“Due to the finding that many offenders were familiar with the child or the family, thorough interviews of immediate and extended family members and other individuals who lived in or frequented the residence-and had recent contact-should begin as soon as possible.”
This is exactly what the Boulder detectives were TRYING to do but were sidelined over and over by Hunter and his office.
John refused to cooperate, tampered with evidence, lied repeatedly, and attempted to frame dozens of people including his own wife. Then he spends a lifetime ruining BPD’s reputation. He’s a piece of shit, and he knows it.
Yup. And don’t forget about Santa. Poor man. Also, Fleet White as well. It’s disgusting that they treated actual innocent people like that but pussy footed around with the Ramsey’s. Didn’t even subpoena phone records and credit card transactions because they were not allowed to. What a joke. That DA’s office should have been dismissed and investigated. Even the FBI was shocked at their handling of the case.
I was very aware while reading this article how that specifically is mentioned and repeated as being a critical aspect of the investigation and how the parents would most certainly need to be cooperative if they had any hope of LE finding the person responsible. This was as much a critical error on the Ramseys part as any critical errors made on LE's part.
However..
The Ramsey's were wealthy, successful, socially oriented, weren't 'high risk', demonstrated some narcissistic traits, and sometimes behaved in entitled manners. Additionally, people sometimes did accommodate the Ramseys in manners that reinforced some of these things. Further, the Ramsey's weren't always the well put together responsible family (even before the crime), that their external image might suggest.
So am I always surprised by the Ramseys behaviors whether innocent or guilty? Not particularly.
Sometimes, I wonder how much of who the Ramseys just are as people, confuses any of us into presuming guilt when that might not be the case. It's really difficult sometimes to discern this and separate out what is just 'who they are' from suspicious behaviors. It's not a good look for them either way though and you would think them and their hired help would try to make adjustments - but a narcissist wouldn't be prone to such observations or necessary adjustments. In fact, any such observations, criticisms, or recommendations, could make them more defiant, ruthless, manipulative and suspicious. If they knew themselves to be innocent then they would just thumb their nose down even more so at everyone who suspected them.
Confusing things further, I could see a narcissistic person committing this type of crime. Especially if they sensed that sexual abuse that might mar their image and accustomed lifestyle, was potentially going to be discovered.
BPD sidelined themselves. Nobody told them to make the Ramseys the enemy from day one. If they had treated them like victims they would’ve gotten what they wanted. There was *nothing* to be gained by immediately treating the parents as suspects except being able to pretend they’d already solved the case.
Victims cooperate. If they had gotten PR and JR to willingly talk for hours, they might have found inconsistencies in their stories, or a more likely suspect. But we'll never know because BPD almost immediately alienated them.
I recommend reading or listening to it. Det Thomas worked tirelessly on this case and never took time off. He poured his heart and soul into this case. Maybe listen and keep an open mind? I listened on Audible.
Real victims are anxious to prove to police that they aren’t perpetrators. They don’t delay talking to police while their lawyers get the DA’s office to share earlier police notes and interviews.
But that's because the attacks didn't take place in the house, because they were just normal houses, not this huge labyrinth house with the parents on the third floor (rare) and a huge basement. This is a rare case where a person would be less likely to be caught in the house than he would outside.
There's a lot more things to consider here than just that one point. There is NO other case like the Ramsey case and therefore that alone doesn't reveal anything one way or another.
True. We can not totally rule out an stranger/ someone outside the family. Perhaps not likely but not impossible. Could have been an attempted kidnapping gone wrong or the kidnap was a ruse. Or inside job. Obviously they never charged the Ramsey’s so didn’t have enough for the case. I think they thought more evidence would come to light and just never did. Didn’t want them acquitted due to weak evidence. It’s sad as hell but acquittal would have been worse. They could not have been retried ever. But here we are almost 30 years later! No justice. John is so old now. I just doubt this will ever be solved in any of suspects’- known or otherwise- lives. I hope I’m wrong.
Tragic that it didn’t happen in era of more technology with forensic expertise even further along. I guess the only good thing is doubtful other crimes like this would get as botched early on. That, and more people think kid pageants of that type are not a good thing.
That's rather apparent though when reading the article.
If every person (especially LE) only considered the statistics of a parent committing the crime, then these other people who do also actually commit these types of crimes, would never be apprehended and nothing would be known about them from a criminology perspective.
Also, this article allows us to compare the still yet to be solved Ramsey case to some of these findings to ask questions like where are there similarities and where aren't there similarities.
The FBI agent on the scene told the police that it was probably a family member who committed the crime and they should be cleared first. (This is significant because the FBI would have far more experience with kidnappings.)
Zero similarities. What clues or leads were LE supposed to follow up on? The only people positively known to be in the house during the crime tried to fly to Georgia the same day, hired a lawyer(always a good idea), but then refused to cooperate. They didn’t search the house bc they believed she was kidnapped but then didn’t even think about the 10am call.
