Did Jon-Benet Ramsay's brother kill her?

[TellyKNeasuss]

Originally Posted by DragonLady

I disagree, because I think the timeline/narrative is a bit backwards.

I suspect the intruder was someone close enough to the family that his fingerprints would not be suspicious, anywhere. I suspect he probably had a key, and used it.

I think he cooked up the idea to kidnap the little girl, let himself into the house, found the paper and wrote the note.
Then he went looking for her; but I think the plan went awry when she found HIM. He was already jumpy and on edge, so he freaked and clocked her with something -possibly the flashlight, especially if he was using it to navigate the household.
He realized he'd lost his note, the little girl was unconscious, he had no clue what to do next and really muddied the water just trying to figure out how to get back to the original plan.
I think he molested her, then decided that things were just FUBAR, so he killed her, tossed a blanket over her and ran for the hills.

Terrible thing is: the muddy waters have made it impossible at this point to really determine who or exactly how it was done at this stage. No matter who we offer up, there will always be room for reasonable doubt.

In the meantime the killer is likely still out there, and quite possibly has made other victims -or will before it's all over.

Interesting. Though if he was a friend of the family, he would have been someone that JBR might have recognized. Wouldn't that mean that the plan would have had to have included killing her?

[DragonLady]

Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss

Interesting. Though if he was a friend of the family, he would have been someone that JBR might have recognized. Wouldn't that mean that the plan would have had to have included killing her?

Eventually, maybe. But I think when she saw him she screamed, and that's when everything started going wrong.

I think he expected to sneak in, find her sleeping, tape up her mouth, and walk off with her. Whatever he planned after that probably wasn't good -and I doubt he ever expected to get any kind of ransom.

[LTC8K6]

Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss

Does it take talent and smarts to not only leave no trace behind but also be completely confident that you aren't leaving any trace behind? After all, the intruder left behind the ransom note, the notepad, the pen, and the strangulation device; 4 items which the intruder handled that he could have taken with him without any problem but felt no qualms about leaving behind. If the flashlight was used, that would make 5 items. He also went to the trouble of putting JBR's underpants and leggings back on and covering her with a blanket, all things that were absolutely unnecessary and would have provided some risk of leaving a trace behind if he hadn't taken any precautions. To me, to have done all this and been confident of leaving no evidence behind reflects some amount of forethought.

I think a pair of gloves covers all of that, though.

[LTC8K6]

Why carry the bedding down to the basement? Why not just carry Jonbenet?

[DragonLady]

Quote:

Wouldn't that mean that the plan would have had to have included killing her?

Thinking about that a bit more.... Refresh my memory, but wasn't she strangled with something he put together in the house? If so, then I think he intended to kidnap her alive, and I don't think it was ransom he was wanting. Either way, killing her probably was the intended end of the road.

[DragonLady]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

I think a pair of gloves covers all of that, though.

Maybe, but I would think writing three pages wearing gloves would be difficult. Further, I believe there was some evidence of him, somewhere. I just don't think it was entirely unexpected, so he escaped being considered as a suspect.

A tutor? A person that helped with the pageants? A coworker who visited now and then? A friend-of-a-friend?

Someone on the outskirts, but known to be in the house, so that whatever evidence he left wasn't examined closely enough.

[DragonLady]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

Why carry the bedding down to the basement? Why not just carry Jonbenet?

I don't know. Maybe he wrapped her up to make her easier to carry? Maybe he carried the blanket down before hand to make it easier to hide her in the back of a vehicle? Maybe he felt badly about killing her, and it was an act of conscience?

[LTC8K6]

Originally Posted by Azrael 5

Isn't the ransom note the most dumbest thing?
What killer/s hang around to write a three page essay asking for ransom and also why bother not kidnapping the child dead or not?
Whoever killed her that to me is the strange part.

I find the ransom note very odd, I find the pineapple info odd, the flashlight odd, and the missing part of the paintbrush odd.

I think that the strangulation occurred when Jonbenet was alive due to the marks on her neck.

