JonBenet Ramsey Murder case

[louisa]

“We have a kidnapping. Hurry, please!"

It's like one of the first things she says.

Harry - I realised my mistake shortly after I posted. I was relying on something a poster said on another forum.

Then I listened again to the 911 call on YouTube.

By the time I got back here it was too late to edit my post and I apologize for that.
.

[louisa]

Wicksy - I have no intention of sorting out what you mean in your confuddled posts. You are constantly contradicting yourself.

All I can tell you is that there is NO mention in the autopsy report about the child having fingernail type scratch marks on her neck and I have to presume that Dr. Meyer was in a better position to observe such a thing than we are.

JBR was unconscious when she was strangled. No doubt about it.

We are going to have to accept the word of those more experienced than ourselves in matters of this kind.

Unless, that is, you know something more than this neuro-pathologist?


Dr. Lucy Rorke, a neuro-pathologist with the Philadelphia Children's Hospital, helped explain the timing of some of the injuries sustained by JonBenet. She told investigators that the blow to the skull had immediately begun to hemorrhage, and it was not likely that she would have regained consciousness after receiving this injury. The blow to the head, if left untreated, would have been fatal.

"The presence of cerebral edema, swelling of the brain, suggested that JonBenet had survived for some period of time after receiving the blow to her head. Blood from the injury slowly began to fill the cavity of the skull and began to build up pressure on her brain. As pressure increased, swelling was causing the medulla of the brain to push through the foramen magnum, the narrow opening at the base of the skull.

Dr. Rorke estimated that it would have taken an hour or so for the cerebral edema to develop, but that this swelling had not yet caused JonBenet's death.'Necrosis,' neurological changes to the brain cells, indicated a period of survival after the blow that could have ranged from between forty-five (45) minutes and two (2) hours.

"As pressure in her skull increased, JonBenet was beginning to experience the effects of 'brain death.' Her neurological and biological systems were beginning to shut down, and she may have been exhibiting signs of cheyne-stokes breathing. These are short, gasping breaths that may be present as the body struggles to satisfy its need for oxygen in the final stages of death.

"The medical experts were in agreement: the blow to JonBenet's skull had taken place some period of time prior to her death by strangulation. The bruising beneath the garrote and the petechial hemorrhaging in her face and eyes were conclusive evidence that she was still alive when the tightening of the ligature ended her life.

"The medical consultants considered the timing of the tracking of the pineapple that had moved through JonBenet's digestive track. It was generally agreed that the timing of the ingestion of this fruit could have coincided with the time frame regarding her head injury. It was estimated that it would have taken between two to five hours for the pineapple to move through her system. It appeared to investigators that she had eaten the pineapple not long before receiving the blow to her head."

http://www.newswise.com/articles/on-retiring-dr-lucy-rorke-adams-reflects-on-50-years-at-chop-as-a-pioneering-pediatric-neuropathologist

.

[louisa]

December 26 1996 - No phone call is received from the kidnapper.

Detective Arndt says that 10 a.m., the ransom note deadline, passed unnoticed. She says that the Ramseys did not remark whatsoever regarding the fact that the kidnapper had not called.

Much later when John was questioned about his nonchalance of the kidnapper not phoning (and he'd had time to think about it), he said it was because the ransom note stated "tomorrow" which could actually have implied the following day - the 27th.

Fine. So John is saying that he expected the 'kidnapper' to phone the following day - the 27th? Right?

However…..a bit later - at 1:30 p.m. (less than half an hour after John had 'discovered' his daughter's body in the wine cellar) a detective overheard John Ramsey talking by phone to his pilot and arranging a trip to Atlanta that evening for himself, his wife and son. Det. Sgt. Larry Mason told him, “You can’t leave.”

Surely the fact John wanted the family to immediately get out of the house, and out of state, shows he knew that no kidnapper would be calling the following day....or ever!
.

[Wickerman]

Wicksy - I have no intention of sorting out what you mean in your confuddled posts. You are constantly contradicting yourself.

