Expanding Dr.Wecht's series of events...

[Let_Forever_Be]

Well Wecht's theory should explain why JonBenet was wiped down, using skin cleanser, why she was wearing size-12's, why she was placed, wrapped in a blanket, into the wine-cellar, after being redressed. And lastly, but not least, why was the EA device left on her neck when the rest of her person was cleaned up and staged?

Answers on a postcard to Wecht Theory Services.


Some of what Wecht adduces as fact is plain speculation.



.

UKGuy,

Please read your post and ask yourself : do I have to be so arrogant? C'mon UKGuy, why the need for your condescending post?

No-one was fighting. But your post and antagonistic tone does no favours to this forum.

Speaking of all things astounding, I'm amazed when people such as yourself, who have not actually solved this case BTW and are internet sleuths, can dismiss with such ease the theories of world-renowned criminologists.

I will just add in -- in my posts I'm forever mentioning that I don't have 100% of the answers. Nor do you or anyone for that matter.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

Well Wecht's theory should explain why JonBenet was wiped down, using skin cleanser, why she was wearing size-12's, why she was placed, wrapped in a blanket, into the wine-cellar, after being redressed. And lastly, but not least, why was the EA device left on her neck when the rest of her person was cleaned up and staged?

Answers on a postcard to Wecht Theory Services.


Some of what Wecht adduces as fact is plain speculation.



.

Answers on a postcard to Wecht Theory Services.

You are always free to contact him yourself. I'm not his official spokesperson. I'm just someone who, at this moment in time, favours his theory.

why was the EA device left on her neck when the rest of her person was cleaned up and staged?

What purpose would removing the EA device (if it was one and it was the source of death) do?I mean, removing the EA device wouldn't make the perp look any less guilty. And since the logistics of that evening, what with the snow and fear of waking up neighbours etc, it was difficult to dispose with incriminating evidence anyway. Whatever cause of death was not meant to be attributed to the parents, was it? Perhaps it was hoped that anything found would be attributed to some mysterious intruder.

For all we know (and assuming the EA device was the source of death) it could be staging. When JonBenet died it's not unrealistic to speculate that the perp removed the neck device and tried to resisicate her. That would be a pretty normal reaction if the perp was not anticipating a death. That would also explain the bruises in temporal lobes of the brain -- she was shook after she went unconscious. But when that failed, they were left with a dead body -- one molested and dead from a sex-related games. Perhaps the neck device, as found on the body was staging done after the original EA device killed her.

I read there's been some speculation that beneath the deep furrow caused from the ligature there were other haemorrhages that some think were caused from the EA device. I don't know it that's true.

Who knows. It's all just speculation.

Why was she wiped down? To remove forensic evidence of the perp from her body. If the parents did this, they were removing their ties to the crime.The paranoia of leaving their mark on the death perhaps forced them to do this.

Why was she wearing size12s? Perhaps because she soiled her other underwear. Perhaps because after wiping her down to remove incriminating evidence she needed to be dressed to make it look like she always had them on and was removed from her bed with them on. Perhaps after the genital region bleeding and the depravity of what went on, the perp(s) tried to normalise the situation via the staging and the closest item to hand was the underwear in the basement which I believe was wrapped/partially wrapped but within the vicinity so at hand.

Why was she placed in a blanket? Perhaps the parent couldn't bear for their little girl to lie in the basement like a piece of meat. The blanket had a symbolic role -- it was comforting to the perp to do it despite it actually slightly adding to speculation that it was the action of a parent.

Why was she placed in the wine cellar? Perhaps being the most obscure room in the house, it seemed logical to place a dead body there. If the 'intruder' wanted a ransom, he wouldn't place the body in open view. Also, when Patsy got up to phone the police just before 6am (this assumes she knew JB was dead) the fact that the body was in the wine cellar would totally explain why the parents, after supposedly searching for JB after reading the ransom note, couldn't find her and thus justified their decision to phone the police.Perhaps, because the room was known to so few, it was a deliberate attempt to trace the blame to the housekeeper? Perhaps that's why Patsy found the ransom note on the stairs -- the same stairs the housekeeper used to put Patsy's bags. Perhaps that's why the ransom note mentions the bonus of $118,000 -- inside knowledge. Didn't John Ramsey, on bringing his daughter up from the wine cellar 'when he found her' say to police 'this is an inside job'?

