Question for IDIs (RDIs feel free to chime in too!)

[SnarkyCow]

**I would like to preface this post by saying I'm not being sarcastic or inflamitory. Although I am an RDI, I am interested in the hearing both sides of the argument.**

IDIs, what are your opinions/how do you explain the following:

1. Was JB asleep when they got home from the Whites as John & Patsy said she was?

2. Why would Burke say she was awake & helped carry in presents if she was actually asleep?

3. How/why would feeding JBR pineapple fit into an intruder's plan to kidnap/sexually assault/murder her?

4. What would an intruder accomplish by leaving a three page long ransom note at the scene of a murder?

I have a lot more questions, but I'm going to take them a few at a time - otherwise it gets too overwhelming for me.

Thanks for your ideas & opinions,

Snarks

[LindaA]

I think you will find lengthy discussions of all these points from both RDI and IDI POV on the board.

[shill]

Asked and answered. You'll just have to do a lot of reading.

[SnarkyCow]

Okay thanks!

Originally Posted by SnarkyCow

**I would like to preface this post by saying I'm not being sarcastic or inflamitory. Although I am an RDI, I am interested in the hearing both sides of the argument.**

IDIs, what are your opinions/how do you explain the following:

1. Was JB asleep when they got home from the Whites as John & Patsy said she was?

2. Why would Burke say she was awake & helped carry in presents if she was actually asleep?

3. How/why would feeding JBR pineapple fit into an intruder's plan to kidnap/sexually assault/murder her?

4. What would an intruder accomplish by leaving a three page long ransom note at the scene of a murder?

I have a lot more questions, but I'm going to take them a few at a time - otherwise it gets too overwhelming for me.

Thanks for your ideas & opinions,

Snarks

Hey Snarky,

I can probably save you some time reading thru the old posts since I looked into these same questions. Keep in mind that these are not MY explanations, just those of others who have posted here.

1&2. Apparently there is some discrepancy as to whether Burke said JB was awake and walked in or she was asleep and was carried. Apparently he has said both. I interview kids all the time and this is not unusual...they tend to mix things up and get confused. Plus his grand jury testimony is sealed. So in other words its somewhat of an unknown.

3. The intruder was known to JB. He woke her up in the night and coaxed her down to the kitchen under the pretense of a late night snack. Some even think the pineapple he fed her was laced with drugs. Another theory is that JB woke up on her own, went downstairs to get a snack and ran into the killer. Others believe that she ate the pineapple at the whites and it took a long time to digest. My personal favotite (Wallycleaver;s theory) is that the killer was addicted to pina coladas and planned to hold JB ransom in order to get some cash to support his habbit. SHe ate the pineapple, which enraged him so instead of kidnapping her he killed her.

4. The ransom note was left by accident--the kidnapping was foiled when she was killed by accident and in his haste to clean up the scene and flee, the killer neglected to go back upstairs and grab the note. OR-The killer left the note intentionally to buy some time to skip town. Or-The killer was a deranged lunatic and why he wrote and left the bizarre note is a mystery (like that freak in Chicago who broke in at night, snatched a 6 year old from her bed, took her to a nearby basement then killed and dismembered her body. Then he went back to the parents house and left a phony ransom note saying don't call the police/fbi etc...when in fact he had already killed her. I never heard of that case until I saw it on a crime show last night)

Anyway, those are the explanations (at least the ones I remember) that I have read. Hope it saves you some time.

[quote=elvislives;8791061]Hey Snarky,

(like that freak in Chicago who broke in at night, snatched a 6 year old from her bed, took her to a nearby basement then killed and dismembered her body. Then he went back to the parents house and left a phony ransom note saying don't call the police/fbi etc...when in fact he had already killed her. I never heard of that case until I saw it on a crime show last night)



This guys name was William Heirins. Here is an excerpt:

A month later he invaded the bedroom of six-year-old Suzanne Degnan, abducting the child and leaving a written demand for $20,000 ransom as a ruse, to baffle the police. Retreating to a nearby basement, Heirens murdered the child and dismembered her remains with a hunting knife, wrapping the pieces in paper and dropping them into storm drains as he roamed the streets in early morning darkness. The case was still unsolved on June 26, when police answered a prowler call on Chicago's north side. Confronted with uniforms, Heirens drew a pistol and squeezed the trigger twice, his weapon misfiring each time. Undaunted, he began to grapple with the officers, struggling fiercely until he was cracked on the head with a flower pot.

[SnarkyCow]

Elvis, Thanks so much for your responses. When did that happen in Chicago? (I'm from Chicago) Cripes! What a horrible thing!

On another note:

I'm so new to the Ramsey case (considering some people have followed it for ten years and I just started after the whole JMK thing) and I've tried to keep an open mind throughout what I've read in books and on multiple messageboards. No IDI theory or explanation has sounded plausible to me. I don't want to think that parents could do this to their child, but all I've read and the little bit of evidence available in this case points to the Ramseys being involved in the death of their daughter (in my opinion). "The shortest distance between two points is a straight line" and all that.

The questions I posted above (especially the pineapple) are some that have really bothered me since the beginning of my research on this case. From what I've read I believe John & Patsy are lying about JB being asleep when they arrived home and they are lying about the pineapple. In my opinion, lying about these things sets the stage for lying about everything else.

I see no possible way feeding JonBenet pineapple fits into an intruder's plan. It's like "Gee, I'll feed her pineapple then kidnapp her, and garrote her, and crack her skull, sexually assault her and leave a three page note in my handwriting."

A lot of people say "Parents couldn't do this to their child!" or "They have no history of abuse or violence!" - I wish this were true, I wish we didn't have to worry about parents causing their children pain, but it happens all the time - with or without a history of violence.