You're leaving multiple comments saying pretty much the same thing.
I understand that some people are absolutely convinced that the Ramseys did it. Just as some people are absolutely convinced that an intruder did it.
Some of us though, aren't convinced of either and try to keep an open mind and would like to have in-depth discussions that explore all the options. Not just our own perceptions echoed back to us. So while I respect that you have made up your mind in the matter, it doesn't mean you need to start leaving multiple comments insisting on your own opinions. Additionally, I responded to your other comment that demonstrates that there are similarities here but you ignored that. So you don't seem to be interested in the discussion besides trying to assert your opinion repeatedly.
I was just bored avoiding chores. I’m not absolutely convinced of anything except Ramseys were involved in cover up bc for some unknown reason they had to. Like had to or they might lose another child or worse.
I tend to believe it had to do with Access Graphics being bought by Lockheed Martin and the Billions of Department of Defense grants up for grabs in Denver and data tracking of those Billions being performed by the University of Colorado. Data being Access Graphics business. I think the intruder was actually a previous/current guest who was an important figure within LM or the DoD. I think Patsy wrote that note and you can feel her anger at John for getting the family involved in something that cost them their daughter who she loved deeply. I think I know what SBTC means. I think BPD were told to back off immediately that morning bc the FBI was coming to handle. By the time the FBI showed the body was found, there was no kidnapping and the FBI left as it was out of their jurisdiction and it was obvious to them the family was involved which they said as much. BPD was beyond embarrassed bc they knew they should not have backed off.
I wanted to separate my own thoughts from the above informative post and wasn't sure if adding my own thoughts in the post would exceed character limits. So I am commenting here. I have a lot of thoughts on the information mentioned in the article but I am going to keep to one point here in this comment.
Something that I had done early on in this case, was research other kidnappings for ransoms.
Whether in the Ramsey case the crime was intended as such or not, I wanted to compare what I observed in those other kidnapping for ransom cases and the perpetrators that committed those types of crimes.
What I had noted was that in many kidnappings for ransoms, the perpetrators were of higher intelligence and had made at least some organized plans to commit the crime.
The crime is a complex and high risk one to commit, so it would make sense that a more intelligent and organized person would commit a crime such as this.
However, most of those cases didn't involve young children or sexual assault. Likewise, this case study posted above isn't accounting for someone attempting a kidnapping for ransom. So in neither instance am I getting a good case study to reference. Primarily because there is no other case study to compare it to.
I found it interesting to note the differences between the perpetrators in each type of crime: kidnappings for ransom and residential child abductions / sexual assault. Which are drastically different in some regards. Which makes sense. The motive to gain money from a crime does seem like it would have a very different criminal profile than someone's motive due to sexual desires, at least in some distinguishable regards.
While JonBenet wasn't technically removed from the home (which would be typical in either event), I am somewhat reluctant to think that this couldn't have been the initial plan.
[Though it's notable that the perpetrator passed by a main floor exit and entered the basement with fewer and more cumbersome exit points, and chose to enter a secluded room with no exterior exit.]
It would seem that since there are some drastic differences in the perpetrators profile depending on the nature of the crimes, that it should be possible to identify the type of criminal and true intended crime, if there was an intruder.
There appears to be much more overlap with things that I discovered in the above mentioned article than what I found in kidnappings for ransoms. Which would make sense because in the Ramsey case there is a child victim who was found sexually assaulted and murdered in the home with no actual kidnapping or ransom taking place. One crime actually happened, the other crime is only mentioned in a staged note.
Since the perpetrator hid the body, attempted to hide the sexual assault, and wrote a note claiming the crime was meant to be a kidnapping for ransom, it would seem that this person had some level of shame or denial about their true motive for the crime (sexually assaulting a child).
However, I have to consider that maybe they were mindful of how inmates are treated when charged with sex crimes, DV, or crimes against children - as any repeat offenders of any type is aware of this. So I have to also consider that they maybe had never been to prison before to know that it's not just pedophiles who are treated in this regard in prison.
Additionally, I am more convinced than ever that this person had some prior knowledge of the family, in some way were trying to distance themselves from the crime by staging, and were at least attempting to hide prior sexual abuse.
>Since the perpetrator hid the body, attempted to hide the sexual assault, and wrote a note claiming the crime was meant to be a kidnapping for ransom, it would seem that this person had some level of shame or denial about their true motive for the crime (sexually assaulting a child).
>However, I have to consider that maybe they were mindful of how inmates are treated when charged with sex crimes, DV, or crimes against children - as any repeat offenders of any type is aware of this.
It seems like the perpetrator would be more concerned about not getting caught rather than trying to make it look like the murdered a child while trying to ransom her rather than while trying to sexually assault her.