 

[DeeDee249]

My theory is that she was wiped down because she bled from the vagina and it was all over her thighs and pubic area. I saw nothing mentioned about skin cleanser in the autopsy. Is this fact or rumor?

The size 12s were right there in the basement, wrapped in a gift box ready to be mailed to Patsy's niece. This way, no one needed to go back up to her room, where BR may have seen/heard them. I d not believe BR played ANY part in the staging.

She was wrapped in her blanket for 2 possible reasons. One, was that they simply did not want to put her on the filthy, moldy floor. Yet another thing pointing to parental involvement, BTW, as no intruder would care about that at all. She wasn't hidden under that blanket, but it was carefully wrapped around just her torso, with her face and lower legs exposed. NO ONe but a parent would do this. Another reason was so that could say she was taken from her bed in the blanket. LE put a stop to that nonsense by pointing out to Patsy in an interview that the bed in the photo was perfectly made and intact at the foot end and got Patsy to admit that it was obvious that no blanket could have been pulled from the bed and left the bed undisturbed like that.

Placing her in the wineceller was probably part of their plan to remover her later after police left. This was the most hidden room in the house and many people who knew the Rs did not even know about it. Hiding her there bought them time. She was supposed to be kidnapped. She couldn't be seen. However when the Rs realized the police were not going to leave them alone in the house, they had to "find" her. The alternative, leaving her to decompose in the house to be found by cadaver dogs later, was simply not an option. JR did the only thing he could do, faced with his situation.

 

[Let_Forever_Be]

My theory is that she was wiped down because she bled from the vagina and it was all over her thighs and pubic area. I saw nothing mentioned about skin cleanser in the autopsy. Is this fact or rumor?

I would accept this view too. It makes a lot of sense.

The size 12s were right there in the basement, wrapped in a gift box ready to be mailed to Patsy's niece. This way, no one needed to go back up to her room, where BR may have seen/heard them. I d not believe BR played ANY part in the staging.

I agree. The underwear were in the general vicinity -- they were close and at hand.

She was wrapped in her blanket for 2 possible reasons. One, was that they simply did not want to put her on the filthy, moldy floor. Yet another thing pointing to parental involvement, BTW, as no intruder would care about that at all. She wasn't hidden under that blanket, but it was carefully wrapped around just her torso, with her face and lower legs exposed. NO ONe but a parent would do this. Another reason was so that could say she was taken from her bed in the blanket. LE put a stop to that nonsense by pointing out to Patsy in an interview that the bed in the photo was perfectly made and intact at the foot end and got Patsy to admit that it was obvious that no blanket could have been pulled from the bed and left the bed undisturbed like that.

Good point. The blanket was perhaps an attempt to link the intruder to 'snatching' JB from her bed. But yes, I too think the blanket shows parental involvement.

Placing her in the wineceller was probably part of their plan to remover her later after police left. This was the most hidden room in the house and many people who knew the Rs did not even know about it. Hiding her there bought them time. She was supposed to be kidnapped. She couldn't be seen. However when the Rs realized the police were not going to leave them alone in the house, they had to "find" her. The alternative, leaving her to decompose in the house to be found by cadaver dogs later, was simply not an option. JR did the only thing he could do, faced with his situation.

That makes sense. I don't obviously know what the Ramseys thought would happen or if they had a plan etc. I think the wine cellar, being so obscure, was the logical choice to place the body in -- it was out of sight. Thus, the body was hidden and harder to find than if it were placed in just about any other room in the house.This bought them time. So this obviously justified the parents not finding her in the morning and then justified them calling the police in a sense. But ofcourse, with the LE in their home on the 26th and the reality they were staying and that the 'intruder' wouldn't be calling, John had to find her.

 

[Chrishope]

Chrishope,

Absolutely.

The R's had a plan, some of which we can intuit via those things they did not undertake, e.g. dumping JonBenet outdoors. John relocated Burke ASAP that morning. Now did he do that because he thought JonBenet's discovery was imminent, or was there some other motive?

Is the redressing of JonBenet done to facilitate post-discovery expectations or to conform with the R's version of events?

IMO the R's could have no other plan than one which incorporated a getaway. In executing the Abduction Scenario, they probably thought: JonBenet will be found, and we will be arrested, so how can we prevent this, and if we can, lets leave town ASAP, else we might never leave custody?

