Who killed JonBenet Ramsey?

Here's a link to the actual note:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/ransom1.html

My reaction is that the note is a fake. That, of course, is not a big surprise since she wasn't kidnapped. It just doesn't read as real. So that means that somebody got into a house where the family was home, fashioned a weapon from the basement, and killed the daughter. Then with a dead body lying around and a sleeping family that might stir at any time, the person wrote a couple of drafts of a rather lengthy ransom note, then put the final version on the stairs. This note revealed that the murderer knew the family (the request for $118,000 and the use of the first and last name of the father).

I can totally see why the cops focused on the family. The whole thing is crazy. Too bad the cops were so incompetent.
 
UncaYimmy said:
Here's a link to the actual note:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/ransom1.html

My reaction is that the note is a fake. That, of course, is not a big surprise since she wasn't kidnapped. It just doesn't read as real. So that means that somebody got into a house where the family was home, fashioned a weapon from the basement, and killed the daughter. Then with a dead body lying around and a sleeping family that might stir at any time, the person wrote a couple of drafts of a rather lengthy ransom note, then put the final version on the stairs. This note revealed that the murderer knew the family (the request for $118,000 and the use of the first and last name of the father).

I can totally see why the cops focused on the family. The whole thing is crazy. Too bad the cops were so incompetent.
Click to expand...

Can you come up with a motive anyone in the Ramsey family had to kill this little girl? A real motive, not something invented out of thin air like the claims they were running a child porn network.

It's the kind of thing an insane person might do, but none of the Ramsey's showed signs of being insane.

Outside of the household there were thousands of people that knew the Ramsey's. Add to this everyone that had seen or read about their daughter at pageants. Is it really that hard to believe that someone in this vast pool could have been a homicidal nutcase?
 
Kestrel said:
Can you come up with a motive anyone in the Ramsey family had to kill this little girl? A real motive, not something invented out of thin air like the claims they were running a child porn network.

It's the kind of thing an insane person might do, but none of the Ramsey's showed signs of being insane.
Click to expand...
Do crimes of passion need a motive beyond the immediate emotional state? It's not like there's much practical motive for killing a six year old.

Outside of the household there were thousands of people that knew the Ramsey's. Add to this everyone that had seen or read about their daughter at pageants. Is it really that hard to believe that someone in this vast pool could have been a homicidal nutcase?
Click to expand...
Can you come up with a motive for someone else?

All I said was that I see why the parents were the focus. You go where the evidence leads you.
 
UncaYimmy said:
Can you come up with a motive for someone else?
Click to expand...

John Ramsey was the wealthy CEO of a company, so I could imagine somebody doing it to "get back" at him for a slight, being fired/laid off, or anything like that. The ransom note (if you believe it is real) seems to indicate something along those lines -- someone with a very personal grudge against John Ramsey.

UncaYimmy said:
All I said was that I see why the parents were the focus. You go where the evidence leads you.
Click to expand...

I agree that it made perfect sense to suspect the parents initially. Playing the odds alone, the parents are more often the killers than not. Then you have the fact the the body was found in their house, with a ransom note written on their notepad, etc. It made sense. It would have been foolish for the police not to look at the parents.

What didn't make sense was the continued, unrelenting focus on them when evidence started popping up that seemed to point elsewhere. Evidence like:
- Foreign DNA under the fingernails
- Foreign DNA in the underwear
- An unidentified palm print at the scene
- An unidentified boot print in the dust of the basement
- The fact that the duct tape and cord used to bind JonBenet were not found anywhere in the house

I doubt they could have ruled them out completely right away (although ultimately they did, a decade later), but it doesn't seem like they put a lot of stock into other possibilities, even though the evidence pointed elsewhere.
 
Last edited:
UncaYimmy said:
Do crimes of passion need a motive beyond the immediate emotional state? It's not like there's much practical motive for killing a six year old.

Can you come up with a motive for someone else?
Click to expand...

I would assume that the killer was insane. The motive could be revenge for an imagined wrong or something as crazy as believing that the kid was possessed by demons.