Possibly the garrote was used initially in some sort of torture game? Where it was tightened until Jonbenet passed out, and then released so she would recover? Then she was eventually strangled to death with it.

As far as the term "bizarre"...well whoever killed Jonbenet is a bizarre person, so that fact that we see bizarre actions is to be expected.

I had not seen this pic before. Is this in fact her hand? If so, what are the marks from?

http://i0.wp.com/www.nationalenquire...nfession-6.jpg

[TellyKNeasuss]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

I think a pair of gloves covers all of that, though.

Would you feel confident doing everything that the intruder that wearing gloves made it impossible for you to leave any trace of yourself?

[LTC8K6]

http://i12.tinypic.com/2qwhfzc.jpg

http://i0.wp.com/www.nationalenquire...nfession-6.jpg

Well, one of these pics is altered.

[TellyKNeasuss]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

I think that the strangulation occurred when Jonbenet was alive due to the marks on her neck.

Possibly the garrote was used initially in some sort of torture game? Where it was tightened until Jonbenet passed out, and then released so she would recover? Then she was eventually strangled to death with it.

It is my understanding that she probably never regained consciousness after the blow to the head. If this is true, there was nothing to be gained by torture.

[LTC8K6]

Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss

Would you feel confident doing everything that the intruder that wearing gloves made it impossible for you to leave any trace of yourself?

If I were a criminal, probably yes. They generally are not very smart.

[LTC8K6]

Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss

It is my understanding that she probably never regained consciousness after the blow to the head. If this is true, there was nothing to be gained by torture.

I believe there are fingernail marks on her neck where she struggled to remove the garrote.

So I think she was alive at least at some point while the garrote was being used on her.

[marplots]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

http://i12.tinypic.com/2qwhfzc.jpg

http://i0.wp.com/www.nationalenquire...nfession-6.jpg

Well, one of these pics is altered.

A little black light, a few filters... and a few hours with PhotoShop.

[LTC8K6]

Originally Posted by DragonLady

I don't know. Maybe he wrapped her up to make her easier to carry? Maybe he carried the blanket down before hand to make it easier to hide her in the back of a vehicle? Maybe he felt badly about killing her, and it was an act of conscience?

But this blanket was apparently left in the dryer, it was not actually from the bed. So it was retrieved from the dryer and then taken to the basement. There was also one of her pink nightgowns with it, which was also apparently in the dryer.

https://adriaen22.files.wordpress.co...4939633723.jpg

I suppose it's possible that the perp did indeed get the blanket out of the dryer, and picked up the nightgown accidentally along with it.

[TellyKNeasuss]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

I believe there are fingernail marks on her neck where she struggled to remove the garrote.

Were the marks definitively identified as fingernail scratches?

Quote:

So I think she was alive at least at some point while the garrote was being used on her.

She was alive. The coroner ruled that the strangulation killed her, but that she would have eventually died from the head injury.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

Why carry the bedding down to the basement? Why not just carry Jonbenet?

Well, if the initial goal was to get her out of the house (as some including myself believe), having a blanket to cover her makes some sense. Although it is night, there is no guarantee the street will be empty, and seeing a stranger carrying a neighbor's kid will arouse more suspicion than someone carrying a blanket.

Quote:

I believe there are fingernail marks on her neck where she struggled to remove the garrote.
So I think she was alive at least at some point while the garrote was being used on her.

There was also hemoraging where the garrote was applied, so yes, she was likely alive when strangled.

Quote:

Possibly the garrote was used initially in some sort of torture game? Where it was tightened until Jonbenet passed out, and then released so she would recover?

Could be. Or it could also be that the killer had an infatuation with the idea of strangling someone to death (it happens... killers get fetishes like that), and wanted to see what it was like to actually carry it out.

Quote:

Then she was eventually strangled to death with it.

I don't think anyone knows for sure the exact order of events. (I don't think the autopsy report definitively rules either way.)