The R's could not read the future, not unless it was a conspiracy, so they either assume JonBenet would be found quickly or not at all? That John then finds JonBenet suggests this was their preferred outcome?

It does appear they wanted to present a staged crime-scene thinking they could fool everyone?

That is they dressed JonBenet as put to bed the night before, but staged with the garrote to effect a viscious asphyxiation, then hid her in the wine-cellar.



.

Of course we don't know if what we "see" is plan A or plan E, or something in between. There may have been a plan to dump the body - a plan that was abandoned for some reason.

If I'd been in that position, I'd have figured on the body being found -and probably quickly. An intruder would also have had to figure the same thing -making ransom collection impossible.

 

[UKGuy]

UKGuy,

Please read your post and ask yourself : do I have to be so arrogant? C'mon UKGuy, why the need for your condescending post?

No-one was fighting. But your post and antagonistic tone does no favours to this forum.

Speaking of all things astounding, I'm amazed when people such as yourself, who have not actually solved this case BTW and are internet sleuths, can dismiss with such ease the theories of world-renowned criminologists.

I will just add in -- in my posts I'm forever mentioning that I don't have 100% of the answers. Nor do you or anyone for that matter.

Let_Forever_Be,

Please read your post and ask yourself : do I have to be so arrogant? C'mon UKGuy, why the need for your condescending post?

mmm sometimes confidence is mistaken for arrogance, my post is intended to stimulate debate, so theories can be evaluated and confirmed or disconfirmed.

Speaking of all things astounding, I'm amazed when people such as yourself, who have not actually solved this case BTW and are internet sleuths, can dismiss with such ease the theories of world-renowned criminologists.

I may be similarly astounded at the ease which you accept, uncritically, such theories.

I did use the term adduce which is a polite way of distinguishing opinion from fact. Mr Wecht, after all, does have a book to sell.


.

 

[UKGuy]

Of course we don't know if what we "see" is plan A or plan E, or something in between. There may have been a plan to dump the body - a plan that was abandoned for some reason.

If I'd been in that position, I'd have figured on the body being found -and probably quickly. An intruder would also have had to figure the same thing -making ransom collection impossible.

Chrishope,

Of course we don't know if what we "see" is plan A or plan E, or something in between. There may have been a plan to dump the body - a plan that was abandoned for some reason.

Personally, I think there was some other plan. Discarding reason I intuit that it was Patsy's plan that was abondoned, and John reformulated it to that of an abduction scenario, for me its the size-12's that give it away?

If I'd been in that position, I'd have figured on the body being found -and probably quickly. An intruder would also have had to figure the same thing -making ransom collection impossible.

Suggesting that the reason for adopting it was to stall for time, leaving JonBenet staged as the victim of a bedroom homicide, might mean the R's being arrested?

.

 

[Chrishope]

Chrishope,

Personally, I think there was some other plan. Discarding reason I intuit that it was Patsy's plan that was abondoned, and John reformulated it to that of an abduction scenario, for me its the size-12's that give it away?


Suggesting that the reason for adopting it was to stall for time, leaving JonBenet staged as the victim of a bedroom homicide, might mean the R's being arrested?

.

I can't see PR putting size 12s on JBR either.

I'm not sure why they weren't arrested when the body was found.

I suspect an earlier plan (not necessarily the first plan) was to ditch the body somewhere. For some reason, the plan was abandoned. Neighbors might have been up, or just the sound of the garage door/car might have been noticed. They couldn't have neighbors telling the police that the Rs took a drive at 0300 and returned at 0500. The body had to be "hidden" so to speak in order to make the RN "plausible" (e.g. to make it plausible that the Rs were taking it seriously) I don't think they really believed that the cops wouldn't find the body - and early, which is why all the friends were called over early. They had to hope that the cops would "buy" the idea that the kidnappers thought the body wouldn't be found -until after time to pay the ransom. Of course no real kidnapper would have left the body in a place that easy to find. And of course, it was easy to find (assuming it had not been moved) if one carries a flashlight and can figure out how to operate a simple latch. No reason at all the body shouldn't have been found by 6:30am.

 

[Maikai]

I can't see PR putting size 12s on JBR either.

I'm not sure why they weren't arrested when the body was found.