In my hometown (which is a very wealthy, white collar, upper-crust place to live - much like a lot of Boulder, CO) a women drugged & smothered her three beautiful children in 1999 because she was upset that her estranged husband was seeing another women. Now, I know this is nothing like the JBR case, but there was no history of any violence or abuse until this happened. This women just snapped. It does happen. It can happen to people with no history of violence or abuse. In the case of the women from my hometown she snapped because of her husband, but no one would have ever thought she was capable of doing what she did to those three, beautiful angels. See the following quote from this link: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...51C1A9679C8B63

A mother who drugged her three children and smothered them in their beds was found guilty of murder today after a jury rejected her claim of insanity.

The mother, Marilyn Lemak, 44, could be given the death penalty in the killings of the children, Nicholas, 7; Emily, 6; and Thomas, 3, in 1999.

Prosecutors said Mrs. Lemak, a former nurse, knew what she was doing when she killed the children, contending that she wanted to punish her husband, Dr. David Lemak, for their pending divorce. He was seeing another woman.

The jury, which deliberated for nine hours on Tuesday and today, rejected two other verdicts, guilty but mentally ill and not guilty by reason of insanity.

Mrs. Lemak showed no reaction as the verdicts were read.

Judge George Bakalis will sentence her because she chose not to be sentenced by the jury. Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty.

The authorities said Mrs. Lemak fed the children peanut butter laced with her antianxiety medication, tucked them into bed, sang a lullaby and smothered them with her hands in their home in Naperville. She then slashed her wrists with a knife and stabbed a photograph of her estranged husband and his girlfriend.

In an emergency call to 911, Mrs. Lemak sobbed as she told the dispatcher, ''My three kids are dead and I want to be dead too, and it didn't work.'' When the dispatcher asked her why she did it, Mrs. Lemak said, ''My husband didn't want us anymore.''

I cannot buy the "a parent wouldn't do this to their child so it had to be an intruder" line of reasoning. If I could see cold, hard facts that point to someone else being in the house that night I would be more than willing to give the Ramseys the benefit of the doubt. Most IDI theories I've seen have been full of holes or really far fetched and I haven't been able to buy into one of them. I guess this is the reason I hopped down from the fence onto the RDI side. Yes, a lot of RDI theories are full of holes too, but my gut feeling and my KISS (keep it simple stupid) mentality find the evidence pointing straight to someone who lived in that house.

I know everyone is set in their theories & many won't even consider going to the other side. As an RDI, with an open mind, I am more than happy to continue listening to both sides. I'm not firmly rooted in a particular theory and am open to people from RDI & IDI camps expounding on theirs ideas/explanations.

Thanks for letting me ramble yet again & for your opinions and input.

Snarks

[nuisanceposter]

Snarky - you've hit upon the basis for my RDI foundation - the Ramseys have been lying about many different things from day one, they would have no reason to lie about the things they have unless one of them was involved, and they would only cover this hard and this long for one of their own. That, and the evidence of anyone other than a Ramsey having been in that house that night falls way short of conclusive for me.

According to ST's book, the Ramseys originally told police that JonBenet was tucked in bed, with Patsy singing to her and John reading a book. ST also said the Rs changed their story about the house being locked as well.

People claim ST is lying, but as the main detective he had access to the actual police reports and no one has ever challenged his claims in his book. The Rs sued him for slander, but then offered him a settlement they didn't have to that didn't restrict him at all.

The pineapple in JonBenet's small intestine is a big deal - there's no way that was eaten prior to the digested matter thought to be the cracked crab in her large intestine, and there's no way an intruder fed it to her and then waited around for an hour or so while got digested to the point of being in her small intestine. It was definitely pineapple, and definitely came from the bowl on the table.

The fiber evidence is a big deal. The only way the IDI can deal with it is to insist it's all a lie, but they can't prove that, and the manner in which the fiber evidence was brought up does not suggest an attempt to coerce a confession through police trickery.

The DNA is a big deal, because it isn't a big deal. It isn't related to this crime, it's artifact DNA as Lacy said, and the nail DNA and the undie DNA have NOT been proven to be a match.

The RN is a ridiculous bit of diversion. Real kidnappers don't leave notes that long, they don't count on the victim's house to provide supplies for them, they don't stop and assault and kill the victim before they even get her out of the house, and they don't leave behind the victim. Even a dead child can be ransomed, especially if the parents don't know she's dead.

Same with a pedophile. They don't leave RNs, and they don't stop and molest and kill a child in her own house with parents home. They take her somewhere else where they feel safe.

Same with a killer. They take the victim elsewhere, to a safe place. They usually don't take the time to wipe down and redress the child, and a true sadist would have torn JonBenet to shreds before, during, and/or after he killed her.

This killer is one that has never pulled off a crime such as this prior to this night, and has never done so again. The forensic evidence falls short of producing a valid intruder, and serves to indicate Ramsey involvement more than anyone else. The Ramseys have been caught lying repeatedly. I don't know how anyone can fail to see the truth of this case - you can get away with murder if you have enough money and know the right people. IMO.

[Louisadelmar]

For starters - What is your source that The Ramseys offered ST & Co. a settlement and not the other way around?

Hey Snarky, that crime occurred in Chicago...I think in the 1940s. I could be wrong on the time. Again, I never even heard of it until I saw a show last night called 'Infamous Murders' and the old news footage looked to be in the 40s or 50s. This killer also had the distinction of being Illinois' first max security inmate to get a college degree (your tax dollars hard at work). Also, he later recanted and now says he is innocent.I am pretty sure he is still alive. He was only 17 at the time of the crime. You would have loved last nights episode of Infamous Murders--it profiled serial killers - all from Chicago --and there were LOTS of them.

Regarding the Ramsey murder, I'm trying to play catch up too. At the time of the crime, I presumed based on what I heard that the mother had killed her accidentally, then they staged the rest of the crime. The only thing I thought was weird was that her husband appeared to be in cahoots with her. But in any case, Patsy seemed like a kook--parading her young daughter around like a tart, dying her hair, enrolling her in beauty pageants etc. It didn't seem to be too much of a stretch that she snapped and killed her. Anyway, I presumed the mom guilty and never followed the case. I only became reinterested because a friend of mine emailed me the autopsy report recently (after the JMK thing) and I read it and was pretty shocked at the findings.

So I migrated from a die hard RDI to a fence sitter. I can't come up with a single scenario that fits the facts AND seems plausible.

And I'm only on "holiday light" hours for 2 more weeks, so we have to solve this thing asap!! Keep those theories coming, everyone. I'll latch onto one of them sooner or later.

[quote=nuisanceposter;8791135]


Same with a pedophile. They don't leave RNs, and they don't stop and molest and kill a child in her own house with parents home. They take her somewhere else where they feel safe.QUOTE]


Hey NP, I saw a crime show last night where this guy broke into a family home in Chicago, snatched their 6 year old kid, then broke into another home where he killed and dismembered this child in the basement. Then he went back to the kidnapped girls room and wrote a bogus ransom note (that he never followed up on) asking for 20k and warning the parents not to call the police or the fbi.

I'm not suggesting that's what happened in the Ramsey case, but just pointing out that weird, seemingly motive-less, bizarre crimes happen.

[nuisanceposter]

Originally Posted by Louisadelmar

For starters - What is your source that The Ramseys offered ST & Co. a settlement and not the other way around?

Here.

http://www.supportramseytruth.com/index2.htm

In a letter released to the public, former Detective Steve Thomas said the following:

- He was not the one who sought the settlement.
- He did not admit to any wrongdoing.
- He did not personally pay one single penny to the Ramseys.
- The book can continue to be published as is with no corrections.
- He can continue to speak on the case if he so wishes.



This is why the Rs sought the settlement:

http://thewebsafe.tripod.com/0530200...iongeraldo.htm

In order for the Ramseys to prove any kind of defamation, they're going to have to prove that what was said about them was false. The most logical way to do that is to tell us who really did it, if it's not them. That would require them to submit to evidence, depositions, all kinds of discovery that they've refused to submit to so far.

But beyond that, since the Ramseys are clearly public figures, even if they can prove the falsity, they additionally have to prove some kind of what's called "actual malice" in the law, which in layman's terms means that whoever is saying these things would have to have some conscious knowledge that they're really not true. I think that's almost an impossible burden for any public figure libel plaintiff, and especially the Ramseys.


EL, I'm aware that not every killer/pedo/kidnapper acts exactly the same every time, but there's a reason a standard becomes a standard. Nothing has been standard in the Ramsey case, but the crime you see here would have had to have been enacted by a person who there is no evidence exists - a killer/pedo/'napper who bucks conventions, can mimic the handwriting of the residents perfectly, knows the layout of a rambling house, knows their routines, can convince a child to sit and eat pineapple with him and then waits an hour or so to kill her, has a key or can go through windows/doors without leaving any sign of being there, has DNA that degardes extremely rapidly, knows exactly where the child's clothes are and can go up and down stairs washing and redressing a child without making any noise or leaving any footprints or any forensic evidence whatsoever - and on top of that, has the parents telling obvious lies about the crime and their actions that evening for a decade to come. Lol! This person does not exist.

[Coloradokares]

Originally Posted by elvislives

Hey Snarky, that crime occurred in Chicago...I think in the 1940s. I could be wrong on the time. Again, I never even heard of it until I saw a show last night called 'Infamous Murders' and the old news footage looked to be in the 40s or 50s. This killer also had the distinction of being Illinois' first max security inmate to get a college degree (your tax dollars hard at work). Also, he later recanted and now says he is innocent.I am pretty sure he is still alive. He was only 17 at the time of the crime. You would have loved last nights episode of Infamous Murders--it profiled serial killers - all from Chicago --and there were LOTS of them.

Regarding the Ramsey murder, I'm trying to play catch up too. At the time of the crime, I presumed based on what I heard that the mother had killed her accidentally, then they staged the rest of the crime. The only thing I thought was weird was that her husband appeared to be in cahoots with her. But in any case, Patsy seemed like a kook--parading her young daughter around like a tart, dying her hair, enrolling her in beauty pageants etc. It didn't seem to be too much of a stretch that she snapped and killed her. Anyway, I presumed the mom guilty and never followed the case. I only became reinterested because a friend of mine emailed me the autopsy report recently (after the JMK thing) and I read it and was pretty shocked at the findings.

So I migrated from a die hard RDI to a fence sitter. I can't come up with a single scenario that fits the facts AND seems plausible.

And I'm only on "holiday light" hours for 2 more weeks, so we have to solve this thing asap!! Keep those theories coming, everyone. I'll latch onto one of them sooner or later.

Then use that time to fly into Denver go to Boulder talk to people . I promise I won't even taint the waters with introductions or opinion. Just go to Boulder. Then let us know what opinions you have at the end of that trip.

Originally Posted by Coloradokares

Then use that time to fly into Denver go to Boulder talk to people . I promise I won't even taint the waters with introductions or opinion. Just go to Boulder. Then let us know what opinions you have at the end of that trip.

I'm working part time thru the holidays, plus I live in California so a trip to Boulder in the dead of winter is out of the question. Couldn't those with plausible opinions (that fit with the physical evidence) just post them here and spare me the trip? Pretty please??

[watson]

Ok NO FOOLING, I'm not an IDI or RDI. Honestly I didn't even know what the initials meant for the longest time (RDI= relative did it. IDI = intruder did it), but I figured it out. Never have I encountered a cold case (which this is) where people seemed so polarized into debating societies based on post crime spin and media, choosing 1 or the other option from these limited commercial sources (excepct maybe the OJ case, but then there was a big racial divide there). I advise everyone, don't 'just' be an RDI or a IDI, THINK, and ANALYZE for YOURSELVES, policemen, and LE, and book writers are no smarter than anyone else, or the people on this board. Read and learn the REAL original evidence (in the case facts of various reputatable web sites), HERE in the REAL facts and REAL evidence is where the truth ALWAYS and MUST lie, then follow the MOST LIKELY course of the real facts and evidence wherever it leads, no matter where it leads....and thereby discover the probable truth. No one just has to 'pick' that a relative did it, or an intruder did it.....there is a REAL truth here and it's in the REAL evidence where everyone can discover it.

[SnarkyCow]

Originally Posted by watson

Ok NO FOOLING, I'm not an IDI or RDI. Honestly I didn't even know what the initials meant for the longest time (RDI= relative did it. IDI = intruder did it), but I figured it out. Never have I encountered a cold case (which this is) where people seemed so polarized into debating societies based on post crime spin and media, choosing 1 or the other option from these limited commercial sources (excepct maybe the OJ case, but then there was a big racial divide there). I advise everyone, don't 'just' be an RDI or a IDI, THINK, and ANALYZE for YOURSELVES, policemen, and LE, and book writers are no smarter than anyone else, or the people on this board. Read and learn the REAL original evidence (in the case facts of various reputatable web sites), HERE in the REAL facts and REAL evidence is where the truth ALWAYS and MUST lie, then follow the MOST LIKELY course of the real facts and evidence wherever it leads, no matter where it leads....and thereby discover the probable truth. No one just has to 'pick' that a relative did it, or an intruder did it.....there is a REAL truth here and it's in the REAL evidence where everyone can discover it.

I think you and I are saying the same thing, essentially I didn't chose to be RDI because it was either that or IDI. From where I sit & from the facts I've read I've come to the conclusion that John & Patsy had something to do with the death of their daughter.

I think it's smart to allow yourself (universal "you") to keep an open mind as more and more info comes out about this case. If I heard or saw something that for sure pointed to an intruder I wouldn't be bull-headed (HA! Get it SnarkyCow - Bull?!) enough to stick with my RDI theories. I think a lot of people on these boards automatically assume anything that doesn't fit with their theory is an automatic lie or spin - I don't want to become jaded like that. I'd like to keep an open mind for new information and clues to this case.

As I said above "The shortest distance between two points is a straight line" and the most straight line I can see is one that goes directly from JR & PR to JBR:

John & Patsy Ramsey ------------------------ JonBenet Ramsey

I'm more than willing to listen to any theory, whether fence sitter, RDI, or IDI, but until I hear something that makes more sense than my "straight line" theory I am of the opinion that John & Patsy Ramsey are the ones responsible for their daughter's murder.

Originally Posted by watson

Ok NO FOOLING, I'm not an IDI or RDI. Honestly I didn't even know what the initials meant for the longest time (RDI= relative did it. IDI = intruder did it), but I figured it out. Never have I encountered a cold case (which this is) where people seemed so polarized into debating societies based on post crime spin and media, choosing 1 or the other option from these limited commercial sources (excepct maybe the OJ case, but then there was a big racial divide there). I advise everyone, don't 'just' be an RDI or a IDI, THINK, and ANALYZE for YOURSELVES, policemen, and LE, and book writers are no smarter than anyone else, or the people on this board. Read and learn the REAL original evidence (in the case facts of various reputatable web sites), HERE in the REAL facts and REAL evidence is where the truth ALWAYS and MUST lie, then follow the MOST LIKELY course of the real facts and evidence wherever it leads, no matter where it leads....and thereby discover the probable truth. No one just has to 'pick' that a relative did it, or an intruder did it.....there is a REAL truth here and it's in the REAL evidence where everyone can discover it.

Amen to that Watson. But first off, I thought RDI stood for Ramsey did it, not relative. In any case, I think we're on the same page here...maybe you can help me take a side.

IMO everything circumstantially points to the Ramseys. Especially (and I've had numerous arguements with co-workers about this)...but especially their lack of cooperation with police. I just can't understand why educated people would refuse to help police find their daughters killer. I know this is circumstantial and not scientific evidence, but it bothers me none the less.

BUT The major problem that I have yet to get around is the autopsy report. People can argue all they want that black is white and white is black, but the reality is that the head wound and the strangulation occurred more or less simultaneously. I have yet to develop a scenario where the Rs would intentionally kill their daughter and conspire in the cover up. The accident theory makes sense to me, but is impossible based on the physical evidence. Can you or anyone come up with a RDI theory that supports the autopsy evidence?

The other physical evidence...the ransom note, the window, the knots etc are a mystery to me and since I am neither a handwriting, window nor a knot expert the theory can be nebulous on these topics.

[Athena]

I agree with you, elvislives re the autopsy report. Several months ago after doing much research, I came to the conclusion that the head injury occurred at or close to death which means the strangulation took place first. While I realize everyday parents kill their children, I have yet to read a murder by a parent that tortured a child to death. This is the primary reason I have a problem believing the Ramseys killed their daughter. Seems to me the murder was cold and heartless.

Another issue is the ransom note. The ransom note, IMO, seemed a clever way to frame the Ramseys. I just cannot understand how well-educated people could write a note putting details in it that points directly to themselves. Why would one want to "frame" themselves? I don't believe JR or PR were stupid enough to use an amount that could be directly traced back to JR's bonus nor can I see a parent who has just killed a child writing such a lengthy note and using the words "beheaded" "executed" etc. It just doesn't make sense to me. Re: the pineapple -- from everything I've read it could have been eaten as early as the morning before her death or up to a couple of hours before her death. If the coroner were so sure that the pineapple were eaten just before her death he would have estimated time of death and he did not.

What makes sense to me is that someone who knew the Ramseys wrote that note and felt empowered by it. A note that rendered a seemingly confident John Ramsey totally helpless. I also believe the person who wrote the note never really thought that the Ramseys would call the police and may have very well had the intention of collecting the money. In addition to that there were other people of interest whose handwriting matched the note and scored much higher than Patsy did. There was a consensus of six experts (4 hired by BPD and 2 hired by the Ramseys) said chances that Patsy wrote the note were 4.5 on a scale of 5 with 1 on the scale being a higher probability. Every other so-called expert that claimed Patsy wrote the note all reviewed copies of the ransom note and handwriting samples. It is a fact that in order to accurately analyze handwriting to any point of accuracy - the originals are necessary as copies and especially copies of copies, would distort and blur the letters and would not show the pressure of the writing. Also in order to accurately analyze handwriting, the differences become more important than the similarities.

I do lean towards IDI however am open to all evidence whether it points to an intruder or not. It is also true that there is circumstantial evidence that can point to the Ramseys but it is also true there was quite a bit of evidence that has been collected, never explained and cannot be traced to the Ramseys. Much of what was alleged to have been traced back to the Ramseys would not be unusual since it was their home. I just have not been convinced by anything I've read that the Ramseys committed this crime.

In another thread I've also posted other ransom notes where the child had already been killed and there was never an intention by the perp of returning the child for money. There are also ransom notes which appear to have been almost "cut and pasted into this one."

Whether IDI or RDI no one theory seems to incorporate every element in this case. It is certainly a complex case.

[Athena]

The Ramsey case is not the first ransom note and kidnapping scenario used to draw attention away from a murder. In 1978, the murder of Gail Jackson and several other women occurred in Columbus, Georgia. There was a ransom note in this case also and parallels can be drawn between the notes in both the Ramsey and Jackson cases. Below, the first lines of the notes are compared.
Ramsey: "We are a group of individuals that represent a small foreign faction."
Jackson: "We are an organization composed of seven members."
The purpose of these statements is to suggest that a group of people is involved in the crime. Initial examination of the Jackson note revealed that the seven men mentioned were seven white men and experts, who examined the note in March of 1978, felt that it was a "bogus" ransom note. By looking in the opposite direction of what the staged note implied, experts concluded that the offender was a black man, "possibly an artillery man or military policeman" who was solely responsible for the murder. William Hance, a black man in an artillery unit at Fort Bennings, was later arrested in the Jackson case. He confessed that the note was a "hoax" and he was the only person involved in the murders.

http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/E...46/ransom.html

Hauptman note: Lindbergh case:
Dear Sir! Have 50,000$ redy 2500$ in 20$ bills 1 5000$ in 10$ bills and 10000$ in 5$ bills. After 2-4 days we will inform you were to deliver the Mony. We warn you for making anyding public or for the polise the child is in gut care. Indication for all letters are signature and 3 holes.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...ann/Ransom.htm

LaMarca Note: Weinberger Case
Attention,'' it said. ``I'm sorry this had to happen, but I am in bad need of money, & couldn't get it any other way. Don't tell anyone or go to the police about this, because I am watching you closely. I am scared stiff, & will kill the baby at your first wrong move ... Your baby sitter.''

It demanded $2,000 in small bills. The money was to be placed in a brown envelope and left near the Weinberger home, next to a signpost at Albemarle Road and Park Avenue, at 10 o'clock the next morning.

http://tinyurl.com/y2ggod


William Hance - Gail Jackson case:
The letters were signed "Forces of Evil," a fictitious group the appellant had created. The second of these letters received by the Chief of Police demanded either the apprehension of the Columbus strangler or a $10,000 ransom in return for the victim's safety. In addition, the appellant found an Army Cap with a different unit insignia than his unit and placed this near the crime scene, also in order to avert suspicion.

http://www.lawskills.com/case/ga/id/8449/

Attached was a note written in pencil on brown parcel-wrapping paper. It began:

"Mr. Cudahy: We have kidnapped your child and demand $25,000 for his safe return. If you give us the money he will return as safe as when you last saw him, but if you refuse, we will put acid in his eyes and blind him."

The note continued with a number of threats,

http://www.crimelibrary.com/gangster...napping/3.html

[shill]

The evidence that is available is being interpreted to fit what posters want to believe.
No one knows what caused the head wound or how, but they will tell you it's a fact that it happened this way...
No one knows when JB ate pineapple or how she got it, but they will tell you it's a fact that it happened this way...
No one knows if the garrote and ligature were staged , but they will tell you it's a fact because...
The evidence is real, making it fit the crime they think did or didn't happen is what is being done to it.

[shill]

No one talks about the thousands of fibers found that have not matched anything in the Ramsey's house or person, including the beaver fur in JB's hand.

[Coloradokares]

Originally Posted by elvislives

I'm working part time thru the holidays, plus I live in California so a trip to Boulder in the dead of winter is out of the question. Couldn't those with plausible opinions (that fit with the physical evidence) just post them here and spare me the trip? Pretty please??

Save you the trip find rock hard solid evidence of an intruder....

[shill]

Originally Posted by Coloradokares

Save you the trip find rock hard solid evidence of an intruder....

Items brought into the house by an intruder;
-)Parachute cord
-)Black duct tape
-)Beaver fir
-)Flashlight
-)Thousands of foreign fibers
-)DNA
-)Pubic hair

[andU]

Originally Posted by nuisanceposter

Same with a killer. They take the victim elsewhere, to a safe place. They usually don't take the time to wipe down and redress the child, and a true sadist would have torn JonBenet to shreds before, during, and/or after he killed her.

I disagree, IMO, she was killed, murdered by strangulation and her head bashed. The scene was staged, not by the parents, to mask and confuse the investigation ..... which it certainly did.

[aussiesheila]

Originally Posted by SnarkyCow

**I would like to preface this post by saying I'm not being sarcastic or inflamitory. Although I am an RDI, I am interested in the hearing both sides of the argument.**

IDIs, what are your opinions/how do you explain the following:

4. What would an intruder accomplish by leaving a three page long ransom note at the scene of a murder?

I have a lot more questions, but I'm going to take them a few at a time - otherwise it gets too overwhelming for me.

Thanks for your ideas & opinions,

Snarks

In answer to question 4 Snarks, here I go with my pedophile intruder theory again. Since IMO JonBenet was killed by pedophiles who were known to the family, one of them being Santa, who Patsy had let in because he had told her he was bringing a friend to photograph JonBenet with him for a magazine; what I think they hoped to accomplish by leaving a ransom note (which I think they forced Patsy to write), was that the murder could be made to look as though it had been perpetrated by a kidnapper, so no-one would be on the trail of a group of pedophiles, who along with one or two other Ramsey friend/relative(s) who happened not to be there that night, had been sexually abusing her for years.

[LindaA]

I'm with you up to a point on that one Aussieshiela, but much of what you say doesn't sound plausible. I still don't think PR would have lain down for a nap in the midst of all this, She would have wanted to be right there fussing over JBR's appearance. I can't see them forcing her to write the note; I don't think she wrote it. I can't see her protecting them to her dying day.

[LadyFisher]

Originally Posted by SnarkyCow

Elvis, Thanks so much for your responses. When did that happen in Chicago? (I'm from Chicago) Cripes! What a horrible thing!

On another note:

I'm so new to the Ramsey case (considering some people have followed it for ten years and I just started after the whole JMK thing) and I've tried to keep an open mind throughout what I've read in books and on multiple messageboards. No IDI theory or explanation has sounded plausible to me. I don't want to think that parents could do this to their child, but all I've read and the little bit of evidence available in this case points to the Ramseys being involved in the death of their daughter (in my opinion). "The shortest distance between two points is a straight line" and all that.

The questions I posted above (especially the pineapple) are some that have really bothered me since the beginning of my research on this case. From what I've read I believe John & Patsy are lying about JB being asleep when they arrived home and they are lying about the pineapple. In my opinion, lying about these things sets the stage for lying about everything else.

I see no possible way feeding JonBenet pineapple fits into an intruder's plan. It's like "Gee, I'll feed her pineapple then kidnapp her, and garrote her, and crack her skull, sexually assault her and leave a three page note in my handwriting."

A lot of people say "Parents couldn't do this to their child!" or "They have no history of abuse or violence!" - I wish this were true, I wish we didn't have to worry about parents causing their children pain, but it happens all the time - with or without a history of violence.

In my hometown (which is a very wealthy, white collar, upper-crust place to live - much like a lot of Boulder, CO) a women drugged & smothered her three beautiful children in 1999 because she was upset that her estranged husband was seeing another women. Now, I know this is nothing like the JBR case, but there was no history of any violence or abuse until this happened. This women just snapped. It does happen. It can happen to people with no history of violence or abuse. In the case of the women from my hometown she snapped because of her husband, but no one would have ever thought she was capable of doing what she did to those three, beautiful angels. See the following quote from this link: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...51C1A9679C8B63



I cannot buy the "a parent wouldn't do this to their child so it had to be an intruder" line of reasoning. If I could see cold, hard facts that point to someone else being in the house that night I would be more than willing to give the Ramseys the benefit of the doubt. Most IDI theories I've seen have been full of holes or really far fetched and I haven't been able to buy into one of them. I guess this is the reason I hopped down from the fence onto the RDI side. Yes, a lot of RDI theories are full of holes too, but my gut feeling and my KISS (keep it simple stupid) mentality find the evidence pointing straight to someone who lived in that house.

I know everyone is set in their theories & many won't even consider going to the other side. As an RDI, with an open mind, I am more than happy to continue listening to both sides. I'm not firmly rooted in a particular theory and am open to people from RDI & IDI camps expounding on theirs ideas/explanations.

Thanks for letting me ramble yet again & for your opinions and input.

Snarks

Snarky, the case you gave as an example isn't similar to this case. First off, Patsy and John have always proclaimed their innocence, never wavering! Look at the 911 call from the example you gave in comparison to Patsy's! Joh Douglas states in his books, if Patsy had killed JB in an act of revenge to JR, she would have continued to find ways to stick it to him, she didn't. They were monitored closely by LE at the Steins home. Would John have stayed married to a woman who he suspected of murdering his child, and then allowed her to raise their son? Nope! The fact is these parents had nothing to hide, the media delved into every aspect of their lives. imho an intruder did this horrendous crime! jmho

[nuisanceposter]

AS, how was this group of pedos getting repeated access to JonBenet to have been sexually abusing her for years? Were John and/or Patsy aware that this gang of pedos was abusing JonBenet - for years? What do you base your belief that they had been abusing her for years on?



Shill, that list does not include rock solid evidence of an intruder.

Parachute cord, maybe. That's a new one. I could easily see pleasure pilot John Ramsey having some parachute cord around.

The tape - I've heard that piece of tape had already been used elsewhere before it was out over JonBenet's mouth, and it was put over her mouth after she had been killed, because it had bloody mucus from her face on it. Why would you tape the mouth of a dead child, unless for staging?

A beaver hair - Patsy had a lot of brushes, both paint and make up. That hair could have easily come from one of those brushes, as they are often made of animal hair. Maybe the paintbrush that was broken and used on JB was made of beaver hair.

That flashlight belonged to the Ramseys.

Foreign fibers - I might have to doubt the existance, since I'm not hearing any more details on these fibers other than they were found. Where were they found? How do we know they weren't already there before this murder even occurred?

DNA - undie and nail DNA are not conclusive matches. Find me a source other than one paid by the Ramseys or repeating "facts" trotted out by those paid by the Ramseys and I might be able to consider it. There aren't enough markers to match the two. The undie DNA was fragmented and degraded, and Dr Lee found DNA on identical pairs of undies. Even Lacy said the DNA may be artifact and unrelated to this case.

Pubic hair - too many conflicting reports. Was it a pubic hair or an ancillary hair? According to PMPT, there were countless people who slept in JB's bed - including Nedra Paugh and JAR. That hair could have come from any of them, or even the laundry.

[SnarkyCow]

Originally Posted by LadyFisher

Snarky, the case you gave as an example isn't similar to this case. First off, Patsy and John have always proclaimed their innocence, never wavering! Look at the 911 call from the example you gave in comparison to Patsy's! Joh Douglas states in his books, if Patsy had killed JB in an act of revenge to JR, she would have continued to find ways to stick it to him, she didn't. They were monitored closely by LE at the Steins home. Would John have stayed married to a woman who he suspected of murdering his child, and then allowed her to raise their son? Nope! The fact is these parents had nothing to hide, the media delved into every aspect of their lives. imho an intruder did this horrendous crime! jmho

I realize that case and this case are nothing alike. That's why I posted this:

Now, I know this is nothing like the JBR case, but there was no history of any violence or abuse until this happened.

I was pointing out that parents DO harm their children, as much as people here don't want to believe they do. And parents with NO history of violence can snap. That was my point, as I mentioned in the post you quoted. I am not comparing cases.

Also, if they had nothing to hide why did it take so long for them to talk to LE, why wouldn't they agree to polygraphs and why couldn't they remember the smallest details? More on this later.... I'm off to lunch.

Snarks

Originally Posted by Coloradokares

Save you the trip find rock hard solid evidence of an intruder....

Thats the problem, CK. There is NO rock solid evidence of an intruder, nor is there rock solid evidence to support the RDI. However, as I have pointed out before, you can't charge someone with first degree murder based on a LACK of evidence.
In the Elizabeth Smart case there was NO rock solid evidence of an intruder. In fact, most people...myself included...thought the parents were involved because of the lack of intruder evidence. It was even leaked to the press that the screen that this mystery intruder used to gain access was CUT FROM THE INSIDE OF THE HOUSE. And why would a 14 year old kid allow herself to be abducted without even screaming for help? Nothing made sense. Many people were even speculating that the Smart father had been molesting Elizabeth and had to finish her off to keep her quiet (sound familiar?). There was never enough evidence to charge the parents, and I suspect that if she had never been found they would be the prime suspects to this day.

So while I hear in your tone that you are frustrated with anyone who doesn't condemn the Rs, I think it is important to remember that most of us here are looking for the truth, whatever that may be. I have no motivation to defend anyone who brutally killed a child, but by the same token I would never want to blame someone for such a horrific crime unless I was sure they were guilty.Clearly you are sure the Rs are guilty, I'm just not entirely convinced yet.

[LindaA]

And I am frustrated by continuing to hear the RDIs say the IDIS don't believe parents harm their own children. Obviously they do. I think what most IDIs think is that these parents don't fit the profile of parents who murder nor does the method by which JBR died seem to fit with the way parents who murder usually do it. ANd that the staging doesn't fit with trhe scenario of parents covering up a murder-by-blow-to-the-head.

I also agree with Elvislives that there is no really solid evidence either way as far as we know. JMO.

[andU]

Originally Posted by LindaA

And I am frustrated by continuing to hear the RDIs say the IDIS don't believe parents harm their own children. Obviously they do. I think what most IDIs think is that these parents don't fit the profile of parents who murder nor does the method by which JBR died seem to fit with the way parents who murder usually do it. ANd that the staging doesn't fit with trhe scenario of parents covering up a murder-by-blow-to-the-head.

I also agree with Elvislives that there is no really solid evidence either way as far as we know. JMO.

Linda, Amen!

[SnarkyCow]

Originally Posted by LindaA

And I am frustrated by continuing to hear the RDIs say the IDIS don't believe parents harm their own children. Obviously they do. I think what most IDIs think is that these parents don't fit the profile of parents who murder nor does the method by which JBR died seem to fit with the way parents who murder usually do it. ANd that the staging doesn't fit with trhe scenario of parents covering up a murder-by-blow-to-the-head.

I also agree with Elvislives that there is no really solid evidence either way as far as we know. JMO.

Maybe you should be frustrated with the IDIs who continually say a parent wouldn't do to a child what was done to JonBenet. It's not RDIs making it up - there are a lot of IDIs who say it. They also say a person with no history of violence or abuse could commit such a heinous crime - which, as shown by my above example, is also false. You may not be one of the IDIs who says these things, but there are several who do.

[Louisadelmar]

Originally Posted by SnarkyCow

Maybe you should be frustrated with the IDIs who continually say a parent wouldn't do to a child what was done to JonBenet. It's not RDIs making it up - there are a lot of IDIs who say it. They also say a person with no history of violence or abuse could commit such a heinous crime - which, as shown by my above example, is also false. You may not be one of the IDIs who says these things, but there are several who do.

The woman you cited does fit a profile of parents who kill.


DuPage County State's Attorney Joseph Birkett is prosecuting the case. He plans to argue that Marilyn Lemak killed the children to spite her estranged husband after learning he'd begun dating another woman.

Defense attorney John Donahue has said he will argue that Lemak, dogged by a depression that only worsened as her divorce dragged on, was insane at the time of the killings.
http://www.cjwm.com/cgi-bin/newsscript.pl?record=15

The Ramseys don't.

[SnarkyCow]

Originally Posted by Louisadelmar

The woman you cited does fit a profile of parents who kill.


DuPage County State's Attorney Joseph Birkett is prosecuting the case. He plans to argue that Marilyn Lemak killed the children to spite her estranged husband after learning he'd begun dating another woman.

Defense attorney John Donahue has said he will argue that Lemak, dogged by a depression that only worsened as her divorce dragged on, was insane at the time of the killings.
http://www.cjwm.com/cgi-bin/newsscript.pl?record=15

The Ramseys don't.

They found her guilty though, not guilty by reason of insanity or guilty but insane. They said she knew exactly what she was doing when she did it.

