JonBenet Ramsey Update

[rjpalmer]

I think it is the wrong conclusion as it is a clear-cut case of an inside job.

I have noticed on discussions on YouTube that supporters of the intruder theory studiously avoid discussing the ransom note.

I suggest the reason is that it is the key to the case.

It is not believable that an intruder would forget to bring a ransom note, forget to bring pen and paper to write one, forget to take the body, and forget to make the call referred to in the ransom note.

The idea that a kidnapper would leave his abductee at the scene of the crime is, of course, far-fetched and nonsensical, but none of the above is necessarily insurmountable if the intruder was someone known to the family and hadn't initially planned on murdering the girl, but then covered his/her tracks by making a bungling attempt at a ransom note to make the crime look like a kidnapping. Of course, the same can be said--and has been said--of the family. However, the idea that a child botherer would enter the house and commit his vile acts then & there is also difficult to imagine, which is why most people were insistent it was an "inside" job.

If properly reported, the most damning issue with the ransom note is that it asked for a specific amount--I think it was $118,000--which was supposedly the amount of John Ramsey's Christmas bonus that year. I don't recall if he ever confirmed this.

That wouldn't necessarily mean an 'inside job' but it would certainly mean it was someone he knew, worked in proximity to, or had access to his bank account. I suppose the defense lawyer would argue that the intruder was committing a crime of revenge--not only killing and defiling the Ramseys' daughter but also framing them for the crime. A crime whose intent was a total destruction of the family.

I would love to see the guilty party exposed and arrested; mainly for the sake of justice, but also to see which of the dogmatic pundits were correct, and which weren't. It could be another Constance Kent case, where the suspicions of the police were justified many years later--or maybe not.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I think it is the wrong conclusion as it is a clear-cut case of an inside job.

I have noticed on discussions on YouTube that supporters of the intruder theory studiously avoid discussing the ransom note.

I suggest the reason is that it is the key to the case.

It is not believable that an intruder would forget to bring a ransom note, forget to bring pen and paper to write one, forget to take the body, and forget to make the call referred to in the ransom note.

I’m not going to get involved in this debate but I couldn’t help noticing that here is yet another case that has baffled everyone and yet you claim that it’s ‘clear cut.’ I’m only surprised that the police’s various cold case teams have neglected to seek your opinion.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

The idea that a kidnapper would leave his abductee at the scene of the crime is, of course, far-fetched and nonsensical, but none of the above is necessarily insurmountable if the intruder was someone known to the family and hadn't initially planned on murdering the girl, but then covered his/her tracks by making a bungling attempt at a ransom note to make the crime look like a kidnapping. Of course, the same can be said--and has been said--of the family. However, the idea that a child botherer would enter the house and commit his vile acts then & there is also difficult to imagine, which is why most people were insistent it was an "inside" job.

If properly reported, the most damning issue with the ransom note is that it asked for a specific amount--I think it was $118,000--which was supposedly the amount of John Ramsey's Christmas bonus that year. I don't recall if he ever confirmed this.

That wouldn't necessarily mean an 'inside job' but it would certainly mean it was someone he knew, worked in proximity to, or had access to his bank account. I suppose the defense lawyer would argue that the intruder was committing a crime of revenge--not only killing and defiling the Ramseys' daughter but also framing them for the crime. A crime whose intent was a total destruction of the family.

I would love to see the guilty party exposed and arrested; mainly for the sake of justice, but also to see which of the dogmatic pundits were correct, and which weren't. It could be another Constance Kent case, where the suspicions of the police were justified many years later--or maybe not.

Thanks for your reply.

I forgot to mention the overwhelming evidence that the ransom note was written by the victim's mother.

And I have never thought that she killed the girl.

In fact, I have never been convinced that the death was a murder.

Whenever someone asks, who do you think did it? my response is: who did what?

Someone caused the fracture to the girl's head, someone strangled her, and someone wrote the ransom note.

In my opinion, a different member of the family committed each act.

[Darryl Kenyon]

The ransom note was 370 words long and we know it was written on paper from the Ramsey's home. I think we can conclude it was a murder which was meant to look like a kidnapping rather than vice versa, otherwise I would imagine the kidnapper/s would have brought the extortion letter with them.
So if it is a murder, intentionally or not IE maybe Jon Benet screamed as she was being assaulted. Would the perpetrator of such an act hang around and write a 370 page ransom demand ? And that is assuming they found the note pad and pen straight away. Plus knowing at least one other person must be in the house to watch little Jon Benet.
I am not well researched on all the other aspects of the case but this fact alone [ although not impossible ], casts doubt in my mind about the intruder theory.

Regards Darryl

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Another question is: would a stranger have known of a location in the basement in which to hide the body that was so difficult to find that the police could not even find the body?

And why would the kidnapper hide the body rather than kidnap it?

It is inconceivable that an intruder would forget to bring a ransom note, forget to bring pen and paper to write one, forget to take the body, and forget to make the call referred to in the ransom note.

On the other hand, if the whole thing was an inside job, there is no such puzzle: members of the Ramsey family had to use their own pen and paper, could hardly dispose of the body without risking being spotted, and could not possibly have made the kidnappers' phone call.

[Abby Normal]

Thanks for your reply.

I forgot to mention the overwhelming evidence that the ransom note was written by the victim's mother.

And I have never thought that she killed the girl.

In fact, I have never been convinced that the death was a murder.

Whenever someone asks, who do you think did it? my response is: who did what?

Someone caused the fracture to the girl's head, someone strangled her, and someone wrote the ransom note.

In my opinion, a different member of the family committed each act.

care to elaborate?

[Abby Normal]

While I lean toward the ramseys, more than likely patsy, i dont rule out an unknown intruder. My other thought is that it had something to do with their disgruntled maid-she was recently fired, had been asking the ramseys for money and apparently had made a strange remark about JB beeing so pretty they should be afraid she might be kidnapped. also a maid might know about the 118k bonus.

but I lean to the ramseys-the rarity of a child being murdered in their own home by an intruder, with the parents being there -almost unheard of, Patsy not being able to be ruled out as writer of the ransome note, which was also written in the home on their paper, their guilty behavior after the crime,the ransome/bonus amount being the same and a biggee for me-what parent dosnt tear up every inch of their home looking for their child in that situation??? They were hoping the police or someone else would discover the body-to distance themselves from the crime-guilty behavior 101. also, when john finally discovered her dosnt rip off the garrot?!? cmon.
I think the police and detectives initial instincts were probably correct.

[rjpalmer]

While I lean toward the ramseys

Do you remember this guy? He was a 26-year-old electrician that lived nearby and was supposedly in a dispute with the Ramseys. He is the "MJ Druitt" suspect in the case:


"Another man, Michael Helgoth, was also a prime suspect. He was a Colorado native who died shortly after the murder. But his death left more questions than answers.

"It appeared to be a suicide. And what about the stun gun discovered next to his body? Investigators believe a stun gun had been used on JonBenet.

"Prosecutor DeMuth told me this about Helgoth: "I remember that he had footwear that was consistent with the footprint evidence, he had a stun gun, he had reportedly made statements to a friend, very similar to the types of statements that we're hearing about today in the press with the arrest of John Karr." [Karr was the weirdo who confessed]

"Even more strange, a baseball cap with the letters s-b-t-c was found near Helgoth's body. Those are the same letters found in the ransom note at the Ramsey home. DeMuth says he believes Helgoth's DNA was tested and didn't match up."

--CNN, Randi Kaye, 2006.

[Herlock Sholmes]

One question….if the ransom note was written on paper found in the home (and I’m not disputing it) surely the family wouldn’t have been so stupid?

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

care to elaborate?

I am sure you have deduced from my previous reasoning that either the son caused the fracture and father did the strangulation or vice-versa.

I would mention that there was a witness who claimed to see two figures walking about on tiptoe during the night, that a dish containing pineapple and an oversized spoon was found on a table, with the son's and mother's fingerprints on the dish, that the girl had recently eaten pineapple, and that the parents had gone to bed early, and that apparently they slept together.