I suspect an earlier plan (not necessarily the first plan) was to ditch the body somewhere. For some reason, the plan was abandoned. Neighbors might have been up, or just the sound of the garage door/car might have been noticed. They couldn't have neighbors telling the police that the Rs took a drive at 0300 and returned at 0500. The body had to be "hidden" so to speak in order to make the RN "plausible" (e.g. to make it plausible that the Rs were taking it seriously) I don't think they really believed that the cops wouldn't find the body - and early, which is why all the friends were called over early. They had to hope that the cops would "buy" the idea that the kidnappers thought the body wouldn't be found -until after time to pay the ransom. Of course no real kidnapper would have left the body in a place that easy to find. And of course, it was easy to find (assuming it had not been moved) if one carries a flashlight and can figure out how to operate a simple latch. No reason at all the body shouldn't have been found by 6:30am.

What is a "real" kidnapper? If this was a kidnapping gone bad by amateurs they would have left the body in the nearest place and gotten out of there. It's hard for me to imagine two parents that doted on their child all of a sudden would hatch a plan to dump her like garbage on the side of a road in the middle of winter. IMO, the only reason JBR was left in the house is the perp blew the kidnapping, and they couldn't get her out of the house through the window.

 

[UKGuy]

You are always free to contact him yourself. I'm not his official spokesperson. I'm just someone who, at this moment in time, favours his theory.



What purpose would removing the EA device (if it was one and it was the source of death) do?I mean, removing the EA device wouldn't make the perp look any less guilty. And since the logistics of that evening, what with the snow and fear of waking up neighbours etc, it was difficult to dispose with incriminating evidence anyway. Whatever cause of death was not meant to be attributed to the parents, was it? Perhaps it was hoped that anything found would be attributed to some mysterious intruder.

For all we know (and assuming the EA device was the source of death) it could be staging. When JonBenet died it's not unrealistic to speculate that the perp removed the neck device and tried to resisicate her. That would be a pretty normal reaction if the perp was not anticipating a death. That would also explain the bruises in temporal lobes of the brain -- she was shook after she went unconscious. But when that failed, they were left with a dead body -- one molested and dead from a sex-related games. Perhaps the neck device, as found on the body was staging done after the original EA device killed her.

I read there's been some speculation that beneath the deep furrow caused from the ligature there were other haemorrhages that some think were caused from the EA device. I don't know it that's true.

Who knows. It's all just speculation.

Why was she wiped down? To remove forensic evidence of the perp from her body. If the parents did this, they were removing their ties to the crime.The paranoia of leaving their mark on the death perhaps forced them to do this.

Why was she wearing size12s? Perhaps because she soiled her other underwear. Perhaps because after wiping her down to remove incriminating evidence she needed to be dressed to make it look like she always had them on and was removed from her bed with them on. Perhaps after the genital region bleeding and the depravity of what went on, the perp(s) tried to normalise the situation via the staging and the closest item to hand was the underwear in the basement which I believe was wrapped/partially wrapped but within the vicinity so at hand.

Why was she placed in a blanket? Perhaps the parent couldn't bear for their little girl to lie in the basement like a piece of meat. The blanket had a symbolic role -- it was comforting to the perp to do it despite it actually slightly adding to speculation that it was the action of a parent.

Why was she placed in the wine cellar? Perhaps being the most obscure room in the house, it seemed logical to place a dead body there. If the 'intruder' wanted a ransom, he wouldn't place the body in open view. Also, when Patsy got up to phone the police just before 6am (this assumes she knew JB was dead) the fact that the body was in the wine cellar would totally explain why the parents, after supposedly searching for JB after reading the ransom note, couldn't find her and thus justified their decision to phone the police.Perhaps, because the room was known to so few, it was a deliberate attempt to trace the blame to the housekeeper? Perhaps that's why Patsy found the ransom note on the stairs -- the same stairs the housekeeper used to put Patsy's bags. Perhaps that's why the ransom note mentions the bonus of $118,000 -- inside knowledge. Didn't John Ramsey, on bringing his daughter up from the wine cellar 'when he found her' say to police 'this is an inside job'?

