I can't find a hole in this theory...

[OpenMind4U]

They would stage a forced entry point - they would not include the amount of 118,000 in the ransom note and they would not insist so heartily in the ransom note not to call the police if they knew they were going to be called inevitably... no one except a ruthless psychopath could write that note after doing what was done....

I think you've answered all your questions....

 

[crimedoesnotpay]

I think you've answered all your questions....

I have a habit of talking to myself I'm afraid!! And yes, I am now convinced I know who garrotted the wee child and why - but not convinced it is the person who whacked her. The person who garrotted her is also the person who performed the violent act with the paintbrush. I cannot believe he was never charged. Utterly unbelievable.

 

[OpenMind4U]

skip

I do however think there is a possibility that the person who banged Jonbenet's head and wrote the note is not the same person who garrotted her and I believe all the Ramsey's to be innocent of all these acts.

WHAT? So, how many people do you think were involved?

First intruder = head injury and RN
Second intruder = strangulation
Third intruder = sexual penetration
Fourth intruder = cleaning, re-dressing, put in the blanket

Did I miss anything: do we need the fifth intruder?...because based on DNA, we still have place for another two....:woohoo:

 

[crimedoesnotpay]

I think you've answered all your questions....

I beg your pardon - now I am making myself out to be a liar here (lol) because I do not believe she was garrotted before the writing of the note - I believe the note accompanied the whacking or came after or was even written before the whacking - but I also believe the note was written BEFORE the garrotting and paintbrush assault - so in that way - the person who wrote the note is not necessarily as ruthless as the person who performed these final 2 acts.

 

[crimedoesnotpay]

WHAT? So, how many people do you think were involved?

First intruder = head injury and RN
Second intruder = strangulation
Third intruder = sexual penetration
Fourth intruder = cleaning, re-dressing, put in the blanket

Did I miss anything: do we need the fifth intruder?...because based on DNA, we still have place for another two....:woohoo:

first intruder = pineapple and brings duct tape rope flashlight - intends to stage kidnapping without trauma but head trauma ensues....

second party = finishes her off for other personal motives semi-related to the first intruder's acts

I will write up the scenario - it cannot be ruled out that these two parties are one and the same but the possibilty remains that this is not necessarily so.

 

[crimedoesnotpay]

WHAT? So, how many people do you think were involved?

First intruder = head injury and RN
Second intruder = strangulation
Third intruder = sexual penetration
Fourth intruder = cleaning, re-dressing, put in the blanket

Did I miss anything: do we need the fifth intruder?...because based on DNA, we still have place for another two....:woohoo:

It is possible that up to four people were involved in the final acts in my humble opinion.

 

[crimedoesnotpay]

It is possible that up to four people were involved in the final acts in my humble opinion.

From a legal standpoint however, I could probably only attempt to build a prosecution case against one of these parties from the information I have read so far.

 

[dodie20]

It is possible that up to four people were involved in the final acts in my humble opinion.

4 intruders is too much to even consider, imo. The Rs would have heard even 1 intruder! This was their house, their daughter/sister, and she was violently murdered, right there under their sleeping noses. They didn't hear or see or sense a thing? Not a 1 of them? JB may have only been 6, not much more than a baby, but she fought for her life, imo, and she didn't go quietly. And oh yeah, their alarm just happened to be turned off. moo

 

[dodie20]

I have a habit of talking to myself I'm afraid!! And yes, I am now convinced I know who garrotted the wee child and why - but not convinced it is the person who whacked her. The person who garrotted her is also the person who performed the violent act with the paintbrush. I cannot believe he was never charged. Utterly unbelievable.

just curious, is there any evidence to back up your claim, because I'd like to read it, since you find it 'unbelievable' that he wasn't charged. In my humble opinion, it's not unbelievable that noone has been charged. How can LE expect to solve a case of a murdered child, when the parents don't cooperate? Yes, the cops bungled a lot, especially early on, (lucky for the Rs, imo), but that was just a fraction of the problem. What a mess this case is. How can anybody feel disbelief? moo

 

[crimedoesnotpay]

4 intruders is too much to even consider, imo. The Rs would have heard even 1 intruder! This was their house, their daughter/sister, and she was violently murdered, right there under their sleeping noses. They didn't hear or see or sense a thing? Not a 1 of them? JB may have only been 6, not much more than a baby, but she fought for her life, imo, and she didn't go quietly. And oh yeah, their alarm just happened to be turned off. moo

I didn't say 4 intruders - funny thing is - my last home had a security alarm and i had it turned off for the exact same reasons as stated by John - now I look back.... wow...