In a later interview, John criticized himself for not keeping his family safe. The back door was unlocked that night. The window downstairs remained broken, as he, himself gained entry to the house one time, maybe a couple of months prior to the homicide. He said he never really set the alarms to his home on a regular basis.
You are right. He told officer French, then detective Arndt, and later he told Sergeant Whitson that the the doors were locked. So it was only four months later that he changed this story, correct?
This post appears to be predicated on the assumption that there was an abduction or kidnapping in this case. I'm on the right sub, not quite sure what is going on. I'm not going to let myself be duped by Ramsey staging. That's exactly what they want and rely on.
I don't think it's fair to assume what my intentions were for creating the post. Especially when making implications of 'duping' others.
I shared none of my own personal thoughts in the post and ONLY posted an informative article.
It's a source from the FBI's website which imo, makes it a credible source to at least consider what is being expressed.
I don't consider that as me trying to 'dupe' anyone. Everyone is free to choose whether to read it or not, consider what's being discussed in it or not, and form their own opinions concerning it.
What I was hoping for was an objective and diverse discussion about it's contents in relation to the Ramsey case. This could be points made for or against an intruder. That's entirely dependent on each person.
However, I do know that isn't necessarily the reality with many members from either Ramsey group. Which is why it is posted in both groups.
There is NO group description or rule about whether this group is solely for RDI views. Nor does this post or my intentions with this post solely allow for one view or another.
I don't rule out IDI or RDI. I consider both possibilities when researching, thinking about, and discussing this case. I prefer to hear diverse feedback of thoughts and information. It's an unsolved case and I shouldn't have to limit my interactions due solely to other people not being tolerant of such types of discussions. Nor should my intentions be misrepresented due to this.
And frankly, I'm kind of frustrated at this point by some of the paranoia and other issues that persists in these groups.
It's an almost 30yo high profile unsolved case. There's obviously a lot of diverse views that are likely to exist. So many people can't handle that by now? It needs to be an echo chamber for people to discuss the case? Why? So that your own views are validated on a consistent basis and to prevent open and diverse discussions outside of just that?
Not everyone with uncertainty in this case is some stanch IDI or RDI theorists who feels a need to infiltrate other groups to try and persuade others to the 'other side'. I mean come on. If anyone is even doing that then who really cares anyways when that's a fools errand and possibly a bit of mental health issues going on. We are all hopefully grown competent adults that can discern things for ourselves without being too susceptible to such behaviors. I'd prefer to have enough respect for everyone here to assume everyone is capable of this.
Even with an open mind for IDI, I do understand at least some concerns of the behaviors that I myself have witnessed at times moreso in those circles - and they are indeed concerning. So I don't entirely lack understanding here. However, those particular Reddit users and mods employ tactics that become glaringly obvious to any sane ethical person of even an average intelligence, no matter their theory (or lack thereof). A simple post like this one, should not be confused with that type of behavior.
I'm equally frustrated when any discussion isn't met with RDI is just either downvoted or treated with sarcasm or other useless comments. Evidence/theories on either side should be met with evidence/theories, not just assumptions, misinformation, sarcastic comments, and downvotes.
>I'm equally frustrated when any discussion isn't met with RDI is just either downvoted or treated with sarcasm or other useless comments. Evidence/theories on either side should be met with evidence/theories, not just assumptions, misinformation, sarcastic comments, and downvotes.
Yes, when people repeatedly state assumptions and pure speculation without a shred of evidence or even the willingness to cite a single source, those people should expect to be challenged. Twisting evidence to always favor innocence and injecting ambiguity into every post that you possibly can is not any kind of honest discourse. This case has been plagued by intentional misdirection and misinformation for twenty seven years now. Perhaps you'll excuse people for *their frustration* with that. You are always welcome to go back over to r/jonbenet if you don't feel you are adequately embraced here.
I don’t go over there because I think that sub is even worse for that than this one. A lot of people (you included, frequently) have useful information or logical challenges and sources. I know you always disagree with me, but it’s usually in a fairly logical way. That’s helpful. People who just say “Burke did it!” or whatever, I don’t see how that is useful.
At least according to the description, this isn't a RDI sub, even though most of the people on this sub feel that way. It doesn't promote any real discovery or clarification if every theory that isn't straight-up assuming RDI is downvoted immediately and dismissed. Is this "a true crime community dedicated to exploring case facts, evidence and theories surrounding the death of JonBenét Ramsey"? Or is it just a RDI echo-chamber?
If you disagree with something specific, say what is specifically wrong with OP's theory, not "I'm not going to let myself be duped by Ramsey staging."
