knew it was evidence. Even if they found her missing and then found the note, there is no way frantic parents wouldn't snatch the note immediately to make see if it had some insight to where their baby had gone. No way! No way would they be thinking 'this may be evidence of a crime, we should not touch it'. Please!
Your point #5 is something I wasn't aware of, and it seems especially damning. I can't imagine, whether the note was 'found' before or after JB was discovered missing that one wouldn't immediately pick it up to read.
The only explanation for the lack of fingerprints is that they knew it was evidence. Even if they found her missing and then found the note, there is no way frantic parents wouldn't snatch the note immediately to make see if it had some insight to where their baby had gone. No way! No way would they be thinking 'this may be evidence of a crime, we should not touch it'. Please!
D
Deleted member 122964
Guest
Thank you for all the great posts so far...a lot to consider...
The ransom note is the number one reason I don't think an intruder played a role in this horrific crime. Here are my thoughts (re-posted from a comment that I made yesterday in the "What's Eating You About This Case?" thread):
What I keep returning to is the language in the ransom note. The language used is not everyday language.
Imagine assembling a large room of individuals from diverse backgrounds and having them write an imaginary ransom note. I strongly suspect the resulting notes would not include words & phrases like "attache," "faction," "to the letter," and "deviation of my instructions" (to list just a few). It makes me think of Ruby Payne's book A Framework for Understanding Poverty; Payne included a set of quizzes in the book that made readers consider how socioeconomic standing impacted knowledge. For example, her quizzes implied that individuals in poverty would know how to move quickly and a wealthy person would know how to hire house staff. There's more to the book than this, but it makes me think the words in the ransom note are words of someone who is wealthy and highly educated. Attache is a word of the wealthy. Seriously-briefcase and bag are the middle-class and lower income versions of the word. Who says "deviation of my instructions" in a ransom note written under duress? As a college instructor, I know--for a fact--- that this type of language is not the norm for the overwhelming majority of folks.
Of course, there are misspellings (keep in mind an educated individual with some spelling issues is not unheard of) and grittier phrasing ("Don't try to grow a brain.")---all of which could be an attempt to sound what the ransom note writer believes to be "tough."
And then there is the length of the note. My college students groan when asked to write a full page during class. A note this length would take most of my students a full class period to write. And to think this note was composed in the Ramsey home during the midst of a horrific crime. What criminal has the time to write such a ransom note? A quick, scary note and quicker exit would make more sense.
Yes, the ransom note bothers me to no end. It seems ridiculous--like a note in a bad, overwrought fiction crime novel. I try to keep an open mind, so I can be more willing to see different possibilities in the case. However the ransom note just keeps eating away at my open mind..... and convincing me there was not an intruder.
The ransom note is the number one reason I don't think an intruder played a role in this horrific crime. Here are my thoughts (re-posted from a comment that I made yesterday in the "What's Eating You About This Case?" thread):
What I keep returning to is the language in the ransom note. The language used is not everyday language.
Imagine assembling a large room of individuals from diverse backgrounds and having them write an imaginary ransom note. I strongly suspect the resulting notes would not include words & phrases like "attache," "faction," "to the letter," and "deviation of my instructions" (to list just a few). It makes me think of Ruby Payne's book A Framework for Understanding Poverty; Payne included a set of quizzes in the book that made readers consider how socioeconomic standing impacted knowledge. For example, her quizzes implied that individuals in poverty would know how to move quickly and a wealthy person would know how to hire house staff. There's more to the book than this, but it makes me think the words in the ransom note are words of someone who is wealthy and highly educated. Attache is a word of the wealthy. Seriously-briefcase and bag are the middle-class and lower income versions of the word. Who says "deviation of my instructions" in a ransom note written under duress? As a college instructor, I know--for a fact--- that this type of language is not the norm for the overwhelming majority of folks.
Of course, there are misspellings (keep in mind an educated individual with some spelling issues is not unheard of) and grittier phrasing ("Don't try to grow a brain.")---all of which could be an attempt to sound what the ransom note writer believes to be "tough."
And then there is the length of the note. My college students groan when asked to write a full page during class. A note this length would take most of my students a full class period to write. And to think this note was composed in the Ramsey home during the midst of a horrific crime. What criminal has the time to write such a ransom note? A quick, scary note and quicker exit would make more sense.
Yes, the ransom note bothers me to no end. It seems ridiculous--like a note in a bad, overwrought fiction crime novel. I try to keep an open mind, so I can be more willing to see different possibilities in the case. However the ransom note just keeps eating away at my open mind..... and convincing me there was not an intruder.
WhoKnowsWhat
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2014
- Messages
- 174
- Reaction score
- 0
ROjamom, Post 25
In regard to your number 1, in IRMI by Steve Thomas he says "A panel of pediatric experts from around the country reached one of the major conclusions of the investigation that JonBenet had suffered vaginal trauma prior to the day she was killed. There were no dissenting opinions among them on the issue and they firmly rejected any possibility that the trauma to the hymen and chronic vaginal inflammation were caused by urination issues or masturbation. "..." One expert summed it up well when he said the injuries were not consistent with sexual assault but with a child who is being physically abused. "
In regard to your number 1, in IRMI by Steve Thomas he says "A panel of pediatric experts from around the country reached one of the major conclusions of the investigation that JonBenet had suffered vaginal trauma prior to the day she was killed. There were no dissenting opinions among them on the issue and they firmly rejected any possibility that the trauma to the hymen and chronic vaginal inflammation were caused by urination issues or masturbation. "..." One expert summed it up well when he said the injuries were not consistent with sexual assault but with a child who is being physically abused. "
Is there a theory about the room she was found in and the door with the latch? Like why there would be a latch on the top like thaT and on that side...what did they need to lock INSIDE that room? Is there a thread for this?
