What do we really know about dec 24 .06

[why_nutt]

great post why_nutt. I have spent a lot of time over the last week reading old threads about this it was very interesting. I was on the fence and hadnt studied much of this case but I do believe the murder was one of the ramseys.I am leaning towards a cover up for burke,but I am still reading .I hope someday the truth will come out either way.

...............

You will never go wrong by starting with the basics. There are no unique murders, not anymore, not after thousands of years of human history. So if a murder appears unique, it cannot be. It has to be like other murders in some way. Parents kill children in their own homes. That is what the Ramsey case has in common with human history. Intruders never kill children in their own homes by moving them from one room to another inside the house. That is what the Ramsey case has which makes it unique and therefore not possible according to human history.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Oh, yes you can. If JonBenet were found a park, and the only person known to be in the area was a groundskeeper, the groundskeeper would be assigned added suspicion. If JonBenet were found in a closet in a library, and the only people known to be in the library during the time frame involved were two librarians, both would be assigned added suspicion. A major component of crime investigation is exploring who had control, or felt they had control, over the scene of the crime. The Ramseys had absolute control over the scene of JonBenet's death. They knew how sound traveled, they knew how light fell, they knew where every item involved should or should not belong, and they belonged in the house. Just as with the groundkeeper, or the librarians, they deserve to be suspected because they know more than other people how easy or difficult it would have been to kill JonBenet at the location she was found.

Suspicion is a funny word. You could investigate a family member more than a neighbor, a groundskeeper more than a passing jogger, or a librarian more than someone reading a book. You should not suspect a groundskeeper more than a passing jogger unless while investigating, there is something suspicious. Then you should assign suspicion.

Intruders never kill children in their own homes by moving them from one room to another inside the house.

OMG you're not serious, are you?

Is this Standard Rule #37 in the Child Murder Handbook?

 

[why_nutt]

OMG you're not serious, are you?

Is this Standard Rule #37 in the Child Murder Handbook?

It is historical fact, and might as well be a rule, since it is a fact murderers never choose to dispute or to change. Water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit. Intruders into a house never move children from one room to another within the children's own houses and then kill them while relatives sleep nearby. Both of these statements are facts, and facts are to be taken seriously.

 

[Rupert]

If they were so on it as to bring the tape and cord with them, how did they not think to also bring the handle they need to implement the garrote? Why didn't they write the ransom note elsewhere with their own supplies and bring that with them? How could they have either left their flashlight behind or known the Ramseys had one they could use? So much of what was used to commit this crime appears to have been found on site. Considering the purchases Patsy had made at the hardware store, I don't think it's too far out of line to think that the tape and cord came from the Ramsey house too. I don't think it's too far out of line to think that the killer came from the Ramsey house as well. There's very good reason they haven't been eliminated as murder suspects.

Some more evidence that leads me to believe that there was no intruder who brought something in from the outside. Staging with material that came only from the house suggests that it was an internal job. Sad.

 

[Becba]

The autopsy said she died from asphyxiation (sp) and the head injury had only about a tsp of blood in it. So she was strangled and the head injury followed at on or around the time of death. Such a massive 8 inch fracture would have caused major bleeding in the head. So the garrote was not staged. It was the cause of death along with the soon after fracture. She had the broken blood vessels in her eyes from asphyxiation also. No hand marks around her neck. Also the garrote rope was tightly in her skin and she had scratched her own neck attempting to get it off. She was strangled. That was not staged.

Any staging would be moving the body and perhaps the rope around her arms, the blanket, the nightgown etc. IMO

 

[Nuisanceposter]

I don't think the garrote was staged. I think that was the cause of death, followed by the skull fracture. I don't think the sexual abuse was staged, either. I think the tape, the rope, the positioning, the location of JB, ransom note, all of that was staging, and all set up to make it look like someone other than a Ramsey was the perp.