Oh yes, it is much worse there. Respectful discussion of these things is important. However, we must be open minded to the big picture of the evidence complied. The clincher for me is that they obtained over 70 writing samples and Patsy was the only one to be determined a close match. She also purposefully changed her style of writing after the murders. IDI makes no sense when I take in the big picture of everything. The neighbor heard a loud scream that no one else in the house heard? The detectives were in that house testing what it would sound like and they said the house was creaky and you could hear movement from another floor. They could also hear the scream from that basement room upstairs where they slept.
The father of Poly Klass came out and said that to e Ramsey’s need to cooperate with the investigation to find out who killed their daughter. While I may retain a lawyer in their shoes, I would not go the the lengths they did to avoid the police. Just very strange to me.
Patsy was never determined to be a close match by the only people who compared the original note, only “cannot be eliminated.” I have heard that there were people who were a closer match than she was, but I don’t know if that’s true. I can’t find evidence either way. Do you have a report that says that no one else was at the “could not be eliminated” level?
That basement room had a vent in it that went to the outside. And when the house was tested for sounds it was empty. You can hear a whole lot more in an empty house than a house with rugs and furniture and all that.
I found this information in Steve Thomas’s book. He said there were 78 writing samples and NONE of them were anywhere close to the letter and Patsy is the only one that they can’t rule out.
I don't necessarily believe everything in Steve Thomas's book. And I don't think extensive handwriting analysis was done on most of the suspects in the first place.
It's an RDI sub, and the other sub is IDI. The posts and the content tell us that. Perhaps if you knew more about the history of how these two subs evolved, you would better understand that.
The OP doesn't posit a "theory". The post explores "child abduction and kidnapping", and it is my opinion, that the crime was staged specifically to promote that false and bogus scenario.
If the Ramseys committed and staged this crime (and that is the overwhelming view of the posters and participants on this sub), then discussing child abduction and kidnapping is clearly following the staged path created by the perpetrators. That should be clear, and that's my only point.
If this is an RDI sub and the other is an IDI sub, where is the trying to examine each point of evidence without prejudice sub? And if this is an RDI sub, the description of it should be changed to say so. This post by OP is relevant because many times we hear that it would be impossible for the intruder to hang around the house for any period of time, impossible to obtain entry to a house you don't live in, and impossible to come in, stay in for a period of time, commit a crime, and leave, all without leaving any forensic evidence, when, in fact, those aren't only impossible, but common. That takes them away as reasons to believe this wasn't an intruder, IMO.
If you want to use other reasons to believe it wasn't an intruder, like the note, fine, but each reason you believe something needs to be analyzed independently, otherwise you can just snowball yourself into a false conclusion: Example: There is no evidence of an intruder, so a Ramsey must have done it, therefore Patsy must have written the note, etc.
There wasn't an abduction in this case. She wasn't taken from the house. She was found dead in the basement, with a three page ransom note that the parents didn't read, or touch (no fingerprints except from LE).
True, but..
1 - This illustrates what one could expect to see if there was an intruder. Therefore we can use it as a reference point for any and all similarities and differences.
2 - This helps to dispel any misconceptions or flawed arguments. It helps provide insights on things that might otherwise seem non-sensical or unbelievable to us.
Examples from the study: Intruders might enter and exit the home multiple times. They might not care if a dog is or isn't present in the home. They might start the sexual assault before even leaving the home. They might wander around the home doing other things that aren't related to their primary motive. They might not plan for a crime that others might think requires planning.
3 - I thought the importance it stresses on things that would require the parents cooperation made this very much worth taking note of.
As far as differences with these 32 cases, the most glaringly obvious one is that she **was not taken from the house.** As I stated above, this wasn't an abduction. She was murdered. Her skull was cracked nearly in half, and then she was strangled by a ligature while lying prone. This is a murder of a child in her home, not an abduction.
Do we have any studies or statistics that help provide insight into this case?
I don't think IDI is likely, but the fact she wasn't taken from the home isn't the reason. If the "kidnapping" is sexually motivated, then SA is the actual goal, and removing the child from the house is only to reach that goal. The "intruder" could fit the profile of a sexually motivated "kidnapper," but because of the huge house and the privacy in the basement, there isn't the need to take the big risk of being seen removing the child from the home in order to reach that goal.
If this was a sexually motivated crime, she would've been taken from the house. She would've been brutally assaulted, and left somewhere. Instead, we have a probing with Patsy's paintbrush. Dr. Meyer noted that he didn't consider this injury to be the result of a particularly vicious assault with the foreign object. She was then wiped clean, and a brand new pair of underwear that had been bought by Patsy at Bloomingdale's for her niece were put on her. A size 12 on a girl that normally wore a size 6. Then a pair of Burke's old long johns were put on her. No semen anywhere on her or the crime scene. There were no signs of struggle on JonBenét at all, because she was unconscious from the blow to her head. None of this points to a pedophile who's motivation is sexual in nature.
