JonBenet Ramsey Murder case

[Wickerman]

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.

Hi Abby, I notice F.M. has responded to this but, I think if you research cases where sexual offenders break in to the house of their victims, you'll find they do not steal money or valuables. Sex is their obsession not burglary.
This one seems to have left behind more than he took.

Asking for cash is understandable, cash is easy to dispose of but jewelry and items of value are traceable. You really have to have an established network (fence) to distribute any stolen jewelry 'on the quiet'. Taking it to the local pawn shop will just get you nicked.

As for any personal possessions being taken from JonBenet, the question never came up so we can't say one way or the other.
The Ramsey kids had so much stuff, example - Patsy wasn't sure how many baseball bats Burke had, and I'll bet neither parent would know everything JonBenet had.
Something small and personal could easily have been taken, but the question never arose.

[Wickerman]

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.

Which in itself is odd, if John is party to a cover-up where an intruder is to blame, John saying he felt sure he locked up all around, doors & windows, tends to work against his plan.

Likewise, telling the police it was him who broke that window, and presumably was responsible for much of the debris around the window-well that looked suspiciously like an intruder entered the house by that means also works against his plan.

It's almost as if he didn't have a plan at all.

The assumed plan would benefit more if he wasn't sure if he locked up and, if he had not admitted to breaking that basement window.

[Wickerman]

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

JB's body was beginning to decompose when John found her.
Any kidnapper would have the problem of hiding the dead body where others couldn't smell the decomposition.
Not everyone wants a dead body in their chest freezer, not everyone has a chest freezer.

Either that or bury it, and in December the ground can be rock hard, so if you can't dig a hole deep enough and quick enough, wild animals will only dig her up.

Maybe he actually did weigh his options, and made the best choice.

[louisa]

This one seems to have left behind more than he took.

Including his victim.

He left nothing of himself though, except a chatty and rambling 3 page 'ransom note' - the handwriting of which closely resembled that of the woman sleeping upstairs.

He must have been a true mastermind to have all done that he is supposed to have done, without making a sound and leaving without a trace and has never been caught.

[louisa]

JB's body was beginning to decompose when John found her.

Hellooooo - Yes, it may have been decomposing when John found her at 1pm!

However, when the person killed her (estimated at just before midnight the night before) the body would have been fresh.

Wouldn't it?

[louisa]

Which in itself is odd, if John is party to a cover-up where an intruder is to blame, John saying he felt sure he locked up all around, doors & windows, tends to work against his plan.

And that is exactly why John did an 'about-turn' when (later) confronted with his statements to the police - he denied ever saying that he had checked the house.

Likewise, telling the police it was him who broke that window, and presumably was responsible for much of the debris around the window-well that looked suspiciously like an intruder entered the house by that means also works against his plan.

It's almost as if he didn't have a plan at all.

The assumed plan would benefit more if he wasn't sure if he locked up and, if he had not admitted to breaking that basement window.

He had to tell the police he broke the window because he previously had told a few of his friends about getting locked out and having to break the window, way back in the summer. If he told police he had no idea who broke it then the people he had already told would know he was lying.

The debris around the window could have come from John gaining entry back then. The Ramseys basement looked like it hadn't been cleaned or tidied for a long time (judging from photos).

[Fleetwood Mac]

Including his victim.

He left nothing of himself though, except a chatty and rambling 3 page 'ransom note' - the handwriting of which closely resembled that of the woman sleeping upstairs.

Is this actually correct?

My understanding is that they couldn't rule her out, which is an entirely different concept to 'closely resembled'.

My hunch with this is that they didn't kill her at all, nor did the son.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Including his victim.

He left nothing of himself though, except a chatty and rambling 3 page 'ransom note' - the handwriting of which closely resembled that of the woman sleeping upstairs.

He must have been a true mastermind to have all done that he is supposed to have done, without making a sound and leaving without a trace and has never been caught.

Why?

Yeah, fine, he's been careful not to leave a trace, but I was watching a case last night in some place in the United States, and a killer broke into a person's home while intoxicated and stabbed a young girl 20 something times, sexually assaulted her and left her to die. The only clue he left was a fingerprint - had he been wearing gloves or not grabbed the window ledge then there would have been no trace of this intoxicated man.

Seems it is possible to get in and out without leaving a trace.

Wasn't there a disproportionate amount of paedophiles living in the area and an attack on a 12 year old girl in the same neighbourhood 9 months later, with the offender again brazen enough to enter someone's home?

[louisa]

Why?

Yeah, fine, he's been careful not to leave a trace, but I was watching a case last night in some place in the United States, and a killer broke into a person's home while intoxicated and stabbed a young girl 20 something times, sexually assaulted her and left her to die. The only clue he left was a fingerprint - had he been wearing gloves or not grabbed the window ledge then there would have been no trace of this intoxicated man.

Seems it is possible to get in and out without leaving a trace.

Wasn't there a disproportionate amount of paedophiles living in the area and an attack on a 12 year old girl in the same neighbourhood 9 months later, with the offender again brazen enough to enter someone's home?

Hi FM,

How did he sexually assault her? In what way? I would think that the person you are referring to has been caught by now - either by the murder weapon being found (or it could have been traced to him) or by semen DNA.

The amount of paedos in the Ramsey area was (I believe) found to be in about the same proportion to other areas. These people are everywhere nowadays (unfortunately)

[louisa]

Is this actually correct?

My understanding is that they couldn't rule her out, which is an entirely different concept to 'closely resembled'.

My hunch with this is that they didn't kill her at all, nor did the son.

You decide........


[QUOTE=louisa;395185]

THE ORIGINAL RANSOM NOTE






PATSY'S HANDWRITING SAMPLE

[Wickerman]

[QUOTE=louisa;397535]You decide........

THE ORIGINAL RANSOM NOTE




PATSY'S HANDWRITING SAMPLE

Louisa.
Let me just offer this quote:

Why Amateurs Make Mistakes. "As Professor Kam stated: 'It struck me very quickly that lay persons tend to see similarities and jump to a conclusion . . . whereas document examiners always started the analysis–when I asked why did you make the decision–by trying to show me sic what's different'" [Emphasis added] (U.S. v. Prime).

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/page/11682518/The%20Ransom%20Note

The relevant line being...
lay persons tend to see similarities and jump to a conclusion



Louisa, have you compared the other FIVE (a least five), suspects who's handwriting also could not be eliminated?

- Henderson, who never gave a sample of his DNA.
- McReynolds, who Steve Thomas eliminated because of the recent heart operation, though McReynolds had no need to carry JB anywhere.
- Merrick, who's handwriting was so close they believed he wrote the note.
- Meyers, who's handwriting was so similar.
- Wolf, who's ex-girlfriend was struck how the handwriting in the note resembled Wolf's own handwriting.

In all fairness, you really need to compare their writings with the original before you promote the idea that Patsy did it. If you don't, you are just following in the same footsteps as the Boulder Police, and will likely make the same mistakes they did.


Also, I'm not sure if you are aware of the American Society for Testing and Materials, they have a 9 point scale to use in handwriting analysis.
In that scale Patsy falls in the slot next to the end. If you recall the previous assessment of 4.5 out of 5, where 5 means Eliminated.
The ASTM scale indicates Patsy is "Highly probable did not write", which is also next to the end, where the end is "Eliminated".

Patsy is a 4.5 out of 5, and this means "Highly probable did not write the ransom note"

[Wickerman]

Hellooooo - Yes, it may have been decomposing when John found her at 1pm!

However, when the person killed her (estimated at just before midnight the night before) the body would have been fresh.

Wouldn't it?

Hellooooo - As soon as the kidnapper removes the body from the house, he must either freeze it, or bury it.
If JB died around midnight she is well on the way to decomposing by the time of the phone call about 10:00 am, add a couple of hours for John to get the money, plus another couple to make that arduous delivery somewhere in the state.

[Wickerman]

And that is exactly why John did an 'about-turn' when (later) confronted with his statements to the police - he denied ever saying that he had checked the house.




He had to tell the police he broke the window because he previously had told a few of his friends about getting locked out and having to break the window, way back in the summer. If he told police he had no idea who broke it then the people he had already told would know he was lying.

Why couldn't he have had it fixed, afterall this was last summer.

The debris around the window could have come from John gaining entry back then. The Ramseys basement looked like it hadn't been cleaned or tidied for a long time (judging from photos).

They must have cleaned up most of the broken glass from when John broke in.

Personally, I don't buy that window as the intruder entry point, contrary to the accepted intruder theory. There's too much circumstantial evidence against it.
He/they, came in another way.
John admitted the door from the garage into the house was always left unlocked then, sometimes the back door near the kitchen was left open/unlocked.

[Wickerman]

Why?

Yeah, fine, he's been careful not to leave a trace, but I was watching a case last night in some place in the United States, and a killer broke into a person's home while intoxicated and stabbed a young girl 20 something times, sexually assaulted her and left her to die. The only clue he left was a fingerprint - had he been wearing gloves or not grabbed the window ledge then there would have been no trace of this intoxicated man.

Seems it is possible to get in and out without leaving a trace.

Wasn't there a disproportionate amount of paedophiles living in the area and an attack on a 12 year old girl in the same neighbourhood 9 months later, with the offender again brazen enough to enter someone's home?

The people who Patsy called that morning, they arrived about the same time as the first officers - they started cleaning up, wiping the kitchen down.
Even while the police were dusting for fingerprints, they were being followed by the neighbors with dust cloths wiping away the powder - it sounds like a Keystone Cops sketch.
There's no wonder no prints were found.

[Abby Normal]

The people who Patsy called that morning, they arrived about the same time as the first officers - they started cleaning up, wiping the kitchen down.
Even while the police were dusting for fingerprints, they were being followed by the neighbors with dust cloths wiping away the powder - it sounds like a Keystone Cops sketch.
There's no wonder no prints were found.

Now why would patsy do that?