If you are not prepared to understand what is written I fail to see the logic in responding.
The post suggested there were two applications of the garrotte.
- The first to which JB tried to resist and marked her neck with her fingernails (which is confirmed by her skin cells under the fingernails).
- Then came the blow to the head, possibly to shut her up.
- Then the duct tape applied to her mouth which partly covered the saliva that results from anti-mortem strangulation (consistent with the previous use of the garrotte).
- Finally the second application of the garrotte which ended her life.

All I can tell you is that there is NO mention in the autopsy report about the child having fingernail type scratch marks on her neck and I have to presume that Dr. Meyer was in a better position to observe such a thing than we are.

Dr. Meyer described the marks as "abrasions" in the 2nd & 3rd paragraphs on page 3.

Dr. Lucy Rorke, a neuro-pathologist with the Philadelphia Children's Hospital, helped explain the timing of some of the injuries sustained by JonBenet. She told investigators that the blow to the skull had immediately begun to hemorrhage, and it was not likely that she would have regained consciousness after receiving this injury. The blow to the head, if left untreated, would have been fatal.

"The presence of cerebral edema, swelling of the brain, suggested that JonBenet had survived for some period of time after receiving the blow to her head. Blood from the injury slowly began to fill the cavity of the skull and began to build up pressure on her brain. As pressure increased, swelling was causing the medulla of the brain to push through the foramen magnum, the narrow opening at the base of the skull.

Dr. Rorke estimated that it would have taken an hour or so for the cerebral edema to develop, but that this swelling had not yet caused JonBenet's death.'Necrosis,' neurological changes to the brain cells, indicated a period of survival after the blow that could have ranged from between forty-five (45) minutes and two (2) hours.

"As pressure in her skull increased, JonBenet was beginning to experience the effects of 'brain death.' Her neurological and biological systems were beginning to shut down, and she may have been exhibiting signs of cheyne-stokes breathing. These are short, gasping breaths that may be present as the body struggles to satisfy its need for oxygen in the final stages of death.

"The medical experts were in agreement: the blow to JonBenet's skull had taken place some period of time prior to her death by strangulation. The bruising beneath the garrote and the petechial hemorrhaging in her face and eyes were conclusive evidence that she was still alive when the tightening of the ligature ended her life.

"The medical consultants considered the timing of the tracking of the pineapple that had moved through JonBenet's digestive track. It was generally agreed that the timing of the ingestion of this fruit could have coincided with the time frame regarding her head injury. It was estimated that it would have taken between two to five hours for the pineapple to move through her system. It appeared to investigators that she had eaten the pineapple not long before receiving the blow to her head."

http://www.newswise.com/articles/on-retiring-dr-lucy-rorke-adams-reflects-on-50-years-at-chop-as-a-pioneering-pediatric-neuropathologist

.

Yes, and Dr. Wright guessed at "20 minutes to sixty minutes".

Dr. Meyer offered no such opinion, merely that death was caused by Strangulation IN ASSOCIATION with the head wound. Which is why he made no attempt to separate the two events by any significant passage of time.
In his opinion there wasn't any.

Lawyers, Detectives & Pathologists often disagree on interpretations of evidence, you should be familiar with this fact already.

[Wickerman]

December 26 1996 - No phone call is received from the kidnapper.

Detective Arndt says that 10 a.m., the ransom note deadline, passed unnoticed. She says that the Ramseys did not remark whatsoever regarding the fact that the kidnapper had not called.

Much later when John was questioned about his nonchalance of the kidnapper not phoning (and he'd had time to think about it), he said it was because the ransom note stated "tomorrow" which could actually have implied the following day - the 27th.

Fine. So John is saying that he expected the 'kidnapper' to phone the following day - the 27th? Right?

However…..a bit later - at 1:30 p.m. (less than half an hour after John had 'discovered' his daughter's body in the wine cellar) a detective overheard John Ramsey talking by phone to his pilot and arranging a trip to Atlanta that evening for himself, his wife and son. Det. Sgt. Larry Mason told him, “You can’t leave.”

Surely the fact John wanted the family to immediately get out of the house, and out of state, shows he knew that no kidnapper would be calling the following day....or ever!
.

Obviously, once the body was found, why would a kidnapper call now?