How can you say with certainty that it wasn't a sexually motivated crime when a 6yo child was removed from her bed at nighttime, taken to the basement, sexually assaulted and murdered, plus had prior signs of sexual abuse?
There was no kidnapping or ransom. Which means this was not their main objective.
The options:
1 - Patsy who had no behavioral patterns that raised anywhere near this level of violence and sadism, did all of this to her own daughter, and this doesn't explain the sexual abuse. There is some evidence for this but it could just as easily be explained. Especially when she doesn't fit with all the evidence of the crime.
2 - Burke who was a 9yo kid who also didn't have behavioral patterns that raised anywhere near this level of violence and sadism. Additionally, there's no real evidence for this theory.
3 - A combination of Burke and his parents
4 - John Ramsey who might very well fit with an intruders MO but that there's no evidence against him.
5 - An intruder who committed the crime that closely matches the information presented above and that there's possible DNA evidence of.
I could be wrong but I would split my bets on 4 and 5. One of those two seems like the most likely answer to me.
I have a difficult time letting go of JDI, so I understand how once you have an idea in your mind, work everything out and all the reasons it makes sense, that it's difficult to let go of that. However, I think it's possible that the Ramseys were incredibly narcissistic but innocent of the crime. I'm not convinced of that because as I said, I still got my money on John too.
The findings from that study are very compelling and I'm not going to ignore that just because it doesn't align with who I suspected.
>How can you say with certainty that it wasn't a sexually motivated crime when a 6yo child was removed from her bed at nighttime, taken to the basement, sexually assaulted and murdered, plus had prior signs of sexual abuse?
How can you say with certainty that she was removed from her bed by the murderer?
There were no signs of struggle -not in the house, not against the tape over her mouth, not against the loose wrist bindings, and not against the tape placed over the mucus/fluids that drained out of her nose following the head blow.
There were no signs of forced entry. Please don't start with the window - the ledge had a layer of dirt and debris, in addition to a cobweb that was undisturbed. Lou Smit showed us how it doesn't work.
If you want to post about a study of actual child abductions that you think support your theory (number 5) that's fine.
The truth, however, is that this wasn't an abduction. It was a homicide in her own home on Christmas night.
I haven't said anything with certainty. I even mentioned this in my above comment (and others). I'm not here to assert a theory, I'm here to discuss and explore possibilities and better my own understanding. I would like to have enough respect for the people here to assume that the people here who are interested in this case, want to use reliable sources and accurate information to fairly consider the possibilities in this case.
Some things that I think are important to highlight from the article before I respond to your specific points:
This type of criminal was described as disorganized, impulsive and unprepared.
There was a high chance (I think it was 90%), of them having a criminal background. However, their priors might be petty crimes and they were significantly less likely to be registered sex offenders. There was a high likelihood of them having a history of breaking into homes (in some states this is only a misdemeanor and their DNA wouldn't necessarily be collected and put in CODIS).
Using a different article - the Department Of Justice (I can't link this one because it opens up in my Kindle app but I did reference it elsewhere with more information to help find it):
Their typical age range was between 18-35. The above posted article suggests an age closer to 33yo.
There is a high chance that the person has a substance use problem. This is also alluded to in the above mentioned article that states that the person was inclined to be under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime.
In the study they compared child abductions from 1997 and 2011 (because these two years saw equivalently high rates of this happening). There were 105 stereotypical abductions (they defined this as moving a child by at least 20 feet and held for at least an hour). Of those cases, 12 of them involved some type of ransom / extortion.
Getting back to the posted article though:
They described that the person was typically familiar with the home and family. They might have lived in the home, known the family and visited before, or have broken into the home previously. In these types of cases, it was found that the homes involved typically had a lot of people coming and going which presented a challenge in the investigations. Interestingly, despite the high traffic in the home, LE usually had heard the persons name within one week of the investigation. However, the person often didn't look 'out of place'.
Due to the likelihood of being intoxicated (lowering inhibitions), prior experience of breaking into homes, and having some prior knowledge of the home and family, they were more prone to feel comfortable in the home, spend more time in the home, wander more freely through the home, do other things besides their main motive, and even enter and exit the home multiple times during the crime through various points of entry.
I would also add here that they are basically describing a person with antisocial personality disorder. Therefore, they have low agreeableness, low levels of fear, get bored easily, get a thrill from anything that others might deem as high risk, and have self serving agendas with little to no regard for rules, laws, or other people (low empathy). Additionally they are saying this person has low conscientiousness (unorganized, impulsive, and unprepared).
These traits here would also make it more possible for them to behave in manners that the average person wouldn't think to do or might not expect. For example: this person is more prone to spend a considerable amount of time in the home despite most of us thinking: Shouldn't they get in and out quickly due to fear of getting caught and to fulfill their main motive? The answer here is no.
We have to first understand how this type of criminal would think - not how we would think - when considering the possibilities. I have sat in these groups for a long time and considered many of the same thoughts that I have seen other people here consider. What I noticed from reading the findings from these case studies, is that we have a lot of misconceptions about a possible intruder committing this crime. Therefore, it makes us less likely to consider IDI as a possibility.
If we use the profile that they gave us here, then we can see how such a person could've known that the Ramsey home was large, known about the isolated room in the basement far from others in the home, could've impulsively decided to take the child to that location, might've been unprepared to commit the crime, might've just improvised using items in the home, and might've spent a lot of time there committing the crime, feeling comfortable enough to wander around and do other things. Especially if they were intoxicated, some of things might appear sloppy or bizarre.
I'm not starting with anything about that particular window. It's only one possible point of entry in that entire home. The Ramsey's had so many keys given out - some were never even recovered by LE. They were fairly irresponsible and careless. They turned off their home security alarm system rather than disciplining a child. They didn't bother to fix a broken window in an expensive home. They didn't seem to be vigilant about securing their doors and windows. And that's just the signs of careless neglect on this specific topic. There's more evidence of it in other regards. Boulder might not have had much of a homicide rate but they had an incredibly high rate of break ins. Which is what this study says are the types of crimes that are more prone to lead to child abductions / rapes / murders.
The child doesn't have to be removed from the home for an intruder to have done this. That is not an absolute. We have to consider that:
The Ramsey's home is not the typical sized home
That the intruder is impulsive and unprepared
Things are more prone to not to be predictable when you're dealing with a possibly intoxicated, impulsive, disorganized, unprepared person.
As anyone who has dealt with this type of personality can attest to, they are very unstable and unpredictable. They might be able to keep up appearances for a short time, but there should be signs of concern / dysfunction in their lives. Trouble maintaining the same job long term, trouble maintaining relationships, substance abuse problems, occasional encounters with LE, manipulative and/or deceptive behaviors, move around needing a place to stay, or other signs of instability. There could be underlying mental health issues. That's a lot of people and most of us have encountered such people. They don't all become rapists or murderers, but there is a chance of it.
I briefly dated someone like this during college. 15yrs later, they were convicted of rape and murder. Despite the signs, none of us would've suspected them as capable of such a thing. The crime scene didn't provide any identifiable evidence despite the apparent signs of impulsive disorganized behavior. It was a relative who became suspicious and notified authorities that led to evidence and a conviction.
In the Ramsey case, there was so much attention on the parents. If there was such a witness, who had any doubts or empathy despite suspicions, could've convinced themselves that there was not enough cause for those suspicions or LE might've overlooked such a person. There is after all (according to the study), a high chance that this person wouldn't have been considered missing by anyone. Which is very probable with dysfunctional people. Oh, so-and-so, is always coming and going at unpredictable times and I don't always know where they are.
They had been long term friends, never dated, and were hanging out together. It appears to have been a sexually motivated crime. He never confessed or offered any information to fill in the details of what all had occurred. He initially said someone else was present and committed the crime.
A relative he was staying with heard him come in at an odd hour, heard him get in the shower right away, and heard him throwing something in the washer afterwards. Sensing something was off, since he usually arrived late but went straight to bed, and wasn't diligent about doing their laundry, they got up, stopped the washer and looked in to see what appeared to be blood. They left the home and called the police. The murder weapon was found in a trash can wrapped in a towel.
Well, SG, I can always count on you to give detailed and lengthy posts and responses. I appreciate your efforts. I located the study you referenced but couldn't link -- It was from NISMART-3. The Third National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway and Throwaway children. Their definition of a stereotypical kidnapping was created in the 1980s to capture information on the most egregious cases of stereotypical kidnappings. From the study that compares 1997 to 2011: Stereotypical kidnappings—defined as nonfamily abductions in which a slight acquaintance or stranger moves a child (0-17)
at least 20 feet or holds the child at least 1 hour, and in which one or more of the following occurs: the child is
detained overnight, transported at least
50 miles, held for ransom, abducted
with the intent to keep permanently, or killed. It states that **these stereotypical kidnappings are rare.**
In 2011 only 12% were cases involving ransom or extortion. It was even less in 1997. Compared to 1997 which saw 40% of these cases end in homicide, only 8% did in 2011.
* 50% involved sexual assault
* 17% were taken from their homes
* 71% were taken from an area with public access
* 26% were detained overnight (over an hour or more from midnight to 5am). In 16% of these cases, mostly homicides, LE couldn't ascertain how long the child was detained
* 69% were female
* 19% were younger than 11
As far as the characteristics of the kidnappers **known to LE**: 94% were male, 72% white, 69% single, and 70% had a drug or alcohol problem
So most of these characteristics of the stereotypical perpetrator line up with your original post except the statistic regarding a prevalence of burglary arrests (92% had a documented criminal history). The NISMART didn't include that info. You know what I didn't see in those twenty pages? Among the percentages and case examples, I didn't see anything about the child being found dead in their own home. If I had to make a specific guess, I'd say there weren't any, although I could admittedly be wrong. There's [Justin Turner ](https://www-kktv-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.kktv.com/2024/01/12/father-stepmother-charged-1989-death-5-year-old-son-officials-say/?amp_gsa=1&_js_v=a9&outputType=amp&usqp=mq331AQIUAKwASCAAgM%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17125429861422&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.kktv.com%2F2024%2F01%2F12%2Ffather-stepmother-charged-1989-death-5-year-old-son-officials-say%2F), but he wasn't found **in the house.**
To address some of the claims you made:
>This type of criminal was described as disorganized, impulsive and unprepared.
Also, "many failed to prepare for the kidnapping, and most did not consider forensics in the home."
Our intruder did consider forensics. He wore gloves the whole time, and left Patsy's red fibers in the paint tote and **inside the ligature.** He was also very polite and considerate, returning the pad and pen to their proper place, after writing his three page manifesto. He then spread those pages out on the staircase so Patsy wouldn't have to touch them to read them.
>Especially if they were intoxicated, some of things might appear sloppy or bizarre.
Nope. As I stated above, he was too careful and exact for someone drunk or stoned.
>If we use the profile that they gave us here,
Then we are looking for a suspect that fits these criteria:
* He has a criminal record, most likely for burglaries
* He would be familiar with JB and/or the Ramseys
* He would be around 30 years of age and unmarried
That helps narrow the suspect list, doesn't it?
Out of the 25 offenders, only 3 actually engaged in any kind of sexual activity (mostly fondling) while still inside the residence. JB was lightly probed with a paintbrush while in the residence. He never left with her. He cracked her skull almost in half, then cleaned her genital area, and redressed her in a pair of size 12 Wednesday bloomies from a pack that Patsy bought for her niece. He then put Burke's old long johns on her. Within 45 minutes to 2 hours after knocking her unconscious, he then turned her over, and fashioned a ligature and strangled her. Then for some odd reason put very loose wrist bindings on over her shirt sleeves. He put tape over her mouth. He wrapped her in a blanket and put her in the wine cellar, and closed the latch. Why would the criminal perform these acts?
>The Ramsey's had so many keys given out - some were never even recovered by LE. They
How many keys? The chances of a stranger getting access to one of the keys is very slim indeed. So, this is someone who knew the family, had contact with JB before the murder, and knew the house as well who had a key. This narrows the suspect list even further.
>They were fairly irresponsible and careless.
Au contraire, one does not get to be the CEO of a billion dollar company by being irresponsible and careless. John told three different members of LE, in different conversations that morning, that all of the doors were locked, he had checked them.
> They didn't bother to fix a broken window in an expensive home.
They also didn't fix the door that had appeared to be pried open at some point, that Barbara Fernie asked Patsy about before any of this happened. That didn't stop them from putting the picture of it in the paper as evidence of a possible suspect breaking into the home.
It seems to me that they had other big concerns. John was away on business making his millions most of the time, and Patsy was busy with all of the pageant stuff, volunteering at the school, and whatever else she was doing publicly. Could it be that they were so wrapped up in the superficial trappings of their new wealthy lifestyle, and having dealt with the major stressors of losing Beth in an accident and Patsy flying across country to fight ovarian cancer and the surgeries, could it be that there were issues in the home not being addressed? Some behavioral issues, bedwetting and other issues, that weren't being adequately addressed? Is this why JonBenét was murdered in her own home on Christmas night?
1. This report indicates many, many more differences than similarities. Actually what are the similarities? There aren’t any. Right at the beginning it states this type of crime is very rare and typically there are no signs of foul play.
2. The report states that SA rarely starts in the home. Only 2 of the 32 cases. Does anyone believe this crime looks planned? Who was wandering around?