One line of thought was that she was strangled first, then finished with a blow to the head. (This theory was put forward as an explanation why there was little blood... the strangulation limited blood flow to the head.)

Another line of thought is that she was struck first (but the blow didn't pierce the skin), then strangled a little later (perhaps after waiting a while for her to wake up after the blow).

[Henri McPhee]

Originally Posted by Elagabalus

Or the wrong assumptions.


Here's the overview of the options from websleuths in all its glory:

http://jonbenetramsey.pbworks.com/w/.../December%2026

They even quote a certain Henrietta McPhee on one page.

John Douglas doesn't think it was a kidnapping.

Part of the trouble is that these JonBenet internet forums is that they tend to be biased. It's just the same in the Jeffrey MacDonald case forums. I have been banned on several forums in the past, I don't think for any good or fair reason. Jameson's forum was always an intruder did it forum, but even Jameson thinks that Fleet White is innocent and she quite likes Fleet's pal Spade. That's absurdly credulous.

The FBI was mentioned by Judge Carnes in her 2003 ruling as arranging a media campaign against the Ramseys. That might include Fox News and CBS.

There was an FBI man from Denver who turned up on the day JonBenet's body was discovered, I think called Ron Walker, who made some silly remark that Patsy looked at him through splayed hands. I'm not suggesting Ron Walker was involved in the Lockheed Martin child sex ring, but the FBI's work in the Jeffrey MacDonald case included fabricated evidence and forensic fraud. Malone of the FBI is still under investigation by the Department of Justice for his bad police work and false testimony in many cases. The FBI needs to up its game and employ professional criminal investigators.

There is a bit about this matter from a recent internet posting:

"Sig wrote:
New rules at WS for discussing the JonBenet case:
"From now on, we will only discuss people who were in the house the night JonBenet died.
Kolar's book is THE handbook of facts and common sense conclusions in the JBR case.
Unless you can find something the police have not, we will discuss the only viable people in this case: John, Patsy, or Burke.
I am not stopping you from discussing your theory, just from discussing your theory at WS"
Well, at least ol' Pigface is no longer making a pretense of being unbiased.
Looks like Fleet White's personal friend Tricia, of Windchime pedo fame, has finally found a way to gag the few members left who stubbornly remain curious about her friend White's role in this case."

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Azrael 5

Isn't the ransom note the most dumbest thing?
What killer/s hang around to write a three page essay asking for ransom

Simple answer... he didn't. He wrote the note before hand, with the initial goal of kidnapping her, but his plans changed for some reason (maybe she struggled more than he expected.)

Quote:

and also why bother not kidnapping the child dead or not?

Once the child was dead, he could have left her behind because he was frazzled (killing someone would probably put most people on edge), or because he achieved his primary goal (causing harm) and didn't want to run the risk of accidentally being seen by a neighbor carrying a dead body around.

Quote:

Whoever killed her that to me is the strange part.

Violent crimes are often strange. Things that may seem weird to you and me may seem quite reasonable to the killer.

After all, why did Jack the Ripper dissect bodies in the streets after his kills? I'm sure to Jack he had a reasonable explanation for his actions, but as a bystander we're left with just guesses and feelings that "its strange".

If we ever identified the JonBenet killer, we might find that he hated the Ramseys because they fired his dad, or that John ran over his dog. We might find that he got his ideas from watching 80s action movies, or watched snuff films. Until then we can only guess at his motives and reasons for his actions.

[Henri McPhee]

This is how the Ramsey case author Schiller in PMPT described the tunnel vision FBI man Ron Walker. The problem with Walker is that, like the Boulder Police Department, he jumped to conclusions and disregarded leads and suspects. You assume nothing in a murder investigation. It was never a complete investigation. It never went further than the Ramseys. Now it is Burke. The FBI never moved "outward in circles" as they are supposed to do so:

"At Boulder police headquarters, Det. Sgt. Larry Mason got a page from the Ramsey house: "We've got a body."