Let_Forever_Be,

What purpose would removing the EA device (if it was one and it was the source of death) do?I mean, removing the EA device wouldn't make the perp look any less guilty. And since the logistics of that evening, what with the snow and fear of waking up neighbours etc, it was difficult to dispose with incriminating evidence anyway. Whatever cause of death was not meant to be attributed to the parents, was it? Perhaps it was hoped that anything found would be attributed to some mysterious intruder.

I have two main reasons for demoting Wecht's EA theory to close to the bottom of the WDI list, one is that it could not function as advertised, and secondly whilst the rest of JonBenet was staged the garrote was not. And if you are a killer in the business of removing traces and masking precisely what occurred, then you are not going to leave the garrote in place. Particularly when you also know there is forensic evidence of a sexual assault!

The explanations you offer for other forensic items apply equally as well within other theories, but in Wecht's EA theory the varying factor is the garrote, which in a holistic sense does not fit, even the tabloids noted this and exploited it, so alike the size-12's I reckon the garrote is pure staging, and in a staged crime-scene some people will always consider some of the staged evidence to be fact and end up embracing the wrong theory.


.

 

[UKGuy]

I can't see PR putting size 12s on JBR either.

I'm not sure why they weren't arrested when the body was found.

I suspect an earlier plan (not necessarily the first plan) was to ditch the body somewhere. For some reason, the plan was abandoned. Neighbors might have been up, or just the sound of the garage door/car might have been noticed. They couldn't have neighbors telling the police that the Rs took a drive at 0300 and returned at 0500. The body had to be "hidden" so to speak in order to make the RN "plausible" (e.g. to make it plausible that the Rs were taking it seriously) I don't think they really believed that the cops wouldn't find the body - and early, which is why all the friends were called over early. They had to hope that the cops would "buy" the idea that the kidnappers thought the body wouldn't be found -until after time to pay the ransom. Of course no real kidnapper would have left the body in a place that easy to find. And of course, it was easy to find (assuming it had not been moved) if one carries a flashlight and can figure out how to operate a simple latch. No reason at all the body shouldn't have been found by 6:30am.

Chrishope,

I can't see PR putting size 12s on JBR either.

I agree. Not when there is a drawer of size-6 underwear upstairs. Which allows the inference that there may have not been a pair of size-6 Wednesday Bloomingdales in her bathroom underwear drawer, and that this is the reason why BPD, Steve Thomas, Holly Smith, et-al have never disclosed what the days of the week were of the underwear found in JonBenet's bathroom drawer, or if there was a mix?

This is knowledge the police have, that we do not, and this is what may have spurred the return of the package of size-12's?

I'm not sure why they weren't arrested when the body was found.

Sure, and many read the signs of conspiracy here, even after JR was heard phoning to have his getaway plane ready for flight, they were still not arrested, very bizarre!

I suspect an earlier plan (not necessarily the first plan) was to ditch the body somewhere. For some reason, the plan was abandoned. Neighbors might have been up, or just the sound of the garage door/car might have been noticed.

Yes, I have always thought this. Since redressing JonBenet in the context of a kidnap and being dumped in the wine-cellar, appears redundant.

Wrapping JonBenet in the blanket suggests she was being prepared to be dumped outdoors, although some people think this was an act of undoing so represents a psychological trait.

if one carries a flashlight and can figure out how to operate a simple latch. No reason at all the body shouldn't have been found by 6:30am.

Absolutely, enter stage left, Fleet White, how did he miss JonBenet? I'll bet this might be one reason why he has not spoken publicly, this doubt can be played in both directions, thus easily discrediting him.


.

 

[Chrishope]

What is a "real" kidnapper? If this was a kidnapping gone bad by amateurs they would have left the body in the nearest place and gotten out of there. It's hard for me to imagine two parents that doted on their child all of a sudden would hatch a plan to dump her like garbage on the side of a road in the middle of winter. IMO, the only reason JBR was left in the house is the perp blew the kidnapping, and they couldn't get her out of the house through the window.

A "real" kidnapper is one who is both an intruder, and intent on collecting ransom.

If this was a kidnapping "gone bad" what -exactly- went "bad"? What prevented them from carrying out the kidnapping? If they were able to get her out of her bed why in the world did they need to abandon the plan and not remove her from the house? Surely you don't believe they were trying to take her out the basement window?

And if it started as a kidnapping then "went bad" what exactly happened to transform it from a kidnapping to sex crime/brutal murder? I mean, they not only have to abandon the kidnapping plan, but then, for some reason they decide to molest her, then wipe her down, then redress her, then wrap her in a blanky, then place her in the WC.

It's clear that if there were intruders, they got out so why couldn't they take JBR with them? And even if there is a reason they couldn't take JBR, why did they need to do all the other stuff? In particular, why take time to redress the body?

If this was a kidnapping gone bad by amateurs they would have left the body in the nearest place and gotten out of there.

Exactly right. And the only way the wine cellar is the nearest place -physically- is if for some reason they needed her in the wine cellar as part of a kidnapping plan, just before the plan "went bad". Care to explain how that facilitates the kidnapping? The WC is not even close to the broken window -it's on the opposite side of the basement, and there are no windows in the WC. http://extras.denverpost.com/news/jonhouse1016b.htm If the plan was a kidnapping and part of the plan was to take her out the basement window (unlikely as that wasn't the entry point to begin with) then where does the WC fit in? How does the WC become the nearest place?


But then there is also the time element. If the kidnapping "went bad" why take the time to molest, wipe down, redress, bundle, and place the body in the WC? Or is there a plausible explanation as to why all these things were part of a kidnapping plan - some plausible explanation as to how all these things facilitate a kidnapping, prior to it "going bad".

 

[Chrishope]

Chrishope,

I agree. Not when there is a drawer of size-6 underwear upstairs. Which allows the inference that there may have not been a pair of size-6 Wednesday Bloomingdales in her bathroom underwear drawer, and that this is the reason why BPD, Steve Thomas, Holly Smith, et-al have never disclosed what the days of the week were of the underwear found in JonBenet's bathroom drawer, or if there was a mix?

This is knowledge the police have, that we do not, and this is what may have spurred the return of the package of size-12's?


Sure, and many read the signs of conspiracy here, even after JR was heard phoning to have his getaway plane ready for flight, they were still not arrested, very bizarre!


Yes, I have always thought this. Since redressing JonBenet in the context of a kidnap and being dumped in the wine-cellar, appears redundant.

Wrapping JonBenet in the blanket suggests she was being prepared to be dumped outdoors, although some people think this was an act of undoing so represents a psychological trait.



Absolutely, enter stage left, Fleet White, how did he miss JonBenet? I'll bet this might be one reason why he has not spoken publicly, this doubt can be played in both directions, thus easily discrediting him.


.

As we discussed quite some time ago, it may be that PR was not the one to put the 12s on her. It's also possible the oversized panties were in the drawer but removed (or not placed in the drawer as per plan) but this fact was never revealed to PR. Thus she actually believed it when she said the 12s were in the drawer with the other underwear - because they were supposed to be. The wed. feature was given undue importance? In someone's mind, this was more important that the size?

It's hard to see how FW missed her - if the body was there when he looked.

 

[azwriter]

Of course we don't know if what we "see" is plan A or plan E, or something in between. There may have been a plan to dump the body - a plan that was abandoned for some reason.

If I'd been in that position, I'd have figured on the body being found -and probably quickly. An intruder would also have had to figure the same thing -making ransom collection impossible.[/QUOTE]

Chrishope, I believe the ransom "letter" held the truth that the money for ransom wasn't important. Look at how the letter details how the money would be prepared; right down to the type of bags it would be placed in. But, the actually transfer of money for child is at best sketchy.

If this were a real kidnapping, the kidnapper would be more exact on how the trade would be made. After all isn't that the main point of a kidnapping - money for the return of the child?...but the only instruction given is that the Ramsey's would be contacted "tomorrow."

Since there is no date on the ransom letter, and it would be found after a new day began, the day of contact would be spelled out, not just a confusing "tomorrow."

To me, there is no way a kidnapper would risk taking a child from its home, write a detailed ranson letter and not nail down how the most important part would take place. And the call for the arrangement never did come.
jmo

 

[Chrishope]

Of course we don't know if what we "see" is plan A or plan E, or something in between. There may have been a plan to dump the body - a plan that was abandoned for some reason.

If I'd been in that position, I'd have figured on the body being found -and probably quickly. An intruder would also have had to figure the same thing -making ransom collection impossible.[/QUOTE]

Chrishope, I believe the ransom "letter" held the truth that the money for ransom wasn't important. Look at how the letter details how the money would be prepared; right down to the type of bags it would be placed in. But, the actually transfer of money for child is at best sketchy.