A crime of passion by someone in the household doesn't make much sense. Would someone overcome with rage take the time to fashion a garrote instead of just strangling the kid with their bare hands? I would also expect a parent prone to such fits of rage to have a history of abusing children.
 
UncaYimmy said:
Here's a link to the actual note:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/ransom1.html

My reaction is that the note is a fake. That, of course, is not a big surprise since she wasn't kidnapped. It just doesn't read as real. So that means that somebody got into a house where the family was home, fashioned a weapon from the basement, and killed the daughter. Then with a dead body lying around and a sleeping family that might stir at any time, the person wrote a couple of drafts of a rather lengthy ransom note, then put the final version on the stairs.
Click to expand...
Yes. Well said.


Kestrel said:
Can you come up with a motive anyone in the Ramsey family had to kill this little girl? A real motive, not something invented out of thin air like the claims they were running a child porn network.
Click to expand...
I think it could've been an accidental killing that was part of sex abuse. It could be that most of the family's involvement is more about covering up to protect the killer rather than complicity in the killing itself.

Imagine that your young son accidentally killed your young (already objectified child beauty pageant) daughter. It's a horrible tragedy, with plenty of emotional blame to go around even if no one would be deemed guilty of first degree murder. I think they have pretty good motive for attempting a coverup.
 
You are not the only fat cat around so don't think that killing will be difficult.
Click to expand...

To me, this is the most confusing detail about the case. What could it mean? Cleary John is the "fat cat". I assume a fat cat is a rich, powerful person. But what is the logic?

If a man is the only rich, powerful person around, then killing his daughter would be difficult. Killing a rich, powerful person's daughter is easier when there are more rich powerful people around.

I see connections between Patsy and the note, but this sentence seems to throw that off. It only makes sense to me if the note writer is saying that he is also a "fat cat" (in his opinion). I can't see why Patsy would write this line. But it would make sense from a persion jealous of the Ramsey's who might want to take their precious pagent daughter and big bonus away fromthe Ramseys.

I'm still torn between Patsy and some drunken, jealous, introverted associate.

I wish I could find the complete copies of Patsy's exmepler renditions of the ransom note (both right and left hand). All I can find is a tabloid picture of one page. The specific way she wrote some things on those other pages would be WAY more valuable than all the shady handwriting analysis I have seen.
 
Kestrel said:
I would assume that the killer was insane. The motive could be revenge for an imagined wrong or something as crazy as believing that the kid was possessed by demons.
Click to expand...
Sounds to me like speculation without evidence.

A crime of passion by someone in the household doesn't make much sense. Would someone overcome with rage take the time to fashion a garrote instead of just strangling the kid with their bare hands? I would also expect a parent prone to such fits of rage to have a history of abusing children.
Click to expand...

The cause of death was "asphyxia by strangulation associated with craniocerebral trauma." She had part of her skull crushed and bruises on her brain. She had abrasions on her back and on the back of her leg. And she had "abrasion and vascular congestion of vaginal mucosa."

I'm no expert in reading autopsies, but it sounds to me that there was physical violence and some sort of sexually related violence present. This could have come first followed by strangulation later and probably did. The killing may not have been a premeditated decision at all but actually an attempt to silence the girl from identifying her attacker.

Why use a garrote instead of strangling her with your bare hands? Again, I am no crime expert, but a garrote is far less personal. If I were reluctant to kill her (perhaps the head trauma was an accident during a struggle) and had some personal attachment, I would choose a garrote over my bare hands.

The presence of a history of violence or sexual abuse is an indicator of possible guilt, but the lack of a known history is not an indicator of innocence. It is not difficult to sexually abuse a child and leave no long-term traces so long as there is no intercourse and no breaking of the hymen. Same goes for physical violence. And remember, any person who is subject to fits of rage has a first one.

Going back to the weapon, if the original intent were to kill, why build the garrote using a stick found in the home?

Basically, I still think the initial evidence pointed towards the Ramseys. I have no issues with the investigation going that way. The fact that the investigation was so horribly botched renders conclusions beyond that point so much conjecture (not that I have a problem with conjecture in this thread). But all things considered, I'm looking at the family first.
 