"Oh, *******," Mason said, half aloud. "Ron," he told FBI Special Agent Ron Walker, "it's a homicide."

Walker, an experienced FBI profiler, knew that finding JonBenet's body in her own home meant there had probably never been a kidnapping. In the case of a homicide where the dead child is found in the parents' home, the FBI's standard procedure is to investigate the parents and the immediate family first and then move outward in circles."

Edited by jsfisher:

Edited for compliance with Rule 10 of the Membership Agreement. Naughty words get masked completely.

[Ampulla of Vater]

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

I believe there are fingernail marks on her neck where she struggled to remove the garrote.

So I think she was alive at least at some point while the garrote was being used on her.

Like nearly everything in this crime, the marks can be interpreted in a couple different ways. It is one theory that they are fingernail marks, but it is not a certainty. I believe they are petechial hemorrhages from the rope and not fingernail marks, although she was definitely alive when she was strangled. I think that is also how they know the head injury came first.

[Ampulla of Vater]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

I don't think anyone knows for sure the exact order of events. (I don't think the autopsy report definitively rules either way.)

One line of thought was that she was strangled first, then finished with a blow to the head. (This theory was put forward as an explanation why there was little blood... the strangulation limited blood flow to the head.)

Another line of thought is that she was struck first (but the blow didn't pierce the skin), then strangled a little later (perhaps after waiting a while for her to wake up after the blow).

No, the blow to the head had to be first. It caused swelling of the brain, which took some time, thus the "at least 45 minutes before the strangulation." The strangulation happened while her heart was beating, as per the petechial hemorrhaging around her neck and in her eyes.

[Ampulla of Vater]

Originally Posted by Henri McPhee

Well, at least ol' Pigface is no longer making a pretense of being unbiased.
Looks like Fleet White's personal friend Tricia, of Windchime pedo fame, has finally found a way to gag the few members left who stubbornly remain curious about her friend White's role in this case."

Are you suggesting Tricia was a part of Windchime's real life?

[Ampulla of Vater]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Simple answer... he didn't. He wrote the note before hand, with the initial goal of kidnapping her, but his plans changed for some reason (maybe she struggled more than he expected.)


Once the child was dead, he could have left her behind because he was frazzled (killing someone would probably put most people on edge), or because he achieved his primary goal (causing harm) and didn't want to run the risk of accidentally being seen by a neighbor carrying a dead body around.

Violent crimes are often strange. Things that may seem weird to you and me may seem quite reasonable to the killer.

After all, why did Jack the Ripper dissect bodies in the streets after his kills? I'm sure to Jack he had a reasonable explanation for his actions, but as a bystander we're left with just guesses and feelings that "its strange".

If we ever identified the JonBenet killer, we might find that he hated the Ramseys because they fired his dad, or that John ran over his dog. We might find that he got his ideas from watching 80s action movies, or watched snuff films. Until then we can only guess at his motives and reasons for his actions.

You keep comparing this crime to Jack the Ripper's crimes when there is no similarity. JtR's were crimes of opportunity. The killer of JBR did not happen along someone in a dark alley. He methodically planned out the scene.

[TellyKNeasuss]

Originally Posted by DragonLady

I don't know. Maybe he wrapped her up to make her easier to carry? Maybe he carried the blanket down before hand to make it easier to hide her in the back of a vehicle? Maybe he felt badly about killing her, and it was an act of conscience?

Given that she was cleaned up a bit and her underpants and leggings were put back on (and I've even seen claims that a doll was put in with her), the last option seems the most likely.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater

The fact remains there is far more evidence pointing away from an intruder, despite what segnosaur believes. Segnosaur contends this guy was an intruder who was an unsophisticated 20-ish male who watched action movies. This unsub was stupid when it is necessary to explain unlikely acts (such as leaving the notepad and pen behind) and "tidy" for replacing the items where he found them, yet "confident" because he did not leave a trace of himself, even though he rifled through documents to locate paystubs the Ramseys left out, (but not bank statements, because you see the Ramseys only left out some private information.)

Who said he was "tidy"?

Most people don't have a photographic memory, and the house had a lot of people wandering through it. If a pad of paper was moved, who would have really noticed?

(The fact that the killer was unsophisticated didn't mean he would automatically wreck the place unnecessarily.)

Quote:

He had hours to wander around the house, hours to wait after cracking her in the skull

Even if you believe some of the "insider theory" believers, that time period could have been as short as 45 minutes, not "hours".

Quote:

...at least 1/2 hour to write the ransom note, not including the practice notes.

Once again, he probably wrote the ransom note before the kidnapping, while the Ramseys were out at the party.

Quote:

But he did not have enough time to retrieve the ransom note he no longer needed, even though it was a huge clue about him.

I never said that.

What I said was that either 1) he didn't think it was necessary (as another poster stated, criminals aren't necessarily all that smart), or 2) he was frazzled after killing someone (as most people might be) and didn't think of it.

Quote:

He knew John Ramsey well because "allusions are made to JR's background" but not well enough to know he had millions.

He was a prominent member of the community, and had been featured in recent newscasts prior to the killing. JonBenet was active in pagents. His wife was once Miss West Virgina. There's more than enough to establish knowledge of John's background without knowing "this guy is a millionaire".

Quote:

He had a vendetta against JR, but he'd rather torture and murder the girl because he had "curiosity/compulsion about the female body."

Murdering the girl was his way to hurt John Ramsey.

Quote:

He was dumb enough to screw up what was originally a kidnapping, even though his original plan was to take her out of the house. He had a desire to torture JBR but not kill her. His stupidity kept him from realizing she would not wake up, but he garroted her anyway, because... why not?

Yes, why not?

Killers often have strange compulsions to do things that don't make sense to normal people. Why did Jack the Ripper have a compulsion to dissect his victims, even though it increased the risk of being captured? Why did Zodiac and BTK feel the need to taunt police?

Quote:

At the same time, he was clever enough not to get caught after he screwed up the kidnapping

Who said he was clever?

Nothing about this crime indicates any sort of sophistication on the part of the criminal. The fact that he wasn't caught appears to be due to a combination of bad police work (not properly securing the crime scene, focusing on the wrong people) and pure luck. The only people insinuating that an invader would have to have been "clever" are inside jobbers who for some reason think that people can't walk into a room without gushing blood over everything and depositing semen on ever flat surface.

Quote:

When you have to go to these lengths to force the puzzle pieces to fit, I say you are working on the wrong puzzle.

Actually we're not really going through any significant lengths. Pretty much every part of the explanation fits the evidence, and nothing is really much of a stretch. Nobody radically changes personalities multiple times. No assumptions about how evidence was "hidden".

The problem is that inside jobbers, in their attempt to prove their point, build up strawmen, and distort things I've posted. You've certainly done so yourself.

Here's a suggestion... if you think it was done as an inside job, then tell us how it might have happened. Give us a plausible narrative, from the time the family gets home until the body is found, that covers all the evidence, and explains basic motivations, and where people were located/what they were doing. Then you will see just how much people have to "force puzzle pieces to fit". (The fact that nobody has been able to come up with a complete "inside job" narrative should tell you something.)

Much like 9/11 conspiracy theorists, JonBenet "inside jobbers" are taking their own misconceptions, biases and ignorance, sniping at one explanation because they think its flawed, but then are unable to come up with their own story, because their own story would not just be flawed, but an absolute train wreck.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater

Quote:

Violent crimes are often strange. Things that may seem weird to you and me may seem quite reasonable to the killer.

After all, why did Jack the Ripper dissect bodies in the streets after his kills? I'm sure to Jack he had a reasonable explanation for his actions, but as a bystander we're left with just guesses and feelings that "its strange".

You keep comparing this crime to Jack the Ripper's crimes when there is no similarity. JtR's were crimes of opportunity. The killer of JBR did not happen along someone in a dark alley. He methodically planned out the scene.

I never claimed that the crimes of Jack the Ripper were the same as JonBenet. I keep bringing him up as an illustration that murders often have compulsions to do things that to the outsider seem strange (and that increase risk of being caught).

[TellyKNeasuss]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Murdering the girl was his way to hurt John Ramsey.

What was his reason for wanting to hurt John Ramsey? Why was it not stated in the ransom note?

[Drewbot]

The cops screwed this up, the evidence points to John Ramsey, with a flashlight, and Patsy not knowing anything about it.

[LTC8K6]

Originally Posted by Drewbot

The cops screwed this up, the evidence points to John Ramsey, with a flashlight, and Patsy not knowing anything about it.

What was the time period here? When is John supposed to have done this without any other family member knowing?

[Vortigern99]

Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss

What was his reason for wanting to hurt John Ramsey? Why was it not stated in the ransom note?

Because airing a specific grievance would give away the intended kidnapper's identity.

[Vortigern99]

Originally Posted by Drewbot

The cops screwed this up, the evidence points to John Ramsey, with a flashlight, and Patsy not knowing anything about it.

No it doesn't. Very few people familiar with the facts are proposing that John did it. Neither the timeline nor any material evidence supports this claim.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Drewbot

The cops screwed this up, the evidence points to John Ramsey, with a flashlight, and Patsy not knowing anything about it.

Out of all the theories, (the invader, Burke did it with parents covering it up, Patsy did it alone, both parents did it), your theory makes the least amount of sense.

Handwriting analysis has ruled out the husband as the author of the note. (This is based on comparison samples written both before and after the murder.) That alone should rule him out. Then you also have the mother, who would be living with someone who killed her daughter and not noticed anything (especially since it would have taken a little time to write the note, stage the crime, etc., all the time his wife doesn't notice he's not in bed.).

[TellyKNeasuss]

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

Because airing a specific grievance would give away the intended kidnapper's identity.

It would have been easy to make some generic comment like "You know why we did this" or "This was your fault". Instead, the rn says "We respect your business".

[Ampulla of Vater]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

Here's a suggestion... if you think it was done as an inside job, then tell us how it might have happened. Give us a plausible narrative, from the time the family gets home until the body is found, that covers all the evidence, and explains basic motivations, and where people were located/what they were doing. Then you will see just how much people have to "force puzzle pieces to fit". (The fact that nobody has been able to come up with a complete "inside job" narrative should tell you something.)

I already did. I gave you the original police theory.

I do think it was an accident, but I think it involved Burke. I think the motive of the cover up was so that they did not lose their son and their daughter. Alternatively, it could have been an accident with Patsy and the cover up was to save her from prosecution.

I cannot get past the fact that the ransom note specifically said JBR would be killed/beheaded if they so much as "talked to a dog" or called the police. The first thing they did was to call the police and... this is where it gets really weird... they proceeded to call a dozen various people to come to the house. They made sure she would die, didn't they?

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Hard Cheese

If they had a screen in their bedroom why would they only be watching movies that Patsy liked? Surely John would get to choose as well, they might well watch a fair number of action movies, whether Patsy liked them or not.

They probably wouldn't just watch movies Patsy wanted. But statistically speaking, action movies usually provide more of an attraction to younger males than older males.

Again, I'm not saying middle age people never watch action movies. I'm not saying action movies are only watched by 20-something men. And if everything were equal and you had an unknown killer referencing lines from a movie like Deadpool or The Dark Knight (to give more modern examples) I'd say that there is a higher probability of the killer being a young male than an older male, and an even better chance that it was from a middle aged woman.

Quote:

I would put it to you that a large proportion of men from 15-60 would enjoy both Speed and Dirty Harry...