 

[Becba]

I don't think the garrote was staged. I think that was the cause of death, followed by the skull fracture. I don't think the sexual abuse was staged, either. I think the tape, the rope, the positioning, the location of JB, ransom note, all of that was staging, and all set up to make it look like someone other than a Ramsey was the perp.

I completely agree. Here is a link for those that do not have it. It is the autopsy report. The first thing listed is Ligature Strangulation. It also has the vaginal injuries. May answer a few questions for those that haven't seen it.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/jonbenet1.html

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

It is historical fact, and might as well be a rule, since it is a fact murderers never choose to dispute or to change. Water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit. Intruders into a house never move children from one room to another within the children's own houses and then kill them while relatives sleep nearby. Both of these statements are facts, and facts are to be taken seriously.

You might think twice about you're POV when you consider that JBR was found in the most remote place in the house, relative to where relatives were sleeping.

IOW, JBR was found in opposition to the sleeping occupants of the house.

 

[why_nutt]

You might think twice about you're POV when you consider that JBR was found in the most remote place in the house, relative to where relatives were sleeping.

IOW, JBR was found in opposition to the sleeping occupants of the house.

Technically, no, she was almost directly below them. The Ramsey bed was at the south east corner of the house. JonBenet's body was found at the southeast corner of the house. They were separated by vertical space, but not much horizontal space. The open duct in the boiler room window, exposed to the hallway where JonBenet was supposedly killed, was vertically directly below Burke's bedroom windows, which were themselves directly below John's and Patsy's bed.

And there really is no point in claiming, "JonBenet was kidnapped a great distance, because the basement room was so very far away from the Ramsey bedroom." If the Ramseys had a known stalker, and had gotten a court order for the stalker to stay 200 feet away from them, would you hold the position that, great, the stalker can still go into the basement, because he is legally distant from them according to the terms of the order? I think you would not. I think you, and most reasonable people, would say that when a person is inside one's house, no matter how far apart in that house they may be from you, you are both still an intimate distance away from each other, in a way that is different from being the same distance apart when you are inside and the other person is outside. The point stands. JonBenet was killed inside her own house, and she was not killed by someone who would be convinced by a jury on a separate charge of kidnapping.

 

[narlacat]

Your post: "So much of what was used to commit this crime appears to have been found on site."

The crime: murder
What was used: cord, tape, paintbrush.
What was found on site: paintbrush.

So much of what was used to commit this crime was really brought in from the outside, huh.

The ransom note was written with pen and paper found on site.

 

[Nuisanceposter]

The ransom note was written with pen and paper found on site.

That's pretty strange, as far as kidnappings go. In every case I've ever heard of that has a ransom note, the kidnapper has written a brief note (not a 2 and half page diatribe) prior to the kidnapping with his own supplies and has taken the kidnap victim with them. I've never heard of a kidnapping where the kidnapper not only uses the supplies of the home he's targeting but stops to molest and inadvertantly murder the person he's kidnapping, and then leaves the ransom note but does not take the intended kidnap victim.

If this was honestly about kidnapping the child to obtain the ransom, don't you think he would have taken JonBenet whether dead or alive to get the ransom the crime was supposed to be about in the first place? Why would he stop to molest and strangle her in her own home? If he intended to kidnap her, he must have had a destination, a "safe house" that he was planning to keep her in until he got the money...why not take her and molest her there? Why risk being caught by her parents before you even get her out of their house?

And why did he make claims that John Ramsey was going to be frisked and needed to rest up for the grueling drop off of money? Kidnappers don't want to meet anyone face to face, they want the money dropped off so they can collect it without being seen, much less frisking the person giving them the money. And why would the kidnapper even care if John Ramsey was well rested or not?