In one house i was even given a special duress alarm by the police... I could tell you some stories of corruption... they also installed a secret pen camera rigged to a video - the video machine was encoded with a pin number only known to one or 2 police - my home was being systematically violated... when i believed the time delay video trigger had been activated i called the police - they couldn't come for 3 days and so the loop was lost - the next time they collected the film the Guy (who was actually bomb squad and special tech) said the machine had been tampered with and the tape defiled - despite only him his partner and the deputy chief of police knowing the pin number - he knew for a fact I had nothing to do with the tampering - the deputy chief of police had family members heavily linked to organised crime - this was back in 1991 when this sort of tech wasn't as old hat as it is now.

I can tell you about one time my son set off the alrm and the police came and i apologised and they checked the house anyway and i said there was someone on the roof and they said it is ok it is one of us - then the other police came in and said none of them had been onn the roof to check it yet - systematic persistent..... I am not implying one iota that any of the police arriving at the house that day were corrupt - not at all - I am saying alarms are not always the be al and end all; I am simply saying i can understand John as an innocent man not wanting the kids setting the alarms off at all hours and - maybe like me not being too good with tech and numbers and zones and the like.... its hard being a parent and making inocent decisions which later turn out to be the most foolish - or not - I don't know. Jeez. xx

 

[crimedoesnotpay]

I didn't say 4 intruders - funny thing is - my last home had a security alarm and i had it turned off for the exact same reasons as stated by John - now I look back.... wow...

In one house i was even given a special duress alarm by the police... I could tell you some stories of corruption... they also installed a secret pen camera rigged to a video - the video machine was encoded with a pin number only known to one or 2 police - my home was being systematically violated... when i believed the time delay video trigger had been activated i called the police - they couldn't come for 3 days and so the loop was lost - the next time they collected the film the Guy (who was actually bomb squad and special tech) said the machine had been tampered with and the tape defiled - despite only him his partner and the deputy chief of police knowing the pin number - he knew for a fact I had nothing to do with the tampering - the deputy chief of police had family members heavily linked to organised crime - this was back in 1991 when this sort of tech wasn't as old hat as it is now.

I can tell you about one time my son set off the alrm and the police came and i apologised and they checked the house anyway and i said there was someone on the roof and they said it is ok it is one of us - then the other police came in and said none of them had been onn the roof to check it yet - systematic persistent..... I am not implying one iota that any of the police arriving at the house that day were corrupt - not at all - I am saying alarms are not always the be al and end all; I am simply saying i can understand John as an innocent man not wanting the kids setting the alarms off at all hours and - maybe like me not being too good with tech and numbers and zones and the like.... its hard being a parent and making inocent decisions which later turn out to be the most foolish - or not - I don't know. Jeez. xx

What I am saying is that in such forms of organised crimes against children - the children are taught or trained or shown how to do what JonBenet did - get on a chair and play with the alarm - trigger it.. to annoy the parents into disabling the *advertiser censored* thing - it is a nuisance as it has to be reset by a security firm after each incident.. and you feel like a nuisance..

 

[eileenhawkeye]

What I am saying is that in such forms of organised crimes against children - the children are taught or trained or shown how to do what JonBenet did - get on a chair and play with the alarm - trigger it.. to annoy the parents into disabling the *advertiser censored* thing - it is a nuisance as it has to be reset by a security firm after each incident.. and you feel like a nuisance..

Wait...are you saying that *someone* taught JonBenet how to play with alarm so she would try it later, the R's would disable it, and then that person would kill her four years later?

 

[crimedoesnotpay]

Wait...are you saying that *someone* taught JonBenet how to play with alarm so she would try it later, the R's would disable it, and then that person would kill her four years later?