Furthermore, the parents seemed to be careful to keep the son out of the investigation and he disappeared from sight, retiring to his room.

I think you can make the deduction from there.

[Abby Normal]

Do you remember this guy? He was a 26-year-old electrician that lived nearby and was supposedly in a dispute with the Ramseys. He is the "MJ Druitt" suspect in the case:


"Another man, Michael Helgoth, was also a prime suspect. He was a Colorado native who died shortly after the murder. But his death left more questions than answers.

"It appeared to be a suicide. And what about the stun gun discovered next to his body? Investigators believe a stun gun had been used on JonBenet.

"Prosecutor DeMuth told me this about Helgoth: "I remember that he had footwear that was consistent with the footprint evidence, he had a stun gun, he had reportedly made statements to a friend, very similar to the types of statements that we're hearing about today in the press with the arrest of John Karr." [Karr was the weirdo who confessed]

"Even more strange, a baseball cap with the letters s-b-t-c was found near Helgoth's body. Those are the same letters found in the ransom note at the Ramsey home. DeMuth says he believes Helgoth's DNA was tested and didn't match up."

--CNN, Randi Kaye, 2006.

yes. hed be a prime suspect for an outside intruder suspect for sure. i saw an interview with his friend who said he told him he wanted to to see what is would be like to bash someones head in.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

First, we were told that conspirators trying to frame Oswald would not be so stupid as to use a 30-plus-year-old blond man to impersonate him.

I suppose they would not have been so stupid as to use a man who drove what appeared to be his own car to impersonate him, nor a man who had a rifle with a scope in working order.

Now we are being told that the Ramseys could not have been so stupid as to use their own paper on which to write a ransom note.

The alternatives are that Oswald dyed his hair blond and aged himself by about ten years, and then somehow dyed his hair back to its normal colour on his return to Dallas, acquired his own car without any of his acquaintances knowing, chose not to use a working scope to commit an assassination, and that a kidnapper had to borrow writing paper from his victim's house to write a ransom note.

Which set of explanations is more credible?

Which is more farfetched?

[Abby Normal]

One question….if the ransom note was written on paper found in the home (and I’m not disputing it) surely the family wouldn’t have been so stupid?

well if they killed their daughter in their own home that would be pretty stupid too

[Abby Normal]

I am sure you have deduced from my previous reasoning that either the son caused the fracture and father did the strangulation or vice-versa.

I would mention that there was a witness who claimed to see two figures walking about on tiptoe during the night, that a dish containing pineapple and an oversized spoon was found on a table, with the son's and mother's fingerprints on the dish, that the girl had recently eaten pineapple, and that the parents had gone to bed early, and that apparently they slept together.

Furthermore, the parents seemed to be careful to keep the son out of the investigation and he disappeared from sight, retiring to his room.

I think you can make the deduction from there.

so all three were in in it? whats the motive? whats the sequence of events?

also, the parents let burke talk to the police alone. something they never would have done if he was involved at all or knew what happened. if it wasnt for that, i wouldnt rule him out for any of it, except the note. the police didnt think he had anything to do with it, and I dont think so either.

[Abby Normal]

First, we were told that conspirators trying to frame Oswald would not be so stupid as to use a 30-plus-year-old blond man to impersonate him.

I suppose they would not have been so stupid as to use a man who drove what appeared to be his own car to impersonate him, nor a man who had a rifle with a scope in working order.

Now we are being told that the Ramseys could not have been so stupid as to use their own paper on which to write a ransom note.

The alternatives are that Oswald dyed his hair blond and aged himself by about ten years, and then somehow dyed his hair back to its normal colour on his return to Dallas, acquired his own car without any of his acquaintances knowing, chose not to use a working scope to commit an assassination, and that a kidnapper had to borrow writing paper from his victim's house to write a ransom note.

Which set of explanations is more credible?

Which is more farfetched?

cmon pi keep the jfk stuff , and your feud with HS, out of this.