[louisa]

If you are not prepared to understand what is written I fail to see the logic in responding.
The post suggested there were two applications of the garrotte.
- The first to which JB tried to resist and marked her neck with her fingernails (which is confirmed by her skin cells under the fingernails).
- Then came the blow to the head, possibly to shut her up.
- Then the duct tape applied to her mouth which partly covered the saliva that results from anti-mortem strangulation (consistent with the previous use of the garrotte).
- Finally the second application of the garrotte which ended her life.

---------------------------------------------........
Louisa posted: All I can tell you is that there is NO mention in the autopsy report about the child having fingernail type scratch marks on her neck and I have to presume that Dr. Meyer was in a better position to observe such a thing than we are.
--------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Meyer described the marks as "abrasions" in the 2nd & 3rd paragraphs on page 3.

Yes, 'abrasions' is what the Dr. Meyer stated. Nowhere does he say he found scratches resembling fingernail type scratches, which would be quite distinctive, I would think.

You can't re-write the autopsy report and put words into it that are not there.

You are going to have to accept the facts, as stated, by a neuro-pathologist, even if they do not fit your theory.

The head blow came first followed, much later, by the strangulation.

The debris under JBR's nails was found to be 'calcinous' i.e. old material. Children sometimes get skin cells underneath their fingernails. Patsy had already stated she had no bathed JBR that Christmas day before going to the party.

Wicksy - I'm not trying to be rude but none of what you have said makes sense. We've already had this discussion many times before. I had thought you would have absorbed some of the facts of the case by now.

Why would this intruder "hit her over the head to shut her up?" According to your theory he had already put the duct tape over her mouth!

Which brings me to this point. The duct tape applied to her mouth was applied AFTER she was dead (as part of the 'staging'). That fact has been proved. I can't believe you don't already know this.

And there was NO second strangulation.

Maybe now we can put these inaccuracies to rest once and for all?
.

[louisa]

Some interesting observations about Burke

These are not police facts, just people talking, so make of it what you will.....


Dr. Phil: “He didn’t grow up like a normal kid. He couldn’t go to school. He has a siege mentality”.

Dr. Bernhard: "Are you going to school?"
Burke Ramsey: "No, because we're trying to stay away from the press".

Dr. Glass said: "It is though he is not socialized, he doesn’t know how to react. There is something off about Burke."


Burke, it seems, did attend a school for a while.....

http://www.city-data.com/forum/true-crime/2059774-jonben-t-ramsey-part-ii-26.html

Band practice at the exclusive Lovett School in Atlanta came to a sudden halt recently when an 11-year-old trombone player threw a fit.

The youngster was Burke Ramsey.

Sadly the murder of his sister, JonBenét seems to have turned him into an angry and sometimes strange boy.

"Burke tossed his instrument to the floor with a thud and screamed that he hated the trombone and didn't want to play it anymore," said a source.

"All the kids in the band got real quiet and some of them were frightened. Burke kept screaming and practice was canceled while teachers quieted him down. Burke is now playing saxophone."

On another occasion, Burke was on an amusement park outing when he got freaked out by a girl who looked like JonBenét, said the source.

"He went white and turned away from her. He kept yelling he didn't want to go on a ride with HER!"

One of Burke's homeroom classmates told the source: "He talks to himself in the corner a lot. Everybody thinks he's talking to his sister."

Shortly after the murder, Burke told a psychologist he would never reveal family secrets.

But the 11-year-old has since been dropping more and more clues about what happened on that horrible Christmas night when his sister was slain.

"The way Burke is dropping clues indicates he may have hidden his nightmares in another personality," said Dr. Densen-Gerber. "I've read that John and Patsy Ramsey say Burke is a normal boy. But he can't be normal any more than the two of them can be normal in light of what happened to JonBenét."

Dr. Densen-Gerber thinks Burke could become the eyewitness police need to solve the case.

"He should be questioned by experts again and again," she said.

-----------------------------------------------

Burke has been off the grid for the last 20 years. He now works from home doing computer programming. That is the official line on it anyway.

.

[louisa]

LIVE CHAT - JAMES KOLAR INTERVIEW

My name is James Kolar, and I am the Chief Marshall in Telluride, CO.
If you're familiar with me, it's likely thanks to my book, 'Foreign Faction', which is about the murder of Jon-Benet Ramsey in 1996, on which I worked directly as an investigator.