UncaYimmy said:
Do crimes of passion need a motive beyond the immediate emotional state?
Click to expand...

If it were a crime of passion, the kid was supposed to be sexually abused and being abused for some time before the death.
I read that her mommy took her to the hospital for some vaginal examinations. Rather unusual thing to do. The girl was 6 years only. Unless the kid was abused. Any visit to a hospital is documented. But it looks like police didn`t go to that direction.
 
Kestrel said:
I asked for some scientific proof that a dog can track a person traveling in a vehicle. All you did was repeat the assertion. Repeating a claim does nothing to prove the claim.

Claiming that dogs can track the occupants of a vehicle is the kind of extraordinary claim that requires scientific validation before a skeptic accepts it as true. What tests have been done to prove this is possible and what were the conditions of the test?

We do know that dog handlers can be dishonest, working to produce the results the police and prosecutors want instead of searching for the truth.
Click to expand...

You can ask until you are blue in the face. You want "scientific proof"- google is your friend. I'm not in the research business for you.

The results have been documented. Its not a "claim"- its well known
 
ARubberChickenWithAPulley said:
Like who? You already said you have no experience in kidnapping. I cited an actual kidnapping case and a first-hand account of another reaction, which was similar to the Ramseys. You had no response to that, since again -- it didn't fit your hypothesis. Ignoring evidence doesn't make it go away.



The same rules apply -- in that you have no experience with the victims in this case, so you have no idea how they should or shouldn't react, let alone trying to psychoanalyze individual details of their reaction.



Yes, how they act is critical. If they had, say, jumped on a plane and fled to Mexico, that might be a good indication that they are hiding something. That they chose to call the police rather than searching the house -- that means nothing in relation to their guilt or innocence. That the father brought the body upstairs -- that means nothing as it relates to their guilt or innocence. You can talk about your "personal" experience (which you don't have with kidnapping) all you want. It doesn't cover up poor analysis.



Let's recap: You asked "what had changed" when John Ramsey searched the house, and that it was suspicious. I gave you the factual answer, which didn't fit with your hypothesis. You responded with, "That's a different subject." That's the very definition of changing the subject. If the answer to your question is "a different subject," then I'm not sure why you even asked it.



Do you have any proof that that was the MAIN reason they maintained their status as suspects, or are you just making that up? Cite, please.

They were considered suspects because:
a) Percentage-wise, the parents are most likely to be the perpetrators
b) The murder occurred in the house
c) The note was written in the house

Those are all perfectly valid reasons to consider them initial suspects. And they have nothing, whatsoever, to do with their conduct.

Not to mention that this is all a bit circular. If you start with the premise that how they acted is suspicious, then they are going to be suspects. And if you suspect that they killed their daughter, you are going to believe they acted suspiciously.

Your "suspicious acts" are based on poor analysis and a failure to grasp the facts. As I noted, a pretty significant part of your suspicion was easily answered by a very-well publicized fact that you didn't bother to know or look up. The rest of your "suspicions" are based on a faulty assumption: that there is one "right" way for victims to act when dealing with a crime. That is absurd on its face.

Not all mothers scream at the top of their lungs and go on a mad searching spree. Not all fathers find the body of their child and immediately think, "we'd better preserve this here crime scene!"



Who is "us"? You didn't work on this case. You noted above that your opinion is worth no more[/i] or less than anyone else's. You are as much an "armchair type" in regards to this thread as anyone. And all the background in the world won't make up for lousy analysis.

So here, I will quote John Douglas, who actually did a full analysis of the case, and is a 25-year FBI veteran and author. He compared the case to the Lindbergh's as well:


And this, by the way, jibes with my own REAL WORLD experience in seeing people in crisis situations.
Click to expand...


>>>Like who? You already said you have no experience in kidnapping. I cited an actual kidnapping case and a first-hand account of another reaction, which was similar to the Ramseys. You had no response to that, since again -- it didn't fit your hypothesis. Ignoring evidence doesn't make it go away.