Prosecutors said Mrs. Lemak, a former nurse, knew what she was doing when she killed the children, contending that she wanted to punish her husband, Dr. David Lemak, for their pending divorce. He was seeing another woman.

The jury, which deliberated for nine hours on Tuesday and today, rejected two other verdicts, guilty but mentally ill and not guilty by reason of insanity.

I see what you are saying, but my only point in posting that link was to show that parents with no history of violence can snap and do unspeakable things. Yes, the situations are different and the case I posted is easier to understand because we know the motive. In the JBR case, if the parents did it (as I think they did, IMO) we don't know the motive - so who knows if one or both of them snapped. Maybe they do fit the profile of parents who kill - we don't have enough information to say they don't.

Thanks for your response, I do hear what you are saying.

Thanks,

Snarks

[LindaA]

Snarks, I think it highly unlikely that they both snapped at the same time. The enthralling thing about this case is that nothing fits any established profile, which is why the IDIs have a hard time accepting the RDI point of view. I'm thinking of the recent cases in which mothers murdered thier children. The motive became obvious almast immediately:
extreme depression, vengance against the other parent, financial difficulties, and the child becoming an inconvenience -- standing in the way of another relationship. I can't think of any others offhand. Maybe someone else can. The Rs don't seem to fit any of these.

Even in the Jeffrey MacDonald case MacDonald had been on amphetamines before the murder. The theory is he suddenly snapped because his one daughter had wet his side of the bed. But his wife did not snap as well. I"m wondering what else we can learn from the MacDonald case that would help us understand the Ramsey case -- either way, RDI or IDI.

[Louisadelmar]

Originally Posted by SnarkyCow

They found her guilty though, not guilty by reason of insanity or guilty but insane. They said she knew exactly what she was doing when she did it.



I see what you are saying, but my only point in posting that link was to show that parents with no history of violence can snap and do unspeakable things. Yes, the situations are different and the case I posted is easier to understand because we know the motive. In the JBR case, if the parents did it (as I think they did, IMO) we don't know the motive - so who knows if one or both of them snapped. Maybe they do fit the profile of parents who kill - we don't have enough information to say they don't.

Thanks for your response, I do hear what you are saying.

Thanks,

Snarks

I don't recall people specifying a history of violence per se. Most IDIs say there is no history that fits any of the profile e.g. drug/alcohol abuse, mental disorder, marital problems, lack of family/friend support, isolation, financial problems, lack of education etc.

Though I'm sure someone has said it, I don't recall any IDI posts saying parents don't kill. Anyone who has any interest in crime knows parents do kill. But there is usually something in their background that either is obvious or comes out after the fact.

[SnarkyCow]

Snarks, I think it highly unlikely that they both snapped at the same time. The enthralling thing about this case is that nothing fits any established profile, which is why the IDIs have a hard time accepting the RDI point of view. I'm thinking of the recent cases in which mothers murdered thier children. The motive became obvious almast immediately:
extreme depression, vengance against the other parent, financial difficulties, and the child becoming an inconvenience -- standing in the way of another relationship. I can't think of any others offhand. Maybe someone else can. The Rs don't seem to fit any of these.

LOL - I too think it unlikely they snapped at the same time. I just re-read that and was like hmmmm.... I'm not real bright!

Maybe the Rs don't seem to fit the profile, but we cannot say for sure because there is so much about them and the case we are not privy to. Who knows about their problems? People good at keeping up appearances can oftentimes be good at hiding their ugly secrets.

To use a lame metaphor (bear with me, I'm on a tangent): Think of the Ramsey house. Think about how neat it was in those places that people could see and how messy & unorganized it was in just the family areas. How do we know their lives weren't similar to their house: All nice and neat on the outside, messy & ugly on the inside?

We cannot say, nor should we assume, the Ramseys do not fit the profile because we do not know if they did or not. We don't know the secrets & most evidence that would have (maybe) revealed what happened secretly in that house was contaminated or staged.

I think it is also important to remember that not all crimes fit into a nice, neat little profile package. There are crimes of rage, jealousy, passion, etc. that are based purely on raw emotion.

I cannot base my opinion of John & Patsy being involved in the murder of their daughter solely on the fact that they don't fit a certain profile. I've yet to see any evidence or proof of an intruder, and in my opinion, the evidence we have seen doesn't point to anyone but the Ramseys.

Snarks

[andU]

Originally Posted by SnarkyCow

LOL - I too think it unlikely they snapped at the same time. I just re-read that and was like hmmmm.... I'm not real bright!

Maybe the Rs don't seem to fit the profile, but we cannot say for sure because there is so much about them and the case we are not privy to. Who knows about their problems? People good at keeping up appearances can oftentimes be good at hiding their ugly secrets.

To use a lame metaphor (bear with me, I'm on a tangent): Think of the Ramsey house. Think about how neat it was in those places that people could see and how messy & unorganized it was in just the family areas. How do we know their lives weren't similar to their house: All nice and neat on the outside, messy & ugly on the inside?

We cannot say, nor should we assume, the Ramseys do not fit the profile because we do not know if they did or not. We don't know the secrets & most evidence that would have (maybe) revealed what happened secretly in that house was contaminated or staged.

I think it is also important to remember that not all crimes fit into a nice, neat little profile package. There are crimes of rage, jealousy, passion, etc. that are based purely on raw emotion.

I cannot base my opinion of John & Patsy being involved in the murder of their daughter solely on the fact that they don't fit a certain profile. I've yet to see any evidence or proof of an intruder, and in my opinion, the evidence we have seen doesn't point to anyone but the Ramseys.

Snarks

You have made a good point, but I'm still IDI ....

[SnarkyCow]

Originally Posted by andU

You have made a good point, but I'm still IDI ....

That's cool ~ I totally respect your opinion and thank you for respecting mine!