I'm inviting you to Ask Me Anything, either about Foreign Faction, the JBR case in general, other aspects of my career in law enforcement, or whatever you like. I'll try to answer as much as I can, though there may be things that I cannot answer for legal reasons or out of respect to others.

Yes, I am fully aware that this AMA is public.


QUESTION: Why did feel that is was necessary to write your book, because it doesn't seem like it was for monetary gain? From what I've seen, the book cost you your retirement to publish, pretty much angered some of your colleagues, and some of the profit will be going to that organization for missing children?

KOLAR: I handled one lead for the Boulder Police Department within a week of the murder, but my official involvement in the JBR investigation started when I was appointed chief investigator for the Boulder District Attorney’s office in 2005. I had been with their office as an investigator for about a year before I was asked to take the lead in the case.

I went to some length to debunk a number of theories and ‘evidence’ that intruder theorists pointed to as proof that someone outside the family had committed this crime. I think the most significant of those was disassembling the assertion that a stun gun had been used in the crime, the point of entry supposedly used by an intruder to enter or exit the home, and the source of the HiTech boot print in the wine cellar. I also spent some time providing analysis of the DNA samples collected from JBR’s body, clothing, and implements used in the crime. There were many other examples presented in my work that contributed to the debunking of the intruder theory and which was contrary to the public perception of the case.

It is my argument that when all of the ‘evidence’ that points to an 'intruder' is eliminated, then you are left with only one other possibility to consider: what role did people in the home play on the night of JBR’s murder?
.

[Wickerman]

Yes, 'abrasions' is what the Dr. Meyer stated. Nowhere does he say he found scratches resembling fingernail type scratches, which would be quite distinctive, I would think.

No, that is not what a pathologist is required to do.
The pathologist does not suggest the means, only the result.
This is why you will often read words like "instrument" or "implement", when describing what is obviously a knife wound.
It is the investigators responsibility to identify the means of a wound, the pathologist only describes the appearance & extent of the wound.

You can't re-write the autopsy report and put words into it that are not there.

That is precisely what an investigator is required to do, and it isn't re-writing it. The investigator is interpreting the wound(s) in the context of events that appear to have taken place. Something the Coroner is not aware of.

Why would this intruder "hit her over the head to shut her up?" According to your theory he had already put the duct tape over her mouth!

No, the duct tape was applied after the head wound, as I said (read it again).

Which brings me to this point. The duct tape applied to her mouth was applied AFTER she was dead (as part of the 'staging'). That fact has been proved. I can't believe you don't already know this.

It has not been proved.
The duct tape was applied AFTER the first attempt at strangulation, and after the blow to the head - which is what I previously wrote.

I do not at all mind you arguing with what I say, but please get what I say correct before you proceed to contest it.

It is a fact that excess saliva is produced by strangulation.
Also, the fact her lips appear to have left an undisturbed 'stationary' print on the adhesive means she was unconscious.
Both these facts suggest the blow to the head AND a previous attempt at strangulation came before the tape was applied.


To address your argument.
It is acknowledged that IF the blow to the head came first, and then she was strangled - therefore dying, and the duct tape was applied later as part of the staging, we (you?) are left with two problems.
1 - what possible use does the application of the duct tape serve if it is staging? Is someone trying to suggest she was screaming - why does that matter?
2 - this proposal does not account for the abrasions to the skin just above the garrotte line.
Something scratched her skin, the necklace was not rough, and if any necklace had made those marks it would not leave individual scratches. There would be one continuous scratch line much like the line made by the garrotte.

There had to be two applications of the garrotte, the abrasions to her skin being caused by her own fingernails.
Now, we have no need to address the two problems.

[TomTomKent]

Sorry, I've only come across two books on this case, Perfect Town Perfect Murder, and the more recent book by Dr Wecht (?), and have missed most the TV specials, and two decades of the case, so I can only give my first impressions.

I am always sceptical of any claim of how somebody should have acted on finding the kind of tragic scene we can't imagine. People don't act how we can expect, when their world is falling apart. So there are some aspects of the "suspicious" behaviour that I am not instantly going to be persuaded by.

However, there are also aspects that, at best, seems like they are getting very poor advice on how to handle the situation, that is genuinely suspicious, if condemning. With the experts they surrounded themselves with, I can see why some of their actions (already discussed at length here) fit better with protecting themselves, than with a hunt for a suspect.