Gee, you cited "a" case- whoopee

>>>The same rules apply -- in that you have no experience with the victims in this case, so you have no idea how they should or shouldn't react, let alone trying to psychoanalyze individual details of their reaction.

How many calls have you answered? If the number is zero or less, theres your answer

>>>Yes, how they act is critical. If they had, say, jumped on a plane and fled to Mexico, that might be a good indication that they are hiding something. That they chose to call the police rather than searching the house -- that means nothing in relation to their guilt or innocence. That the father brought the body upstairs -- that means nothing as it relates to their guilt or innocence. You can talk about your "personal" experience (which you don't have with kidnapping) all you want. It doesn't cover up poor analysis.

Your experience is what again?

>>>Let's recap: You asked "what had changed" when John Ramsey searched the house, and that it was suspicious. I gave you the factual answer, which didn't fit with your hypothesis. You responded with, "That's a different subject." That's the very definition of changing the subject. If the answer to your question is "a different subject," then I'm not sure why you even asked it.

You gave an appeal to emotion- nothing more

>>>Do you have any proof that that was the MAIN reason they maintained their status as suspects, or are you just making that up? Cite, please.

They were considered suspects because:
a) Percentage-wise, the parents are most likely to be the perpetrators
b) The murder occurred in the house
c) The note was written in the house

"proof' no- instinct yes, again- your experience is what again?

>>>Not to mention that this is all a bit circular. If you start with the premise that how they acted is suspicious, then they are going to be suspects. And if you suspect that they killed their daughter, you are going to believe they acted suspiciously.

Thats only part of it

>>>Your "suspicious acts" are based on poor analysis and a failure to grasp the facts. As I noted, a pretty significant part of your suspicion was easily answered by a very-well publicized fact that you didn't bother to know or look up. The rest of your "suspicions" are based on a faulty assumption: that there is one "right" way for victims to act when dealing with a crime. That is absurd on its face.

I know the facts as good as anyone- again, you have how many years?

>>>Not all mothers scream at the top of their lungs and go on a mad searching spree. Not all fathers find the body of their child and immediately think, "we'd better preserve this here crime scene!"

No, but most get upset

>>>Who is "us"? You didn't work on this case. You noted above that your opinion is worth no more[/i] or less than anyone else's. You are as much an "armchair type" in regards to this thread as anyone. And all the background in the world won't make up for lousy analysis.

Thats what all the couch potatoes say

>>>So here, I will quote John Douglas, who actually did a full analysis of the case, and is a 25-year FBI veteran and author. He compared the case to the Lindbergh's as well:

I'm aware of that- thats why I look at the whole picture

>>>And this, by the way, jibes with my own REAL WORLD experience in seeing people in crisis situations

how many times have you been on the scene? Let me guess
 
LONGTABBER PE said:
You can ask until you are blue in the face. You want "scientific proof"- google is your friend. I'm not in the research business for you.

The results have been documented. Its not a "claim"- its well known
Click to expand...

You made a claim. The burden of providing evidence to back up that claim is yours.

Bluster is not an appropriate substitute for evidence.
 
Kestrel said:
You made a claim. The burden of providing evidence to back up that claim is yours.

Bluster is not an appropriate substitute for evidence.
Click to expand...

I stated observations and real world experience from actually DOING IT.

What do you bring?

Wanna refute it- get busy
 
Here's where you demonstrated your knowledge of the facts:

LONGTABBER PE said:
On the one hand- he has a ransom note so he believed his child was kidnapped ( thus gone) so there was no reason to search past the bedroom.

On the other hand, with the above still in effect- 7.5 hours later he decides to search the house looking for her with a friend? ( but she wouldnt be there so why search- since there was a note and all that?)

What changed?
Click to expand...

Quite what your ignorance of the fact that he was asked to search the house by the police has to do with Google is a mystery.
 
Matthew Best said:
Here's where you demonstrated your knowledge of the facts:



Quite what your ignorance of the fact that he was asked to search the house by the police has to do with Google is a mystery.
Click to expand...

No ignorance sweetcheeks- pay attention and read slower this time.

I know he was asked by the police but as i have said numerous times, thats another story altogether
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom