|
|
Post by Tom Sorensen on Jan 2, 2023 4:54:16 GMT -5
The Impossible Ransom Note When considering an intruder theory, the first thing we must ask ourselves is: When was the ransom note placed on the spiral staircase? Leaving a ransom note and the body of the person supposed to be taken ransom makes no sense. We must conclude that the only possible scenario requires the ransom note to be placed on the staircase prior to Jonbenet being snatched from the bedroom. The only reason to place the note on the back (spiral) staircase must be knowledge of how this stair case connected the first and second floor and that this was on the preferred path to the kitchen in the morning. The problem is that it would also be the preferred escape route for the kidnapper! Having the three page note spread out on one of the stairs would require the kidnapper to skip a run as he carried Jonbenet down the staircase -- DOH!
Consequently, placing the note on the spiral staircase prior to returning to the first floor also makes no sense, and descending using the front staircase makes even less sense as exiting through the basement, dragging a child though the basement window, facing the patio is plain nuts. Next problem: After returning to the first floor, and having placed the note on the staircase, why would the kidnapper kill Jonbenet before reaching the patio door, which is the only reasonable escape route leading to the back alley? If he killed her, why leave the note and carry her into the cellar? Leaving the note would reveal that he had intimate knowledge of the Ramseys, which could possibly lead the police to him. So we're back to the fact that leaving a ransom note after the kidnapping had been abandoned makes no sense whatsoever.
Several other elements of irrational behavior must be considered: Why would the intruder take time to put the grate over the basement window back in place when he left the window open, according to John Ramsey? A suitcase placed under an open basement window would scream escape route anyway so there was no point in wasting time messing with the grate. Also, if the intruder intended to molest Jonbenet, he would have had all the time in the world to do so after she had been abducted. Since she was molested, according to the coroner's report, that makes no sense combined with an abduction scenario. If the purpose was simply to assault Jonbenet and kill her, Ted Bundy style, a ransom note was totally irrelevant. So, we're back to asking the question: since a ransom note only makes sense if Johnbenet's body is removed from the house prior to contacting the authorities, why didn't John Ramsey simply get rid of the note and go with just a pedophile intruder? Answer: Patsy had mentioned the ransom note in the 9-1-1 call; that was the point of no return. Something made Patsy freak out and prematurely call 9-1-1. I'm still convinced the abduction scenario was chosen to create a plausible explanation for (the body of) Jonbenet to be missing in fear of what a coroner would find: signs of previous abuse!
|
|
|
|
Post by Tom Sorensen on Mar 10, 2023 9:58:21 GMT -5
The Reasonable Kidnapper Standard Here is an other take on the impossible intruder, elegantly packaged by Richard Dwyer, attorney and blogger. He deals with the evidence from what a reasonable kidnapper would be expected to do and argues why the proposed Ramsey Kidnapper made a continuous line of mistakes. Of cause, when confronted with these arguments, the Ramseys' only counter argument has been that the intruder must have been deranged. I have indexed Mr. Dwyer's arguments for reference after the video. @02:12 Placement of ransom note. @05:15 Amount of ransom requested. @07:25 Pen and pad used. @08:40 Pages not pulled from top of pad. @09:40 Note too long, too articulate. @12:50 Signed S. B. T. C. @14:40 House alarm? @15:45 10 am Deadline? @17:05. Jonbenet's body. @18:55 The basement. @20:05 The panties. @22:05 Pineapple in stomach1. @23:10 The "garotte". @24:25. The duct tape. @27:40 The window grate. @30:00 Explain the evidence!
_______________ 1 Consistent with pineapple, not shown to be pineapple.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tom Sorensen on Oct 27, 2023 3:27:17 GMT -5
Premeditated or Random?
I just finished watching Ken Mains on the tragic murder of Darlene Hulse back in 19841. His analysis, which I think is very sound, involves premeditation while the victim is randomly chosen. It made me wonder if this combination could somehow save the Jonbenet intruder theory pushed by Lou Smith. The cord and duct tape allegedly brought into the house indicate premeditation, and entry through the damaged basement window could indicate easy access into a randomly chosen residence.
Next, what would the intention of bringing cord and duct tape be if it wasn't to abduct, incapacitate, or possibly abuse some of the residents? This suggests that the idea of an abduction might have evolved during the break-in. The peculiarities surrounding the ransom note support a scenario of one or more intruders roaming the house while the Ramseys were out and realizing they found themselves an easy target in the trophy-winning pageant queen, Jonbenet.
Even if the foreign faction abductors didn't arrive in a suitable vehicle, they would have spotted John Ramsey's Jeep Cherokee in the garage—a perfect vehicle for an abduction job! This would explain why the ransom note was written inside the house using whatever pen and paper were available. The odd amount of $118k (roughly John's bonus) might have been chosen in an attempt to expedite the exchange, as this amount likely could have been withdrawn without too much fuss.
The ransom note. If we assume the $118,000 figure was available somewhere, like on a pay stub, most of the other peculiarities could be accounted for if we assumed a chatty female was part of the "team." The foreign faction nonsense doesn't depend on an intruder writing the note, as this is pure deflection. The same goes for any apparent work-related information. Nothing is really intruder- or insider-related; it is just an attempt to deflect suspicion.
The burglar alarm. Any intruder would expect a home of this nature to be equipped with an alarm system. As it turned out, the alarm was not armed when the intruder, or intruders, entered, but there's no way they could know if this was intentional or by accident. That might become a huge problem if the intruders intended to stay in the house after the Ramseys returned home, armed the alarm, and went to bed.
From studying the floor plan and footage of the Ramsey home, I see only one room where the intruders could have hidden when the Ramseys returned home: the so-called train room, where they entered the house. The Ramsey's were moving around on all floors of the house, even possibly in the basement, where presents for the Charlevoix trip were stored. However, they would be trapped in the train room with no way to reach the 2nd floor if the alarm was armed.
Luckily, the alarm did not go off, and they were able to grab Jonbenet, and we're back to the scenario described in the opening post. Prior to climbing the spiral staircase, they would have been assured that moving into the garage didn't trigger the alarm. The kidnappers would have moved through the back hallway to exit through the garage or patio door.
Obviously, they didn't, so where did Jonbenet sustain her head injury, and why did she end up in the basement, strangled? Regardless of how the head injury occurred, the kidnappers had to decide whether to abort the mission or leave with an unconscious Jonbenet and possibly dump her somewhere if she succumbed to her injuries. This is where our narrative begins to crumble.
If they just left her, she might come around and be able to identify her kidnappers at a later time. They had to decide whether to leave with her or finish her off before leaving without her. According to the coroner's report, Jonbenet was alive another hour, possibly two, before she was strangled2. Also, there were signs of some form of SA. Does it make sense that the intruders would hang around for another hour with an injured child, waiting to be exposed?
This is bonkers and does not explain why the ransom note was left behind along with the child to be held ransom, now dead. And we're not done yet because the "garotte" wasn't needed to strangle Jonbenet since there was plenty of cord to form the noose around her neck and pull it tight. Her hair was intertwined with a knot tied around the paintbrush handle, indicating this was done as an afterthought, i.e., staging, further delaying the exit of the intruders3. If the intruders were in any way related to the housekeeper, Linda Hoffman, they would have had a key, and the whole basement window is a diversion. In fact, this goes for any possible intruder with a key to the residence, like Fleet White or Glen Meyer. Entering via the basement window well while in possession of a key would be plain nuts. Still, doesn't account for the staging involving a "garotte" and why they would hang around before strangling Jonbenet. So, even though a murder can be premeditated, but victim chosen at random, this can't save the intruder scenario. The combination of a body in the house, ransom note left behind and staging doesn't make sense. As for the cord4 and piece of duct tape5, there is no evidence there ever was additional lengths of cord taken in or out of the house, and the same goes for a roll of duct tape the piece over Jonbenet's mouth was cut from.
The intruder theory remains dead. _______________ 1 The Darlene Hulse case: LINK2 I failed to find a reference I believe I have seen that supports my claim. The autopsy report states that the cause of death was asphyxiation associated with craniocerebral trauma. The trauma itself would not have caused instant death, which means she was actually strangled to death. I don't see how the bleeding and swelling in her brain would have happened if she was already dead when she suffered the head blow. Although the coroner doesn't state explicitly that she lived some time after the head injury, this must be the logical inference. The question is: for how long? 3 This means it wasn't even a weapon of opportunity.
4 ACandyRose website has a section devoted to the cord: LINK 5 ACandyRose website has a section devoted to the duct tape: LINK |
|
|
|
Post by Tom Sorensen on Jan 11, 2024 14:05:29 GMT -5
Simplify! While posting a comment on the Nancy Drew channel, it dawned on me that none of the parents asked Burke if he heard anything during the night, thus the intruder fantasy can be put to bed by asking one brutally simple question: How would they know Burke had nothing to say?
Burke was close to 10, and Patsy had just bragged about how smart he was in her 1996 Christmas newsletter. Would you have called 911 without knowing if Burke had seen or heard something that could lead them to the kidnapper? Burke's bedroom was on the same floor as Jonbenet's, albeit at the far east end, but both kids' bedroom doors were left ajar at night. According to The Death of Innocence, which doesn't line up with John's and Patsy's police interviews, surprisingly, both run to Burke's room to check on Burke, not to look for Jonbenet, yet neither of them actually addresses Burke. According to Burke, Patsy is concerned with finding Jonbenet, not if he's OK, so there you go! We can't even be sure whether Patsy faked it or not when entering Burke's room, but either way, John's response is out of character. Again, according to Burke, Patsy switched on the light in his room and John switched it off, which implies that Patsy had left the room and he did have an opportunity to have a word with Burke. In DoI, John rushes down the front staircase, leaving Patsy in the hallway. Why doesn't he at least not check Jonbenet's room first? Does it make any sense that Burke would be asleep after Patsy rushed into his room, going psycho? How would John also believe it was a great idea to leave Burke behind without physically checking if he was OK? Remember, John allegedly only knew that Jonbenet was missing and that a note was somewhere downstairs, so how would he know to head for the back hallway to find the note when he left Patsy behind? By all accounts, even if some are fake, John was the one who stayed calm and actually tried to read the ransom note. This means that not questioning Burke, even after the Boulder Police arrived, makes no sense. There can only be one explanation: John knew that Jonbenet wasn't missing, and the ransom note was a scam. End of intruder theory.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tom Sorensen on May 3, 2024 3:52:10 GMT -5
Proper Burial? A passage in the ransom note quoted below that I haven't seen discussed elsewhere has always bothered me. Any deviation of my instructions will result in the immediate execution of your daughter. You will also be denied her remains for proper burial.Several things about the burial sentence stand out to me. First is "also," which makes the sentence look like an afterthought. It could have been incorporated in the preceding sentence by using "and," hence "also" wasn't needed. Second, "denied 1" suggests that some kind of negotiation, much like soldiers missing in action, where negotiations to have their bodies returned to their families might drag on for decades. So who would deny the Ramseys her remains? If Jonbenet were released unharmed, there wouldn't be a body, obviously. If she was executed, the kidnappers would have a body on their hands to deal with. It's very difficult to convict somebody of murder without a body, so the kidnappers would take great care in making the body permanently disappear. It makes no sense to me that kidnappers would risk implicating themselves in murder by returning a body or even caring about its proper burial. One more thing concerning the burial: the use of "remains" implies that a complete body would not be available. This in turn implies that it might be a while before whatever was left of Jonbenet's body was recovered or returned. This suggests to me that the author of the note, apart from having religious concerns, considered a scenario where Jonbenet's body would have decayed considerably before being recovered. To me, this points to the ransom note as a blueprint for the disposal of Jonbenet's body. Note also that "execution" is non-specific, but the subsequent threat of Jonbenet being beheaded lines up with how she was found strangled with a garotte-like implement. The author of the note knew Jonbenet was dead, that she would be found "garrotted," and projected that her remains would be found in the future for proper burial. Again, why would a kidnapper be concerned with the Ramseys burying their daughter, or what was left of her decaying corps? Leaving a ransom note to aid LE in locating the kidnapper when Jonbenet was left dead in the house is plain nuts. Everything about the ransom note points to an inside job with the intention to remove the body from the house due to the clues pointing to ongoing sexual abuse. Retaining control over the body would allow further manupulation or staging to take place, but without the knowledge of some level of abuse, there would be no need for the boby to disappear in the first place, creating the need for a kidnapping scenario. Remember that Jonbenet's thighs were wiped down, hinting at a crude attempt to cover some kind of improper activity that took place during the evening of the 25th. Every bit of the ransom note screams fake, contrived, inside job. End of the intruder theory. _______________
1 In the actual ransom letter, "denied" was misspelled "dinied", later corrected. Was this a true mistake?
|
|