If this were a real kidnapping, the kidnapper would be more exact on how the trade would be made. After all isn't that the main point of a kidnapping - money for the return of the child?...but the only instruction given is that the Ramsey's would be contacted "tomorrow."

Since there is no date on the ransom letter, and it would be found after a new day began, the day of contact would be spelled out, not just a confusing "tomorrow."

To me, there is no way a kidnapper would risk taking a child from its home, write a detailed ranson letter and not nail down how the most important part would take place. And the call for the arrangement never did come.
jmo

Well, I tend to agree. But let me play devil's advocate.

The details of the exchange could have been left sketchy because that would prevent police from knowing anything in advance. For example, if the transfer were specified in the RN, and let's say the instructions said to put the money in a trash barrel at such and such public park, then undercover cops would be staked out in the park to see who put things in the trash barrel. I can sort of see leaving these details out - but I can't really see putting the other details in - denominations of bills, type of bag, etc. Those details could have been part of the transfer instructions. So generally I think you're right. The transfer is sketchy while the other aspects are highly detailed because the author of the RN knows very well there is never going to be a transfer.


As to the meaning of "tomorrow" I'm less certain than you are that this indicates a fake - though it raises a red flag. It's just endlessly fascinating -to me anyway- how people will come up with different interpretations. What seems obvious to one person is mysterious to another, and vice versa. IOWs people think they are being clear, when they are not. But it's certainly possible that "tomorrow" was intended to be vague so that it would be confusing. As you say, the note would be found at the dawn of a new day, but then, it seems "obvious" that the note was left the night before, so "tomorrow" and "today" become the same? I can't decide if this is deliberate or just sloppy.

 

[DeeDee249]

While pedophile killers do not as a rule kidnap for ransom, and kidnappers for ransom rarely molest their victims, if the kidnapper DID wish to do this they'd never do it in the home with the family present and probably still awake (going by the approx time of death). They'd remove her from the house first.

Time everyone saw this for what it was...a family with a secret (plenty of nice families have these same secrets) that saw things get WAY out of control that night and a little girl ended up dead.

 

[icedtea4me]

A "real" kidnapper is one who is both an intruder, and intent on collecting ransom.

If this was a kidnapping "gone bad" what -exactly- went "bad"? What prevented them from carrying out the kidnapping? If they were able to get her out of her bed why in the world did they need to abandon the plan and not remove her from the house? Surely you don't believe they were trying to take her out the basement window?

And if it started as a kidnapping then "went bad" what exactly happened to transform it from a kidnapping to sex crime/brutal murder? I mean, they not only have to abandon the kidnapping plan, but then, for some reason they decide to molest her, then wipe her down, then redress her, then wrap her in a blanky, then place her in the WC.

It's clear that if there were intruders, they got out so why couldn't they take JBR with them? And even if there is a reason they couldn't take JBR, why did they need to do all the other stuff? In particular, why take time to redress the body?



Exactly right. And the only way the wine cellar is the nearest place -physically- is if for some reason they needed her in the wine cellar as part of a kidnapping plan, just before the plan "went bad". Care to explain how that facilitates the kidnapping? The WC is not even close to the broken window -it's on the opposite side of the basement, and there are no windows in the WC. http://extras.denverpost.com/news/jonhouse1016b.htm If the plan was a kidnapping and part of the plan was to take her out the basement window (unlikely as that wasn't the entry point to begin with) then where does the WC fit in? How does the WC become the nearest place?


But then there is also the time element. If the kidnapping "went bad" why take the time to molest, wipe down, redress, bundle, and place the body in the WC? Or is there a plausible explanation as to why all these things were part of a kidnapping plan - some plausible explanation as to how all these things facilitate a kidnapping, prior to it "going bad".

From what I recall, wasn't the butler kitchen door found unlocked and open? If so, then why wouldn't the perp have removed JonBenet through this egress? Then there is the matter of the suitcase under the broken basement window. It was found perpendicular to the window opening (i.e. short end facing the wall). If I was going to use a suitcase as a means to help me climb out a window, I'd have it parallel to the wall under it so I could stand with my feet side by side on it. (There is also the matter of Fleet White having said he had moved the suitcase, so it would need to be known how it was situated before he had done so.)

