JonBenet Ramsey Murder case

[Harry D]

The 'Ransom Note'

The 'intruder' sat down, opened Paty's own pad, opened it in the middle and started writing. Discarded the first two efforts then went on to write almost three pages of rambling nonsense.

It does sound preposterous, I'll give you that. However, if the intruder was someone with developmental issues, they may well have rambled for two and a bit pages.

The ransom amount seemed to be an afterthought and the Intruder chose the exact amount of John's work bonus that year. He then replaced the pen neatly in it's container underneath the kitchen counter.

As previously argued by myself, quoting such a specific ransom fee would only link the crime back to the Ramseys. If the Ramseys did this, they weren't planning to pay any ransom fee, so why quote John's bonus amount? Explain that to me.

He stated he would call between 8 and 10am the following morning. He must have had a lapse of memory because it obviously slipped his mind and the call never came. Not that anyone seemed to notice.

Because he'd killed the hostage and left her body in the house?

Also, don't assume that the ransom note had to be left by a kidnapper. If you're open to idea of the Ramseys staging a phoney kidnapping to cover their tracks, why couldn't an intruder?

[Abby Normal]

It does sound preposterous, I'll give you that. However, if the intruder was someone with developmental issues, they may well have rambled for two and a bit pages.



As previously argued by myself, quoting such a specific ransom fee would only link the crime back to the Ramseys. If the Ramseys did this, they weren't planning to pay any ransom fee, so why quote John's bonus amount? Explain that to me.



Because he'd killed the hostage and left her body in the house?

Also, don't assume that the ransom note had to be left by a kidnapper. If you're open to idea of the Ramseys staging a phoney kidnapping to cover their tracks, why couldn't an intruder?

hi harry

It does sound preposterous, I'll give you that. However, if the intruder was someone with developmental issues, they may well have rambled for two and a bit pages.

and/or wasted

As previously argued by myself, quoting such a specific ransom fee would only link the crime back to the Ramseys. If the Ramseys did this, they weren't planning to pay any ransom fee, so why quote John's bonus amount? Explain that to me.

because patsys a dumb ass. or they wanted to implicate someone from johns work and/or someone close to them.

Also, don't assume that the ransom note had to be left by a kidnapper. If you're open to idea of the Ramseys staging a phoney kidnapping to cover their tracks, why couldn't an intruder?[/

my thoughts on this is that if it was a intruder he wrote the note while waiting in there house waiting for them to get home, left the note on the stairs after they all went to bed in transit to or from JonBenets room, killed her in the basement, and either bolted forgetting about the note he left or realized it was too risky/pointless to go back upstairs to retrieve the note and bolted.

[Abby Normal]

Loe smit said follow the DNA evidence to find the killer. perhaps.
I say follow the money. As in the bonus amount in the ransome letter.

I read recently, that john stated he left his w-2s and paystubs lying about in the kitchen near where the ransome letter was written.

I have a hard time believing this. people like john play things close to their vest. especially income and bonus amounts. I doubt he would leave that lying about in the open. also, this is the first time ive heard this explanation and the source is a book of somewhat dubious biased nature.

If I was police I would be all over this. where did you leave these items?
show us-prove the bonus amounts are on there.
you received w-2s in December? don't most people receive them at the beginning of the next year?

if it could be proved yes they were there and the bonus amount on there-that in my mind would be a huge pointer to an intruder who while scoping things out, going through their personal stuff found the paystubs/w-2s and got the idea to also try and get ransome.

if I was police I would then fingerprint the items to see whos prints were on there.

If it turned out ramsey was lying about this stuff and they wernt lying about or the bonus amount as not on the items-it would be a huge red flag about the ramseys. because he was obviously lying about this to help point in the direction of an intruder.

[louisa]

It does sound preposterous, I'll give you that. However, if the intruder was someone with developmental issues, they may well have rambled for two and a bit pages.

Hi Harry,

Ifs, buts and maybes.

This person with 'developmental issues' managed to disappear without leaving a trace, even replacing the long, heavy metal grating atop the basement area.

As previously argued by myself, quoting such a specific ransom fee would only link the crime back to the Ramseys. If the Ramseys did this, they weren't planning to pay any ransom fee, so why quote John's bonus amount? Explain that to me.

The Ramseys had to come up with a figure. I suspect they named the amount of John's bonus in the hope of pinning the crime on an employee, or even one of their friends. There were a number of people who knew the bonus amount.

$118,000 was peanuts to the Ramseys but they knew it was a lot of money to lesser mortals, the kind of peasants they probably felt they employed.

Because he'd killed the hostage and left her body in the house?

JB's body would probably still be in the cellar if it had been left to the Boulder police to find it.

As it was, John got fed up with waiting and decided to 'find it' himself. When he was told to search the house from 'top to bottom' he went straight down to the exact room (extrememly difficult to find) where JB's body was.

I think he found the body at 1pm or thereabouts, long after the cut-off time for the ransom phone call. He had already arranged for the money to be available but needed the 'kidnapper' to give instructions.

So the 'kidnapper' could have got the money before the body had been found if only he'd phoned the Ramseys between 8 and 10am.

Also, don't assume that the ransom note had to be left by a kidnapper. If you're open to idea of the Ramseys staging a phoney kidnapping to cover their tracks, why couldn't an intruder?

I never assumed the ransom note was left by a kidnapper. It was left by the Ramseys who DID in fact stage a phoney kidnapping to cover their tracks.

Are you saying that a phoney ransom note was left by the 'kidnapper' to cover his tracks? How could that work? 'He' had already committed a murder and nothing could cover that up.

[Pcdunn]

Louisa: "Are you saying that a phoney ransom note was left by the 'kidnapper' to cover his tracks? How could that work? 'He' had already committed a murder and nothing could cover that up."

Harry's got an interesting idea there, though. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the killer thought if he left a "ransom note" people wouldn't think to search the house for their missing daughter, thereby giving him more time to escape.

Scenario: The intruder wrote the note because he wanted to ask for ransom. Pros: Helgoth, who told his friend he'd get a lot of money "right after Christmas" due to a plan he and a buddy were working on.
Cons: Most experts say it is not a "real" ransom note at all, being too rambling, and borrowing ideas from movies and TV shows.

Scenario: Patsy wrote it after accidentally killing her beloved daughter while abusing her. Pros: Some of the handwriting seems similar. Cons: No one (including Burke) ever reported any abuse by Patsy to either of her children.

Scenario: John and Patsy both wrote it, as a cover up for something tragic that may have also involved Burke. Pros: fits with the pineapple evidence, that JBR was up later, after being put to bed. Cons: doesn't fit with the intruder evidence of the molestation and garotte, unless we say she was lying there unconscious, Burke returned to bed without calling his parents, someone else got in the house, found JB, did things to her, including garrotting her, and escaped again. When the family awoke, they discovered her (but it still makes it difficult to reconcile the phony ransom note with this chain of events, too.)

[louisa]

Louisa: "Are you saying that a phoney ransom note was left by the 'kidnapper' to cover his tracks? How could that work? 'He' had already committed a murder and nothing could cover that up."

Hi Pat,

The phoney ransom note wasn't left by the kidnapper because there was no kidnapper. I'm saying how preposterous the whole idea of a kidnapper is.

The ransom note could have been put there (by Patsy) to buy more time but I honestly think the ransom note was written while she was in total panic and not thinking clearly. I can't see any sensible reason why anyone - the Ramseys OR an intruder, would leave a note AND murder the child, but they obviously did.

Scenario: The intruder wrote the note because he wanted to ask for ransom. Pros: Helgoth, who told his friend he'd get a lot of money "right after Christmas" due to a plan he and a buddy were working on.
Cons: Most experts say it is not a "real" ransom note at all, being too rambling, and borrowing ideas from movies and TV shows.

Too many suppositions. As Lou Smit stated "Murders are always what they seem". In other words why go looking for idiotic scenarios when the real one is looking us right in the face?

Scenario: Patsy wrote it after accidentally killing her beloved daughter while abusing her. Pros: Some of the handwriting seems similar. Cons: No one (including Burke) ever reported any abuse by Patsy to either of her children.

No abuse. Not as far as anyone could tell. (Unless you can call dressing your six year old daughter up like a ten dollar hooker and having her saunter seductively across a catwalk, as abuse).

As previously stated in my post earlier today, the garrotting could not have been part of a sex game for this reason - because JonBenet was rendered unconscious when her skull was smashed, and that happened before the garrotting.

Scenario: John and Patsy both wrote it, as a cover up for something tragic that may have also involved Burke. Pros: fits with the pineapple evidence, that JBR was up later, after being put to bed. Cons: doesn't fit with the intruder evidence of the molestation and garotte, unless we say she was lying there unconscious, Burke returned to bed without calling his parents, someone else got in the house, found JB, did things to her, including garrotting her, and escaped again. When the family awoke, they discovered her (but it still makes it difficult to reconcile the phony ransom note with this chain of events, too.)

You need to forget about an intruder being present. It's frankly ludicrous; for all the reasons (and more) that I gave in my post earlier today.

The scene was staged - no doubt about it. Why would this intruder - who seemed to be at his leisure - murder the child by garrotting (when he had already bashed in her skull and she was unconscious) and then stage an elaborate scene with cords and tape, risking getting caught with every minute and second that ticked by - when his initial intended purpose was to kidnap the child?

Kidnappers and murderers are two separate criminals and the two are not normally combined. A kidnapper wants to get out of the house ASAP, not linger any more than necessary. He wants his money and nothing more.

The fact that some people took the intruder theory to heart helped Patsy and John's case no end. They must have been very grateful to all the gullible people who believed it.

For me, I've found that if something does not make sense then it's usually not true.

For a while I thought Burke might have been responsible but now, I think that it was all Patsy's doing. John went along with the cover-up.

[louisa]

Loe smit said follow the DNA evidence to find the killer. perhaps.
I say follow the money. As in the bonus amount in the ransome letter.

I read recently, that john stated he left his w-2s and paystubs lying about in the kitchen near where the ransome letter was written.

I have a hard time believing this. people like john play things close to their vest. especially income and bonus amounts. I doubt he would leave that lying about in the open. also, this is the first time ive heard this explanation and the source is a book of somewhat dubious biased nature.

If I was police I would be all over this. where did you leave these items?
show us-prove the bonus amounts are on there.
you received w-2s in December? don't most people receive them at the beginning of the next year?

if it could be proved yes they were there and the bonus amount on there-that in my mind would be a huge pointer to an intruder who while scoping things out, going through their personal stuff found the paystubs/w-2s and got the idea to also try and get ransome.

if I was police I would then fingerprint the items to see whos prints were on there.

If it turned out ramsey was lying about this stuff and they wernt lying about or the bonus amount as not on the items-it would be a huge red flag about the ramseys. because he was obviously lying about this to help point in the direction of an intruder.

Abby - yes it would have been good to ask the Ramseys all those questions but unfortunately they hid behind their lawyers from Day One and refused to answer any questions.

The police wanted the Ramseys credit card statements and receipts plus other items of interest but nothing was forthcoming. Any information the police managed to get was always a few steps behind what Team Ramsey already had. A police informant was leaking info to the DA's office and as we know, the DA was in the pocket of the Ramseys. .

[Wickerman]

Probably because he knew the parents killed her.


I don't honestly think you believe any of what you have just written.

The abundant evidence for this behaviour came out of the DNA investigations of hundreds of wrongly convicted inmates in US prisons, more especially those on death row.
Take this example:
http://www.forensicsciencetechnician...nsic-evidence/

So, it isn't a case for "belief", as you put it. One of the principal reasons many of these inmates (and hundreds of others) ended up being convicted was because the police methods.
Turn a blind eye to it if you wish, there are volumes written about wrongly convicted inmates. Not all the wrongly convicted fell victim to this method, but the proof exists that police departments across the country are guilty of railroading a prime suspect just to get a conviction.

The police had a burden of finding this bogus intruder. They worked tirelessly. You haven't read the Steve Thomas book about the case (and I think he was one of the people best placed) to give all the details about the police files and what they had and what exactly they were doing.

I know the police investigated "hundreds" of suspects, the claim is that the Ramsey's were their target, not that the police didn't look elsewhere as part of their investigation.

[Wickerman]

The Staged Murder Scene

The Duct Tape

JonBenet was found with duct tape across her mouth. If JB had been conscious whilst the tape was placed on her mouth there would have been signs of resistance. None was found. Why?

Never mind the "why", you have not quoted the source - "who" said this and where is it written?
It wasn't the pathologist, so who?

The only way to deal with a long post like what you provided is to take each point and source it out to identify if the opinion is legitimate, or just gossip.
Even if you obtained some details from Steve Thomas, he must have provided a reference?

I have quotes from pathologists & scientists who can prove their claims and funny enough, but not entirely surprising, their opinions are in direct conflict with this post you quite neatly put together.
I noticed so many errors and what appear to be assumptions, I really don't know where to begin, so perhaps I can thin this screenplay out just a bit by asking for sources?

"I think I read it somewhere", does not count as a source.

[Wickerman]

Hi wickerman
Yes many in the police thought the ramseys did it. yes the mayor probably thought so too. But to suggest that the police only focused on the ramseys is ridiculous.

Hi Abby.

I don't think I said they "only focused" on the Ramsey's, did I?
If I did, I really meant the Ramsey's were their principal focus. I do know the police investigated hundreds of other potential suspects, but some opinions have it that these investigations were not exhaustive, more like superficial.

They followed up on all possible theories, leads and suspects. they interviewed hundreds of witnesses, persons of interest and suspects. they took DNA from dozens of people, including suspects like helgoth, olivera and the santa guy. They eliminated suspects based on evidence, whether they were in the area etc.

On that point I would have to ask you, "are you sure?".
As the Boulder Police rejected the DNA evidence found on JonBenet, why would they take DNA evidence from these other suspects?
That doesn't jive, and we do have the Chief of Boulder Police saying they don't acknowledge the DNA evidence.

I would suggest that the police only focused on the ramsey idea is one helped being perpetrated by the ramseys themselves , there circle of friends, and the ramsey legal defense team.

I can understand why you might say that, but when the same opinion comes from elsewhere then there may be some truth in it.

[Wickerman]

There is a chronology of events provided in this link which itemizes the interviews given to police by the Ramsey's immediately following the murder.

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682489/Key%20Events%20in%20the%20Investigation

12-27-96 Arndt Interviewed Ramseys. The Ramseys were interviewed by Linda Arndt (AngelFire timeline).

12-27-96 Ramseys at Fernies. Ramseys stayed at John and Barbara Fernie house (AngelFire timeline).

12-28-96 Ramseys Provided Forensic Samples. Ramsey family goes to Boulder police station to answer questions and give samples of hair, blood and handwriting (CNN timeline). These include John Ramsey, John Andrew Ramsey and Burke Ramsey; "'Patsy' Ramsey was too distraught to submit to the evidence collection, authorities said" (Daily Times-Call.)

12-28-96 Ramseys Hired Criminal Attorneys. "Shortly after noon that Saturday, without consulting John or Patsy, Bynum told Detective Arndt that the Ramseys would not give any more testimonial evidence without a criminal attorney present, and they would no longer share privileged information with the police. Since he was no longer a criminal attorney, Bynum called Bryan Morgan of Haddon, Morgan and Foreman in Denver, one of Colorado's top firms. By Saturday evening the Ramseys had retained Morgan." (Schiller, 1999a:63).



John Ramsey always claimed they did give interviews to the police, yet some still claim they did not.
The timeline above clearly shows when these interviews occurred.

[louisa]

Never mind the "why", you have not quoted the source - "who" said this and where is it written?
It wasn't the pathologist, so who?

The only way to deal with a long post like what you provided is to take each point and source it out to identify if the opinion is legitimate, or just gossip.
Even if you obtained some details from Steve Thomas, he must have provided a reference?

I have quotes from pathologists & scientists who can prove their claims and funny enough, but not entirely surprising, their opinions are in direct conflict with this post you quite neatly put together.
I noticed so many errors and what appear to be assumptions, I really don't know where to begin, so perhaps I can thin this screenplay out just a bit by asking for sources?

"I think I read it somewhere", does not count as a source.

Where did I say "I think I read it somewhere?"

If I did in fact say that in one of my posts then it shows I was being honest by not stating something as a fact.

Errors and assumptions? No. I could go back and find the source of every single piece of information that I posted, but it would take a while and I am not on trial here. You can find them yourself if you delve deeply enough and do a bit of research.

Until you make yourself au fait with this case then you should not be calling other posters liars, just because you were unaware of the fact stated.

You thought that JB's body was found in the room with the broken window, remember?

If you don't want me to pull apart, and find errors in what you have said, then don't do it to my posts.

The Steve Thomas book is only one of many I have read on this case. His theory regarding the crime and mine differ dramatically in many respects but, however, if he stated a fact then I would tend to believe it because he as under the microscope and could not afford to state facts that were incorrect.

Thomas had a lot of theories which may be disagreed with but the timeline and the cold hard facts would have had to be spot-on.

[louisa]

The abundant evidence for this behaviour came

I know the police investigated "hundreds" of suspects, the claim is that the Ramsey's were their target, not that the police didn't look elsewhere as part of their investigation.

Of course the Ramseys were targeted! So would you be if your child had been found murdered in your basement when the house was fully locked down for the night. What the heck did they expect?

Unfortunately Wickerman, it seems that the book that you read first is the one that has stayed with you. Written by the Ramseys themselves - self serving claptrap that belongs on a Fiction shelf.

John and Patsy Ramsey's mantra throughout that tome of baloney - "We were targeted by the police"

Boo hoo my heart bleeds.

If the police had done what they were supposed to do in a kidnap situation they would have locked down the crime scene for forensics to get to work. If they had have done this then the Ramseys would have been doing time behind bars where they belonged. The Ramseys should be thanking the police for their initial incompetence, not condemning them.

[louisa]

Never mind the "why", you have not quoted the source - "who" said this and where is it written?
It wasn't the pathologist, so who?

The only way to deal with a long post like what you provided is to take each point and source it out to identify if the opinion is legitimate, or just gossip.
Even if you obtained some details from Steve Thomas, he must have provided a reference?

I have quotes from pathologists & scientists who can prove their claims and funny enough, but not entirely surprising, their opinions are in direct conflict with this post you quite neatly put together.
I noticed so many errors and what appear to be assumptions, I really don't know where to begin, so perhaps I can thin this screenplay out just a bit by asking for sources?

"I think I read it somewhere", does not count as a source.

Wickerman - You really should start reading your own links!

The source of my information was contained within a link that you yourself posted just a few days ago.

Scroll down to item 12 of Specific Evidence.

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682468/Evidence%20of%20an%20Intruder

I can source every single fact that I stated in my long post yesterday and I am prepared to do so, if necessary. Can you do the same with everything you have written on this thread? No, I thought not.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby.

I don't think I said they "only focused" on the Ramsey's, did I?
If I did, I really meant the Ramsey's were their principal focus. I do know the police investigated hundreds of other potential suspects, but some opinions have it that these investigations were not exhaustive, more like superficial.




On that point I would have to ask you, "are you sure?".
As the Boulder Police rejected the DNA evidence found on JonBenet, why would they take DNA evidence from these other suspects?
That doesn't jive, and we do have the Chief of Boulder Police saying they don't acknowledge the DNA evidence.



I can understand why you might say that, but when the same opinion comes from elsewhere then there may be some truth in it.

Hey wicker
Obviously the police didn't reject the DNA evidence found on JonBenet, they're the ones who tested for it !

And they tested the DNA of intruder suspects -dozens of them, including Helgoth, olivera, Santa bill and many others.

Some in the police have said you can't discount the Ramsey's based on the unknown DNA evidence found on JonBenet, true, but that's a far cry from saying the boulder police reject the DNA evidence.


But we're drifting again from the main point -who killed Jon benet? Let's get back on track shall we? I've posted many scenarios and posed many questions regarding this, many that point to an intruder also, and no one including yourself is responding to any of these. Too much focus on the political crap!! And that does nothing to find out whodunit!