From the brief understanding I have, there are too many factors that suggest somebody within the house to ignore. The ransom note written with a pen, on paper, from the house. The broken paintbrush, and the suggestive receipt for items from the hardware store matching those found with the body.

I have no solution to offer, only that from the leyman's overview a couple of books have given me, my view from an armchair is that there is information I would like to have before I speculate a theory, not least the contents of the grand jury discussions.

[louisa]

REGARDING WICKERMANS POST....(sub-heading Why do I bother?)

The facts of the case concerning JBR's body are quite simple and straightforward for most people to understand. I simply wish that you would try to understand them.

And please stop asking me to re-read your posts. Once is more than enough of your garbled theories and mis-information. If I wanted fiction I would read Cinderella, or one of the books written by the Ramseys.

I have posted numerous expert opinions that PROVE the head blow came first, following by strangulation. I even posted a report from a neuro pathologist. Even THAT isn't good enough for you!

And stop telling people that JonBenet was strangled twice - THAT DID NOT HAPPEN! She was strangled once only and that came over an hour after the head blow. The head blow rendered her unconscious.

The duct tape was applied AFTER the child was already dead - therefore was part of the staging. It HAS been proven! I presume you don't want to accept this proven fact because it does not fit with your own theory?

If you can't understand why duct tape was placed over her mouth after she was already dead then I suggest you put on your thinking cap.

------------------------------------------

Here are some quotes from people far more experienced in these matters... but I can supply plenty more.

"Further evidence against the stranger intruder is the lack of signs of struggle, both in the house and on the body. Normally, a body shows signs of distress when being strangled or asphyxiated, such as protrusion of tongue and skin cells under the fingernails when fighting for life. No such signs were found on the body. The duct tape had a perfect set of lip prints with no signs of tongue resistance, indicating it was placed after death or unconsciousness. This leads to the belief that the blow to the head came first."

-----------------------------------------

JAMES KOLAR: The coroner ruled the strangulation / asphyxia created by the application of the garrote was the cause of death.

QUESTION. Just to clear something up: On Tricia's True Crime Radio show, Cyril Wecht says that the strangulation preceded the BFT to the head. But former chief Mark Beckner said (in his AMA in February) that the head wound actually preceded the strangulation by 45 - 90 minutes. Which is correct?

KOLAR: Many people seem to think that the blow to the head came late in the attack , but the forensic evidence indicates that she lived for 45 - 90 minutes after receiving the blow.

The movement of the pineapple in her digestive tract corresponds to this time frame".

----------------------------------
Dr. Lucy Rorke - neuro pathologist for over 50 years…..

"The medical experts were in agreement: the blow to JonBenet's skull had taken place some period of time prior to her death by strangulation. The bruising beneath the garrote and the petechial hemorrhaging in her face and eyes were conclusive evidence that she was still alive when the tightening of the ligature ended her life".

----------------------------

Duct Tape. "Plaintiff also notes that the strip of duct tape found on JonBenet's mouth had a bloody mucous on it and a "perfect set of child's lip prints, which did not indicate a tongue impression or resistance." (PSDMF P 53.)" (Carnes 2003:19). This suggests it was not used to silence her but instead placed on her after she was unconscious, an indication of staging.
Why would an 'intruder' stage the crime scene?"
.

[louisa]

Sorry, I've only come across two books on this case, Perfect Town Perfect Murder, and the more recent book by Dr Wecht (?), and have missed most the TV specials, and two decades of the case, so I can only give my first impressions.

I am always sceptical of any claim of how somebody should have acted on finding the kind of tragic scene we can't imagine. People don't act how we can expect, when their world is falling apart. So there are some aspects of the "suspicious" behaviour that I am not instantly going to be persuaded by.

However, there are also aspects that, at best, seems like they are getting very poor advice on how to handle the situation, that is genuinely suspicious, if condemning. With the experts they surrounded themselves with, I can see why some of their actions (already discussed at length here) fit better with protecting themselves, than with a hunt for a suspect.