I agree with everyone, but one fact I have not seen mentioned. When LE arrived, PR was not in her gown or housecoat, but in the clothes she wore the previous night and full make-up. I don't believe for one minute, even if she put the clothes back on because the night clothes were not presentable, not even a former beauty queen would take the time to apply make up when your youngest child is missing.
I believe whatever happened was done by one of the three family members, covered up by the others, and had happened shortly after arriving home the night before. then they stayed up all night making a grand plan and carrying it out, then calling 911.
MOO
I believe whatever happened was done by one of the three family members, covered up by the others, and had happened shortly after arriving home the night before. then they stayed up all night making a grand plan and carrying it out, then calling 911.
MOO
The ransom note. Written on PR's notepad that was kept in the same drawer as JR's and which was full of the horror that would fall upon them if they called police. Their child was kidnapped and to be murdered if they did not follow instructions and they immediately began to do what they were instructed not to do. PR never told LE the dire threats involved with calling LE to the house or that the FF was watching them. As a result LE showed up in marked cars and all the friends began to converge on the house. Obviously the Rs didn't take the threats seriously.
The other child was left upstairs alone and, for all they knew, at risk of being harmed by the 'foreign faction' which might still be in the house.They left him alone in his room for hours, never going to comfort him or check on him or inform him of why police and friends had converged on the house.
When French arrived, they were both waiting for LE, not frantically searching the house, garage and yard. Both were well groomed and dressed.
JR and PR were physically and emotionally distant to each other even after JBR's body had been found. They stayed in separate rooms, they left in separate cars.
JR was/is a very intelligent and analytical person. He knew who wrote the RN as soon as he saw it and read it.
When Arndt first met JR upon arrival at the house, her description of him was "cordial".
The broken window that JR knew about but never once mentioned to LE as a possible point of entry, knowing he had actually entered the house via that window once.
The other child was left upstairs alone and, for all they knew, at risk of being harmed by the 'foreign faction' which might still be in the house.They left him alone in his room for hours, never going to comfort him or check on him or inform him of why police and friends had converged on the house.
When French arrived, they were both waiting for LE, not frantically searching the house, garage and yard. Both were well groomed and dressed.
JR and PR were physically and emotionally distant to each other even after JBR's body had been found. They stayed in separate rooms, they left in separate cars.
JR was/is a very intelligent and analytical person. He knew who wrote the RN as soon as he saw it and read it.
When Arndt first met JR upon arrival at the house, her description of him was "cordial".
The broken window that JR knew about but never once mentioned to LE as a possible point of entry, knowing he had actually entered the house via that window once.
Interesting question. When I thought that the wine cellar was actually a wine cellar holding a wine collection, I assumed that the latch may have been there to keep the kids out but it turned out that the room was just used to store miscellaneous junk. Still maybe it was to keep the kids out of the junk. When French tried to open the door, he couldn't (didn't see the latch), FW had no problem opening the door - latch was not down and JR had to move the latch before he opened the door to find JBR.
Now who would even know about the latch? The people who lived there or worked there.
The story as told by the Rs is that JR got up to shower at about 5:25am. PR got up a few minutes later, dressed, applied make-up and did her hair before going down tot he second floor where she fiddled with laundry for a minute. She either looked in JBR's room and noticed she was not in her bed and then went down the stairs to find the RN or she went down the stairs, found the note and then went to look in JBR's room - she has told both stories.
Then she called out to JR, he came down in his underwear, red the note and PR's call to LE clocked in at 5:52am.
IIRC LE stated that PR's side of the bed did not look as though it had been slept in.
It is most likely that PR just laid down on the bed, fully dressed, in make up left over from the night before - waiting for the time they would set the kidnapping scenario into play. "Be well rested - it will be exhausting".
Thanks so much, Luvrosco!
observation
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2014
- Messages
- 1,388
- Reaction score
- 33
Wow- lots of great posts that I totally agree with. I find it very peculiar especially after seeing just how cavernous that house was that neither JR or PR ever yelled out for her. FW was the only person who did. Even in receiving a note- I would have woke my son up and ran around that huge house yelling for JBR. Also, if PR and JR actually believed that note- After searching high and low inside the home, I would have fled from my house and searched outside to try and find any evidence of my daughter.
That note allowed them to do nothing but grieve. There was no action on the part of the parents and they didn't even interact much with one another. JMHO
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That note allowed them to do nothing but grieve. There was no action on the part of the parents and they didn't even interact much with one another. JMHO
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
buggiegirl
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2015
- Messages
- 358
- Reaction score
- 1,342
It really comes off as a fancy, educated person trying to be tough, like you say. There are no f-bombs, that is strange to me! A ransom note talking about beheading someone is not a place where you watch your language.
The note is the main sticking point for me as well. And I think the fact that the practice note appears to be starting Mr. and Mrs. Ramsey, and the actual note is just to John is crystal clear evidence that Patsy wrote it, wanting to keep herself out of it. Either the note was written by Patsy, or the intruder knew her incredibly well and wrote the note purposefully trying to give the impression Patsy wrote it, which I think is ridiculous.
I guess my second sticking point is that JBR was found inside. If you're an intruder and you're leaving a note for ransom, toss the body ANYWHERE outside on your way out. That at least gives you a tiny chance they'll pay the ransom before finding her. But you leave her in the house, there's no chance of getting the ransom. Not that anyone ever called to set up the drop off, yet another sticking point.
observation
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2014
- Messages
- 1,388
- Reaction score
- 33
Let's not forget the "practice" note found in the notepad.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk