JonBenet Ramsey Murder case

[Wickerman]

Speaking of the ransom note.

The note advised that:
"I will call you between 8 and 10 am tomorrow".

If "tomorrow" meant the 26th, then this note was written on the 25th. That placed the "assumed" staging, and presumably JB's death sometime between 9:30 pm when the family arrived home, and midnight on the 25th.
If JB had died sometime early morning on the 26th then "tomorrow" means the 27th.

However, the intruder theory requires the writing of the ransom note while the Ramsey's were out of the house, on the 25th.

This suggests the timeline required by the intruder theory is more consistent with the use of the word, "tomorrow".


Also, at the end of the note we read:
"Use that good southern common sense of yours".
With reference to John Ramsey.

The author of the ransom note assumes John Ramsey was a southerner, probably because the family moved from Atlanta, he wasn't.
John Ramsey was born and raised in Nebraska and Michigan, only leaving the north when he enlisted in the Navy in 1966.

John only moved to Atlanta after he returned from the Navy, obviously then Patsy knew her husband John was not a southerner, but the writer did not.

[louisa]

You denied that unconscious patients suffer from air hunger, even though it's standard practice for patients to be administered with sedatives once they're taken off a ventilator to minimize their suffering. Unless JonBenet was brain-dead, she still would've suffered as the garrote was tightened around her throat.

I'm done with all that, Harry. It didn't happen.

Why write a ransom note if they were going to stage a murder and not a kidnapping?

Good question. You could also ask that about a so called 'intruder'

[louisa]

Speaking of the ransom note.

The note advised that:
"I will call you between 8 and 10 am tomorrow".

If "tomorrow" meant the 26th, then this note was written on the 25th. That placed the "assumed" staging, and presumably JB's death sometime between 9:30 pm when the family arrived home, and midnight on the 25th.
If JB had died sometime early morning on the 26th then "tomorrow" means the 27th.

However, the intruder theory requires the writing of the ransom note while the Ramsey's were out of the house, on the 25th.

This suggests the timeline required by the intruder theory is more consistent with the use of the word, "tomorrow".

The police, the investigators and the Ramseys were all assuming the call was due to come THAT morning.

It was only when John was asked (a fair bit later) why they didn't react when the deadline came, he came up with "Oh we thought they meant the 27th"

As if!

[Abby Normal]

ive just thought of something.

One of the many ideas around the ransome note was that it was penned as an afterthought, once the intruder had time to wander around the house and look for things, apparently finding johns paystubs with 118K amount. Then thinking to possibly also to profit financially from abducting JonBenet. But of course that idea then flubbed when he couldn't get her out.

But that begs the question-If he had plenty of time to wander about the house and got the idea to profit somehow. How come no valuables were taken? None of patsys jewely,or their valuables or cash or anything? surely if it dawned on him to profit somehow he would have stolen something?!?

and come to think of it sexual homicide offenders more often than not like to take trophys. was anything taken from Jon Benets body or belongings and or missing?

If absolutely nothing is taken from the house, no valuables no trophies no NOTHING then IMHO it points away from an intruder. big time.

[Harry D]

I'm done with all that, Harry. It didn't happen.

I'll take that as a concession.

Good question. You could also ask that about a so called 'intruder'

The salient point that you seem to have missed is that it would favour a botched kidnapping than it would an inside job. Patsy had no reason to write a ransom letter if she was staging a murder scene. They could've pretended that their daughter went missing and after a quick search they found her murdered body in the basement. Throw open the basement window. Simples.

[louisa]

I don't have the answer to that one, Harry, because in order to do so I would need to get into the mixed up mind of Patsy Ramsey.

But I believe that in the midst of all the panic Patsy and John couldn't decide quite what to make this tragedy look like - a kidnap gone bad or a murder for sexual reasons? In the end they decided to leave evidence of all three. They wouldn't have been thinking straight.

Patsy already had quite a few stresses going on in her life. Her health was one of them, she was in remission from cancer. JonBenet was starting to rebel against going into more pageants. Patsy knew she was losing her looks, she had gained weight and was unable to lose it. Patsy could have been worried about John's fidelity (he had cheated on his previous wife). When Patsy was recovering from cancer she told her friend Judith Phillips that one of the reasons she wanted to get better was so that the b*tch down the road wouldn't get John.

She has been described as neurotic (well, what woman isn't?) and if, as Steve Thomas surmised in his book, that she lost her temper with JonBenet and pushed her hard against the bathtub then I reckon that old Patsy, when angry, could pack quite a punch, especially on a six year old. I wouldn't have wanted to argue with her.

On top of all that she was due to go on a trip early the following morning, one she was not looking forward to.

The above is a bit of guesswork of course.

I still think Burke was probably responsible for everything except the ransom note. He is possibly the more likely perpetrator of the crime. He could have hit JB over the head with the flashlight in an argument over pineapple, then done the other things, just because he wanted to, for reasons inside his own warped mind.

No doubt we'll be seeing a book by Burke Ramsey in the near future. It should be stored on the fiction shelves alongside the one written by his parents.

[louisa]

ive just thought of something.


If absolutely nothing is taken from the house, no valuables no trophies no NOTHING then IMHO it points away from an intruder. big time.

Nothing about an intruder theory makes sense, Abby.

[Fleetwood Mac]

ive just thought of something.

One of the many ideas around the ransome note was that it was penned as an afterthought, once the intruder had time to wander around the house and look for things, apparently finding johns paystubs with 118K amount. Then thinking to possibly also to profit financially from abducting JonBenet. But of course that idea then flubbed when he couldn't get her out.

But that begs the question-If he had plenty of time to wander about the house and got the idea to profit somehow. How come no valuables were taken? None of patsys jewely,or their valuables or cash or anything? surely if it dawned on him to profit somehow he would have stolen something?!?

and come to think of it sexual homicide offenders more often than not like to take trophys. was anything taken from Jon Benets body or belongings and or missing?

If absolutely nothing is taken from the house, no valuables no trophies no NOTHING then IMHO it points away from an intruder. big time.

Really?

I would have thought an 'intruder' looking to murder someone is unlikely to take valuables from the home.

What I would say, however, is that I would like to hear of how many murderers/'intruders' also penned a kidnap letter. I'd estimate that is highly unusual.

When I was in Canada recently there were a few documentaries on this case on the telly, which surprised me given how long ago this happened. These documentaries all had the family down as guilty.

For me personally, not enough evidence against them. Were I sat on a jury I wouldn't convict them on the strength of what I've seen and read.

[louisa]

Well I firmly believe nobody else was in the house that night. The Ramseys knew they had to invent a bogus 'intruder' - it was the only way to save themselves.

If it hadn't been for some very nifty footwork of the lawyers they surrounded themselves with (within 48 hours of the murder) they would have been arrested. Money talks.

Fleetwood Mac - if you had been sitting on the jury you would have heard all the evidence. A Grand Jury had voted to indict the Ramseys but it never happened because the DA would not sign it. This information was only discovered in 2013.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Well I firmly believe nobody else was in the house that night. The Ramseys knew they had to invent a bogus 'intruder' - it was the only way to save themselves.

If it hadn't been for some very nifty footwork of the lawyers they surrounded themselves with (within 48 hours of the murder) they would have been arrested. Money talks.

Fleetwood Mac - if you had been sitting on the jury you would have heard all the evidence. A Grand Jury had voted to indict the Ramseys but it never happened because the DA would not sign it. This was only discovered in 2013.

Not sure what 'all the evidence is', but when you're locking someone up for life then it needs to be good, and what I've read and watched isn't good enough for me.

[Harry D]

What I would say, however, is that I would like to hear of how many murderers/'intruders' also penned a kidnap letter. I'd estimate that is highly unusual.

What about the Lindbergh baby kidnapper?

Dear Sir!

Have 50.000$ redy [sic] 25 000$ in
20$ bills 15000$ in 10$ bills and
10000$ in 5$ bills After 2–4 days
we will inform you were [sic] to deliver
the money.

We warn you for making
anyding [sic] public or for notify the Police
The child is in gut [sic] care.
Indication for all letters are
Singnature [sic] [Symbol to right]
and 3 hohls. [sic]

[louisa]

Not sure what 'all the evidence is', but when you're locking someone up for life then it needs to be good, and what I've read and watched isn't good enough for me.

Fair enough, and I absolutely agree with you.

However, the Ramsey home was locked down for the night (John told three individual police officers and investigators that he had personally checked all the windows and doors before going to bed).

No evidence of an intruder was found, regardless of what people like to say. The broken window in a basement room leads to an outside area with a very large heavy grille over it. This 'intruder' closed the window and replaced the grille upon departing. He forgot to take the body of his victim with him but left a 3 page rambling ransom note instead.

[louisa]

What about the Lindbergh baby kidnapper?

Dear Sir!

Have 50.000$ redy [sic] 25 000$ in
20$ bills 15000$ in 10$ bills and
10000$ in 5$ bills After 2–4 days
we will inform you were [sic] to deliver
the money.

We warn you for making
anyding [sic] public or for notify the Police
The child is in gut [sic] care.
Indication for all letters are
Singnature [sic] [Symbol to right]
and 3 hohls. [sic]

I'm glad you brought this up, Harry. It illustrates a point I was trying to make with Wicksy when he asked what the point would be of a kidnapper removing a dead body from the premises.

The Lindberg baby was dead almost as soon as he was taken from the window, probably dropped from the ladder (an accident) but the parents continued to hope and pray that he was alive, and even paid the ransom money.

So it's always worth taking the victim with you, even if you accidentally kill them. It is still 'collaterol' to a kidnapper.


And also....that is much more like a typical ransom note. Straight to the point - THE MONEY! No waffling on for two and a half pages, about what a good businesman you are and telling the parents to be well rested etc etc.

AND naturally enough, the kidnapper brought the note with him.

[Abby Normal]

Really?

I would have thought an 'intruder' looking to murder someone is unlikely to take valuables from the home.

What I would say, however, is that I would like to hear of how many murderers/'intruders' also penned a kidnap letter. I'd estimate that is highly unusual.

When I was in Canada recently there were a few documentaries on this case on the telly, which surprised me given how long ago this happened. These documentaries all had the family down as guilty.

For me personally, not enough evidence against them. Were I sat on a jury I wouldn't convict them on the strength of what I've seen and read.

my point was that an intruder who would somehow want to profit financially (regardless what their original or main intention was) so much so that they would write and leave a ransome note, would have stolen something-I'm sure that patsy had at least several thousand dollars worth of jewelry.

and also that a sexual homicide intruder would be likely to take some trophy of JonBent away-clothing, blanket etc.


but nothing was removed and taken away from the house.

[louisa]

my point was that an intruder who would somehow want to profit financially (regardless what their original or main intention was) so much so that they would write and leave a ransome note, would have stolen something-I'm sure that patsy had at least several thousand dollars worth of jewelry.

and also that a sexual homicide intruder would be likely to take some trophy of JonBent away-clothing, blanket etc.


but nothing was removed and taken away from the house.

I think Abby's made a good point.

Especially if we are supposed to believe that this so called 'intruder' spent hours inside the home waiting for the family to return.


The most obvious thing he forgot to take was the body of his victim.