From the brief understanding I have, there are too many factors that suggest somebody within the house to ignore. The ransom note written with a pen, on paper, from the house. The broken paintbrush, and the suggestive receipt for items from the hardware store matching those found with the body.

I have no solution to offer, only that from the leyman's overview a couple of books have given me, my view from an armchair is that there is information I would like to have before I speculate a theory, not least the contents of the grand jury discussions.

Hi Tom! Welcome to this discussion.

Although you have read two books on this case, I personally don't think they are the best ones.

All the books are biased, one way or the other. I quoted excerpts from James Kolar's book 'Foreign Faction' and I would recommend this one, although he doesn't stick his neck out far enough to name names, understandable in light of how the Ramsey family enjoy suing people.

The first book I read was Steve Thomas's one "JonBenet - Inside the Murder Investigation" - which gives good insight and a timeline of events. His theory does not match mine but it's still a good read and gives a lot of interesting information.

As for the Cyril Wecht one - please try and ignore what you have read in that one. It was written by somebody who keeps stating "Dr. Wecht says…" "Dr. Wecht thinks…" (another way of avoiding being sued). Wecht never saw the body, and was relying on photos, and he has altered facts to fit his bizarre theory. (A bit like one of the posters on this thread)

Books to avoid - anything written by the Ramsey family or those affiliated with them.

------------------------------------------------------------

And Tom - here are some excellent websites. You will need to become a member of some of them before you can post, but that is just a quick formality.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?23-JonBenet-Ramsey

http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/activity.php

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/jonbenet-ramsey

http://www.acandyrose.com/1999-BonitaPapers.htm

.

[Abby Normal]

Sorry, I've only come across two books on this case, Perfect Town Perfect Murder, and the more recent book by Dr Wecht (?), and have missed most the TV specials, and two decades of the case, so I can only give my first impressions.

I am always sceptical of any claim of how somebody should have acted on finding the kind of tragic scene we can't imagine. People don't act how we can expect, when their world is falling apart. So there are some aspects of the "suspicious" behaviour that I am not instantly going to be persuaded by.

However, there are also aspects that, at best, seems like they are getting very poor advice on how to handle the situation, that is genuinely suspicious, if condemning. With the experts they surrounded themselves with, I can see why some of their actions (already discussed at length here) fit better with protecting themselves, than with a hunt for a suspect.

From the brief understanding I have, there are too many factors that suggest somebody within the house to ignore. The ransom note written with a pen, on paper, from the house. The broken paintbrush, and the suggestive receipt for items from the hardware store matching those found with the body.

I have no solution to offer, only that from the leyman's overview a couple of books have given me, my view from an armchair is that there is information I would like to have before I speculate a theory, not least the contents of the grand jury discussions.

Hi Tom Tom
welcome. I ve gone back and forth several times but recently been leaning toward someone in the family:

statistics show that a murdered child is something like 75% from a family member. add to that murdered in the home with the parents there and honestly I don't think ive ever heard of that happening with an intruder.

upon discovering their child "missing" the parents didn't tear up there house looking for her everywhere, including searching around outside the house, is unusual to say the least.

most of the police thought the Ramseys did it, with several who dealt directly with them had very emotional response that something wasn't right and/or they were dealing with the killers.

The ramseys showed a consciousness of guilt by lawyering up immediately and not cooperating with the police.

The evidence of an intruder inside the house is extremely weak and there is zero evidence of an intruder around the outside the house. example-no forced entry or any objects, footprints found in proximity.

the clincher for me is the note, IMHO more than likely written by Patsy Ramsey, and the clincher clinch is the ransome note amount-john bonus.

and these are just the major red flags to me, there are many other more minor things that point in there direction.

The grand jury returned a true bill to indict, and I think they were probably right.

of course, a intruder cant be ruled out, but at this point, with all that we know, I think it was someone in the household. But I wouldn't be shocked at all if it did turn out to be an intruder.

[louisa]

Abby - an intruder can be ruled out.

We can rule him out for a great many reasons. The main one being he left no evidence.

Plus.......

What kind of kidnapper comes to a house to take a child without first preparing a ransom note? According to the FBI it has never before happened.