And the part that confounds me beyond all - if this was a real kidnapping, and the threats were real, why on earth did John & Patsy behave as if they knew they had nothing to fear from these supposed kidnappers in regards to phoning the police and their friends and reverend? The note says JonBenet's head will be cut off if they say a word to anyone, and that the kidnappers are watching the house, yet not only does Patsy call the cops and never mention the threats against her daughter's life in the note, she proceeds to call over several friends, and then later on, while they are still supposed to believe that the kidnapper is watching and waiting, they send Burke out of the house to go to the Whites. They behaved as if they knew that there was no real threat and that it would be okay to call these people and send their only child left out to go to someone else's house, and I think it's because Patsy wrote the ransom note. Why would she write that note? One of the Ramseys killed JonBenet. There was never a legitimate kidnapping.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

That's pretty strange, as far as kidnappings go. In every case I've ever heard of that has a ransom note, the kidnapper has written a brief note (not a 2 and half page diatribe) prior to the kidnapping with his own supplies and has taken the kidnap victim with them. I've never heard of a kidnapping where the kidnapper not only uses the supplies of the home he's targeting but stops to molest and inadvertantly murder the person he's kidnapping, and then leaves the ransom note but does not take the intended kidnap victim.

If this was honestly about kidnapping the child to obtain the ransom, don't you think he would have taken JonBenet whether dead or alive to get the ransom the crime was supposed to be about in the first place? Why would he stop to molest and strangle her in her own home? If he intended to kidnap her, he must have had a destination, a "safe house" that he was planning to keep her in until he got the money...why not take her and molest her there? Why risk being caught by her parents before you even get her out of their house?

And why did he make claims that John Ramsey was going to be frisked and needed to rest up for the grueling drop off of money? Kidnappers don't want to meet anyone face to face, they want the money dropped off so they can collect it without being seen, much less frisking the person giving them the money. And why would the kidnapper even care if John Ramsey was well rested or not?

And the part that confounds me beyond all - if this was a real kidnapping, and the threats were real, why on earth did John & Patsy behave as if they knew they had nothing to fear from these supposed kidnappers in regards to phoning the police and their friends and reverend? The note says JonBenet's head will be cut off if they say a word to anyone, and that the kidnappers are watching the house, yet not only does Patsy call the cops and never mention the threats against her daughter's life in the note, she proceeds to call over several friends, and then later on, while they are still supposed to believe that the kidnapper is watching and waiting, they send Burke out of the house to go to the Whites. They behaved as if they knew that there was no real threat and that it would be okay to call these people and send their only child left out to go to someone else's house, and I think it's because Patsy wrote the ransom note. Why would she write that note? One of the Ramseys killed JonBenet. There was never a legitimate kidnapping.

I just checked my scanned copy of the ransom note, to see if there was any change in writing elevation or spacing in the word 'bussiness'. IOW if PR wrote the note and misspelled business, it must be because she got distracted and forgot where she left off in writing the word. There are no changes in spacing or elevation, so business was smoothly misspelled.

PR casually misspelling 'bussiness' is about as likely as a squirrel falling out of a tree, don't you think?

The handwriting anomalies found throughout the note, even at the end where the writing is smooth and the author is being familiar with JR, suggest to me an English as 2nd language author.

 

[Nuisanceposter]

I just checked my scanned copy of the ransom note, to see if there was any change in writing elevation or spacing in the word 'bussiness'. IOW if PR wrote the note and misspelled business, it must be because she got distracted and forgot where she left off in writing the word. There are no changes in spacing or elevation, so business was smoothly misspelled.

PR casually misspelling 'bussiness' is about as likely as a squirrel falling out of a tree, don't you think?

The handwriting anomalies found throughout the note, even at the end where the writing is smooth and the author is being familiar with JR, suggest to me an English as 2nd language author.

She smoothly wrote "bussiness" and "posession" misspelled because she meant to. Experts say that the misspelling appears to be deliberate because it isn't consistently done throughout the note, as if the task of misleading by intentionally misspelling became too difficult. It's rather odd, isn't it, how the author does not know how to spell those words but flawlessly flows through adequate, attaché, exhausting, deviation, immediate, execution, authorities, countermeasures, scrutiny, etc. You would think there would be many more mispellings in that note if the author doesn't speak English well. Reread the note and gauge syntax...does that really sound like someone who doesn't know how to speak English as a first language? No, it doesn't. It sounds just like Patsy Ramsey's style of speaking.