Not necessarily. Organised crime is so much more organised than most people can imagine. In 1991 I had no idea what was going on - I had been led to believe that I was the target of persons unknown and there was sufficient proof and witnesses to events to cause the police to seemingly take things seriously but i now believe they could not be trusted - it was not til 1999 that i came to know my daughter was a target and then i looked back over the years and thought about my older children. In my last address I was led to believe we had the protection of interpol and so yes i was lax with the alarm system feeling we were secured - it was not til later i realised that we were not secured but being used as bait - with my daughter as a known target - and of course my other children - I refer to my daughter cos hers is the testimony which was given to police and to me.

Give me some time and I will attempt to explain - but i will not be able to explain it all - though maybe one day I will publish a book about it - i don't know.

 

[dodie20]

What I am saying is that in such forms of organised crimes against children - the children are taught or trained or shown how to do what JonBenet did - get on a chair and play with the alarm - trigger it.. to annoy the parents into disabling the *advertiser censored* thing - it is a nuisance as it has to be reset by a security firm after each incident.. and you feel like a nuisance..

I'm confused. I never heard JR explain why the alarms wasn't set. Did he actually say JB played with it, so they disactivated it? Was it PR or JR who tool credit for disabling it?

 

[crimedoesnotpay]

I'm confused. I never heard JR explain why the alarms wasn't set. Did he actually say JB played with it, so they disactivated it? Was it PR or JR who tool credit for disabling it?

I don't know if it was fully disabled - more likely - not enabled if you know what I mean - he said she pushed a chair up to it and stood on the chair and toyed with it - he also said he was rubbish with pin number password settings and the like and couldn't remember them when he changed them... something like that.. can't remember where I read that.. and it isn't a direct quote, just my recollection. The words or quote was said to have been from John though and it hadn't been active for a very long time from what I recall - I rememebr feeling for him when I read that.

 

[Linda7NJ]

I have a habit of talking to myself I'm afraid!! And yes, I am now convinced I know who garrotted the wee child and why - but not convinced it is the person who whacked her. The person who garrotted her is also the person who performed the violent act with the paintbrush. I cannot believe he was never charged. Utterly unbelievable.

Eyerolling....you about to throw FW back under the bus? Dont bother, it wasn't him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Linda7NJ]

What I am saying is that in such forms of organised crimes against children - the children are taught or trained or shown how to do what JonBenet did - get on a chair and play with the alarm - trigger it.. to annoy the parents into disabling the *advertiser censored* thing - it is a nuisance as it has to be reset by a security firm after each incident.. and you feel like a nuisance..

I obviously have too much free time, I think I am gonna take up drinking .....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Linda7NJ]

Not necessarily. Organised crime is so much more organised than most people can imagine. In 1991 I had no idea what was going on - I had been led to believe that I was the target of persons unknown and there was sufficient proof and witnesses to events to cause the police to seemingly take things seriously but i now believe they could not be trusted - it was not til 1999 that i came to know my daughter was a target and then i looked back over the years and thought about my older children. In my last address I was led to believe we had the protection of interpol and so yes i was lax with the alarm system feeling we were secured - it was not til later i realised that we were not secured but being used as bait - with my daughter as a known target - and of course my other children - I refer to my daughter cos hers is the testimony which was given to police and to me.

Give me some time and I will attempt to explain - but i will not be able to explain it all - though maybe one day I will publish a book about it - i don't know.

You would need a good ghost writer, I can't understand or follow your train of thought...at all...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[txsvicki]

1st "intruder" goes into a rage at someone drninking from his glass and eating from his bowl
2nd "intruder" does the rest to hide secrets
3rd intruder" catches on and has to get attorneys
4th-6th intruders- attorneys and da office

 

[dodie20]

I don't know if it was fully disabled - more likely - not enabled if you know what I mean - he said she pushed a chair up to it and stood on the chair and toyed with it - he also said he was rubbish with pin number password settings and the like and couldn't remember them when he changed them... something like that.. can't remember where I read that.. and it isn't a direct quote, just my recollection. The words or quote was said to have been from John though and it hadn't been active for a very long time from what I recall - I rememebr feeling for him when I read that.

well, this is something I find hard to believe. JR ran a billion dollar computer company. I don't believe he was 'rubbish' with pin number password settings and the like.moo