What kind of kidnapper is so efficient and relaxed in his work that he goes out on a freezing Christmas night, removes a long, heavy iron grille from the frozen ground, climbs through a tiny window, goes upstairs, hangs around for hours in the hope of a chance to abduct a sleeping child from her bed, takes her down to another room, crushes her skull with a blunt object, half-heartedly sexually molests her, kills her TWO HOURS LATER, finds a notepad and pen and writes a leisurely ransom note and get away without leaving a trace?

What kind of kidnapper is so familiar with the family home that he takes his time to pen a few attempts at a ransom note before settling on one he likes? Then replaces pad and pen neatly back where they were?

The family could have returned early for all he knew.

He also presumably had to switch on lights in the house because he would not have found his way around otherwise. And the kitchen light had to be on for this person to write that long, long note.

What kind of kidnapper writes a nonsensical rambling - almost friendly - 3 page ransom note ('unheard of' according to the FBI) - even advising the family to be "well rested"? He started his note with "Mr. Ramsey" but then reverts to "John" shortly thereafter.

What kind of kidnapper intentionally kills his victim? This only happens if a ransom is not forthcoming of if the death is an accident.

What kind of kidnapper kills his victim yet still leaves a ransom note?

What kind of a kidnapper is also a murderer? Not only that but he is also a sexual pervert!

What kind of kidnapper takes the time to undress his victim and then dress her again?

What kind of kidnapper stages a scene, and make no mistake, the murder scene was staged. The FBI called it "a staging within a staging". The garrotting happened up to two hours AFTER the head trauma, so this 'intruder' was happy to be in the house all this time?

What kind of kidnapper would wipe the flashlight - and open it to wipe the batteries - rather than taking it with him when he left, if it was the murder weapon?

What kind of kidnapper does not take his victim with him, alive or dead? A body would have been collateral for the ransom money.
.

[Abby Normal]

Abby - an intruder can be ruled out.

We can rule him out for a great many reasons. The main one being he left no evidence.

Plus.......

What kind of kidnapper comes to a house to take a child without first preparing a ransom note? According to the FBI it has never before happened.

What kind of kidnapper is so efficient and relaxed in his work that he goes out on a freezing Christmas night, removes a long, heavy iron grille from the frozen ground, climbs through a tiny window, goes upstairs, hangs around for hours in the hope of a chance to abduct a sleeping child from her bed, takes her down to another room, crushes her skull with a blunt object, half-heartedly sexually molests her, kills her TWO HOURS LATER, finds a notepad and pen and writes a leisurely ransom note and get away without leaving a trace?

What kind of kidnapper is so familiar with the family home that he takes his time to pen a few attempts at a ransom note before settling on one he likes? Then replaces pad and pen neatly back where they were?

The family could have returned early for all he knew.

He also presumably had to switch on lights in the house because he would not have found his way around otherwise. And the kitchen light had to be on for this person to write that long, long note.

What kind of kidnapper writes a nonsensical rambling - almost friendly - 3 page ransom note ('unheard of' according to the FBI) - even advising the family to be "well rested"? He started his note with "Mr. Ramsey" but then reverts to "John" shortly thereafter.

What kind of kidnapper intentionally kills his victim? This only happens if a ransom is not forthcoming of if the death is an accident.

What kind of kidnapper kills his victim yet still leaves a ransom note?

What kind of a kidnapper is also a murderer? Not only that but he is also a sexual pervert!

What kind of kidnapper takes the time to undress his victim and then dress her again?

What kind of kidnapper stages a scene, and make no mistake, the murder scene was staged. The FBI called it "a staging within a staging". The garrotting happened up to two hours AFTER the head trauma, so this 'intruder' was happy to be in the house all this time?

What kind of kidnapper would wipe the flashlight - and open it to wipe the batteries - rather than taking it with him when he left, if it was the murder weapon?

What kind of kidnapper does not take his victim with him, alive or dead? A body would have been collateral for the ransom money.
.

good points louisa
but if it was an intruder, (and no, an intruder cant be ruled out at this point, in my opinion,) his original intention was to abduct her and sexually abuse her at his bolt hole. he only got the idea to ransome the ramseys while he was in the house while they were out, only to have difficulty removing her so he sexually assaulted and strangled her there. which while this scenario addresses many of your points, also kind of shows the improbability of it all happening that way! but not impossible in my opinion.