I don't have any statistics for those movies (and they were released so long ago that I doubt they'd be possible to dig up). But, lets look at some of the action films today:

From box office mojo:
Suicide Squad: 76% of people who saw it were under 35, even though they make up only around 28% of the population. In other words, young people were more than twice as likely to see Suicide squad than old people
Deadpool: 47% of the audience under 25. (This despite that only around 14% of the population fell in the 18-25 age range) In other words, a young person was more than 3 times more likely to see Deadpool than an old person

Now, I would love to be able to dig up the statistics for movies like speed. But its not practical. But, you should notice a trend: Movies that are action movies tend to bring in a higher portion of young people.

Quote:

I would even put it to you that a movie involving kidnapping would be, for someone not used to writing ransom notes (i.e. 99.99% of the population), their only point of reference for the kidnapping process. So if you had to make a ransom note up on the spot, your only source of information (or the first thing that comes into your head) may be what you can recall from a movie.

Yes, and that also applies whether the author is a young person or old. The issue is who is more likely to have seen a movie like Speed. The answer; the young person.

This is certainly not definitive proof. But, its just one more thing that points away from it being an inside job.

[DragonLady]

Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss

What was his reason for wanting to hurt John Ramsey? Why was it not stated in the ransom note?

My guess is the killer is so self-centered that he believes everything anyone does is somehow about him, and so everyone who read the note would automatically understand his reasons.

[Aepervius]

Originally Posted by DragonLady

Maybe, but I would think writing three pages wearing gloves would be difficult. .

I have lamb skin gloves thin enough I can write with a pen outside in winter without problems. And yes seeing the thickness I am reasonably sure no fingerprint whatsoever would show through.

It is neither difficult nor out of the ordinary to write with some gloves.

[DragonLady]

Quote:

Quote:

I cannot get past the fact that the ransom note specifically said JBR would be killed/beheaded if they so much as "talked to a dog" or called the police. The first thing they did was to call the police and... this is where it gets really weird... they proceeded to call a dozen various people to come to the house. They made sure she would die, didn't they?

I admit: I don't understand that part, either. Maybe they thought the note was a tasteless joke, or somehow saw themselves as being invincible.

"We're so rich, so popular, so charmed no one can really hurt us."

But are we certain they actually invited all those people? Or did they call one person, who then called ten others?

About ten years ago my son made an offhand comment to a friend on the phone, and accidentally drew a crowd of people because the other boy told everyone he knew.

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Ampulla of Vater

Quote:

Here's a suggestion... if you think it was done as an inside job, then tell us how it might have happened. Give us a plausible narrative, from the time the family gets home until the body is found, that covers all the evidence, and explains basic motivations,

I already did.

Actually no you didn't.

Quote:

I gave you the original police theory.

You gave an accounting of the vague police theory back in post 228, but it is in no way comprehensive. It doesn't explain things like: the marks on her body (attributed by some as burns from a stun gun). It doesn't take John's role into account (knowing or unknowing?) It doesn't explain what happened to the roll of duct tape. (I should also point out that it was found the tape came from a roll that was already used, i.e. torn on both ends. Yet to the best of my knowledge nothing 'taped' has ever been found in the house.) It doesn't give possible scenarios for the presence of the flash light.

(I could also mention it also doesn't explain how unidentified hairs could have gotten on the duct tape since they don't match anything from inside the house.)

Quote:

I do think it was an accident, but I think it involved Burke. I think the motive of the cover up was so that they did not lose their son and their daughter.

So they were incredibly loving parents to Burke that they would stage a cover up, yet had no problem strangling their daughter (i.e. the one who wasn't a murderer.)

And Burke, a 9 year old, is shipped off to school, and is subjected to multiple police interviews, yet at no point did he ever let it slip that he did something. 9 year olds generally aren't that smart.

Quote:

I cannot get past the fact that the ransom note specifically said JBR would be killed/beheaded if they so much as "talked to a dog" or called the police. The first thing they did was to call the police...

Which I think is reasonable... the Ramseys were not experts in kidnapping. Supposedly the police were. If I were in their shoes I'd probably do the same thing.

Quote:

...and... this is where it gets really weird... they proceeded to call a dozen various people to come to the house.

They were distressed and upset. They wanted friends around for consolation.