 

[Agatha_C]

From what I recall, wasn't the butler kitchen door found unlocked and open? If so, then why wouldn't the perp have removed JonBenet through this egress? Then there is the matter of the suitcase under the broken basement window. It was found perpendicular to the window opening (i.e. short end facing the wall). If I was going to use a suitcase as a means to help me climb out a window, I'd have it parallel to the wall under it so I could stand with my feet side by side on it. (There is also the matter of Fleet White having said he had moved the suitcase, so it would need to be known how it was situated before he had done so.)

The suitcase is a ridiculous distraction in my opinion. There was a chair in the doorway of the room and a drum table. Why would this intruder use the suitcase, that according to John wasnt in that room before. He said its out of place, that it didnt belong there. Its not where it was usually kept. The intruder would have had to pass the chair and table crowding the doorway and go to another part of the basement to get the suitcase. I need an IDI to make sense of that. Help me to make sense of that please!!!!!!

For the record, I'm not calling IcedTeaForMe an IDI, just wanted to make sure thats understood...

Also ridiculous is Lou Smit, demonstrating how an intruder entered the basement window. Notice how he has the suitcase under the window upon entrance. If the intruder put the suitcase there, it wouldnt have been there when he first entered or at least thats what the homeowner claims, because it was out of place and did not belong there.

I really dont think that suitcase had any other purpose then confusion and distraction and its worked...... The intruder is team Ramsey's imaginary friend....

 

[UKGuy]

The suitcase is a ridiculous distraction in my opinion. There was a chair in the doorway of the room and a drum table. Why would this intruder use the suitcase, that according to John wasnt in that room before. He said its out of place, that it didnt belong there. Its not where it was usually kept. The intruder would have had to pass the chair and table crowding the doorway and go to another part of the basement to get the suitcase. I need an IDI to make sense of that. Help me to make sense of that please!!!!!!

For the record, I'm not calling IcedTeaForMe an IDI, just wanted to make sure thats understood...

Also ridiculous is Lou Smit, demonstrating how an intruder entered the basement window. Notice how he has the suitcase under the window upon entrance. If the intruder put the suitcase there, it wouldnt have been there when he first entered or at least thats what the homeowner claims, because it was out of place and did not belong there.

I really dont think that suitcase had any other purpose then confusion and distraction and its worked...... The intruder is team Ramsey's imaginary friend....

Agatha_C,
You have to wonder why Lou Smit played the Intruder game. John with his story about breaking in to his own house, why did it matter? Who was he trying to convince, his daughter is dead and he wants to tell us about how he broke in, then gets Lou Smit to duplicate it and post the images for the media to use, duh!




.

 

[UKGuy]

Well, I tend to agree. But let me play devil's advocate.

The details of the exchange could have been left sketchy because that would prevent police from knowing anything in advance. For example, if the transfer were specified in the RN, and let's say the instructions said to put the money in a trash barrel at such and such public park, then undercover cops would be staked out in the park to see who put things in the trash barrel. I can sort of see leaving these details out - but I can't really see putting the other details in - denominations of bills, type of bag, etc. Those details could have been part of the transfer instructions. So generally I think you're right. The transfer is sketchy while the other aspects are highly detailed because the author of the RN knows very well there is never going to be a transfer.


As to the meaning of "tomorrow" I'm less certain than you are that this indicates a fake - though it raises a red flag. It's just endlessly fascinating -to me anyway- how people will come up with different interpretations. What seems obvious to one person is mysterious to another, and vice versa. IOWs people think they are being clear, when they are not. But it's certainly possible that "tomorrow" was intended to be vague so that it would be confusing. As you say, the note would be found at the dawn of a new day, but then, it seems "obvious" that the note was left the night before, so "tomorrow" and "today" become the same? I can't decide if this is deliberate or just sloppy.

Chrishope,
tomorrow is fake is it not. Its just the authors way of suggesting the note was written on the 25th. The R's have to mask that it was written postmortem. That is the tense is present, JonBenet's existential aspect is alive, but the forensic evidence and autopsy clearly demonstrate that her existential aspect is dead, e.g. a temporal process has unfolded.

In other words an intruder killed JonBenet then wrote a ransom note, which is contradictory?

tomorrow cannot be the day succeeding the 26th because John found JonBenet on this day, which he would not have done if the plan was to wait until tomorrow?


.
.