 

[Watching you]

What do we really know about dec 24 .06

Not to be picky, but shouldn't that be Dec. 24, '96?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

She smoothly wrote "bussiness" and "posession" misspelled because she meant to. Experts say that the misspelling appears to be deliberate because it isn't consistently done throughout the note, as if the task of misleading by intentionally misspelling became too difficult. It's rather odd, isn't it, how the author does not know how to spell those words but flawlessly flows through adequate, attaché, exhausting, deviation, immediate, execution, authorities, countermeasures, scrutiny, etc. You would think there would be many more mispellings in that note if the author doesn't speak English well. Reread the note and gauge syntax...does that really sound like someone who doesn't know how to speak English as a first language? No, it doesn't. It sounds just like Patsy Ramsey's style of speaking.

Your claim that PR misspelled because she meant to isn't supported by any evidence at all. Its an idea pulled from thin air.

My claim that the author's foreign is supported throughout the ransom note. The handwriting is all wrong, there are bizarre character formations, common English words are misspelled, there are odd and never before heard of expressions, mystery organizations, and the author even admits to representing a foreign faction.

Saying the author of this ransom note is an educated American trying to sound foreign is almost an arbitrary thought. A creation. Can't see the forest for the trees?

 

[Nuisanceposter]

Your claim that PR misspelled because she meant to isn't supported by any evidence at all. Its an idea pulled from thin air.

My claim that the author's foreign is supported throughout the ransom note. The handwriting is all wrong, there are bizarre character formations, common English words are misspelled, there are odd and never before heard of expressions, mystery organizations, and the author even admits to representing a foreign faction.

Saying the author of this ransom note is an educated American trying to sound foreign is almost an arbitrary thought. A creation. Can't see the forest for the trees?

Pulled from thin air? It's the suggestion of experts who have studied the note, and as far as I can see, has a base in logic. Why can these foreigners not spell business or possesion yet have no trouble spelling any of the other difficult words I mentioned? Did they suddenly find a dictionary?

I still maintain that it looks as it does because Patsy was intentionally trying to make it look that way. Never cleared as a suspect of authoring the ransom note. Use of lowercase manuscript a alternated slightly with regular lowercase a, which was exactly how Patsy wrote her a's, and incidentally, stopping making in the manuscript fashion then after the ransom note. Not to mention she must have been hurrying through this note, trying to compose as fast as she could, and it a high state of anxiety when she wrote it.

Just because the author claims to represent a foreign faction doesn't mean they did. As we've pointed out before, the author is claiming to be kidnapping JonBenet but she's still there in the house. We're supposed to believe this was a foreign faction despite the fact that we know they were saying they kidnapped when they didn't? And don't bother with the "well, she was dead..." because if they wanted the ransom, which they claim is their sole motive, they would have ransomed her dead or alive. Are we just supposed to pick and choose what information in the ransom note to go on based on what might make the Ramseys innocent? This ransom note is a JOKE and I can't believe anyone takes it seriously. Never in the history of crime has there been its equal.

 

[Becba]

It is common for ransom notes to be intentionallly mispelled. That is not pulled out of the air.

 

[Moab]

... there are odd and never before heard of expressions...

What hadn't you heard of before?

 

[why_nutt]

PR casually misspelling 'bussiness' is about as likely as a squirrel falling out of a tree, don't you think?

I have found examples of Patsy misspelling the names of her friends and family members, so no, misspelling a word is not out of the question.

 

[Zman]

Pulled from thin air? It's the suggestion of experts who have studied the note, and as far as I can see, has a base in logic. Why can these foreigners not spell business or possesion yet have no trouble spelling any of the other difficult words I mentioned? Did they suddenly find a dictionary?

Yea maybe it was the one ST found.

Or maybe there was more than one writer.