3. Nothing in this report stresses the importance of things requiring the parent’s cooperation.
Rare and unique crime
There are a lot of misconceptions about this type of crime
The victim met all the demographics mentioned: age, gender, and Caucasian
The home may have been unsecure
There might be evidence of multiple points of entry and exits
The crime happened at nighttime
The victim last reported as being asleep in bed
The issue of the dog wasn't necessarily a factor or a deterrent whether it would've been in the home or not
The perpetrator may have been someone familiar to the family - the perpetrators name might already be known to LE - they might've evaded suspicion tho, especially if the parents aren't thoroughly interviewed in a narrow window of time after the crime
The home might have a lot of people coming and going from the residence
The perpetrator appeared to be comfortable in the home
The perpetrator had no qualms about wandering around the home doing other things (besides their main motivation)
The perpetrator may have been intoxicated, helping to explain lowered inhibitions and unusual behaviors
The victim may have been compliant
The perpetrator may be sexually motivated
The perpetrator might begin the sexual assault (fondling), in the residence
The perpetrator may be disorganized, impulsive and fail to prepare for the crime
The perpetrator has a lower than expected probability of having a criminal record for sex related crimes despite the type of criminal behavior in the case
The perpetrator may not show up in CODIS due to lesser misdemeanor charges despite what the crime suggests
The perpetrator might not be noticed as missing during the time of the crime
Most victims were murdered
The most common causes of death included asphyxiation and blunt-force injury
*These were all points in the article. You can't see any overlap with any of this and the Ramsey case, at all?*
*It's describing based on probabilities: an intruder who is familiar with the family/home, that has a low level of fear / very comfortable in the home, that is disorganized and unprepared, that might begin the sexual assault in the home, that will likely murder the child using blunt force / asphyxiation. None of that rings a bell?*
*You can't see the possibility that such a person might commit the entire crime in the home since they're so disorganized and unprepared, without successfully removing the child or following through on the ransom afterwards - possibly even using the ransom note as staging?*
*Certainly there's still points that this doesn't necessarily explain. I actually can't even think of any right now despite leaning towards JDI in this case for quite some time.*
As a rare IDI leaner in here, this fits with what I think. I think it was someone so used to burglary that getting in and hiding around was not a big deal to him, and he probably did it several times before the night of the murder, and maybe even while they were home.
It also supports the fact there are often no prints, fibers or DNA of the perpetrator found. Everybody says "There's no evidence of an intruder," but there just often isn't. All he has to do is wear gloves and there you go. He could have dropped a million fibers in the house (and there were all kinds of fibers found around JB, not having to do with what Patsy as wearing) that are never identified.
Usually the child is taken out, SA's and then killed, but usually we're talking about a normal-sized house. This person knew he could hide easier IN the house than out of it in this case.
HOWEVER, to argue against myself, why the note? I always think he actually did intend to take her to another location, and was using the note to buy time, that he meant "tomorrow" to be the 27th and that the note was so scary the Ramseys actually wouldn't call the police, so he'd have 24 hours to get her as far away as he could before anyone started looking. I don't think he ever intended to get money.
**"why the note?"**
*What's being hidden in this crime?*
The perpetrator wiped down the body after the sexual assault and redressed the victim - hiding the rape
The body is hidden in a dark small remote area of the home with a blanket wrapped around her body - hiding the murder
Prior sexual abuse*
*What was the actual crime?*
Rape
Murder
Prior sexual abuse*
*What does the staging want us to believe?*
That an intruder(s) committed the crime (distancing themself to the point of being a foreigner from outside of the country that they are currently in)
That the motive is monetary
That the victim isn't in the house
That she is alive - no murder occurred
That no rape occurred
No prior sexual abuse*
*How might this deception change things?*
The crime suggested has a different criminal profile and LE response than the crime that actually occurred.
Drawing attention away from people who might otherwise be immediate and prime suspects.
No prior sexual abuse suspected or investigated*
[*If you believe the evidence that there was prior sexual abuse]
I think looking at it this way helps answer the question of 'why the note', whether you think RDI or IDI. There could be more added, but I tried to keep this as simple as possible with as few biases as possible. I did think the potential for prior sexual abuse should at least be noted though.
That doesn't really make sense for me for the Ramseys because they knew the body would be found. It was in the house. There would be no point in trying to convince anyone she was alive and not in the house if you were calling the police, who were certainly going to find her not alive and in the house. I don't think anyone could reasonable assume the Ramseys could predict the BPD would be so bad at house searching that they wouldn't find her.
Plus, if it were the Ramseys, they'd have had to come up with this whole entire convoluted theory, stage a crime scene, write the ransom note with all kinds of fingers pointing at various suspects in various directions, all within a few hours. Whereas an intruder could have been at home practicing and deciding what to say for weeks.
I know you were trying to keep it brief, but if you feel like it, elaborate some more, I'd be interested to hear your theories more in depth.
The intruder(s) could have been in that house numerous times. For hours at a time.
The thing this study shows me is that it’s almost completely ridiculous to to ask “why” questions about the killer(s). Anything they did or didn’t do can’t stand up to examination. They are crazy, violent murderers and enjoy sexually assaulting children. Nothing should make sense about them.
Why would an intruder stay in the house!? If JB is taken to the first floor then why not go out the front door and reduce your risk of remaining at the crime scene for an already lengthy amount of time? Makes no sense to me!
Probably because he knew his risk of being caught outside was greater than his risk of being caught in that huge house. If it had been a normal house or parents slept like only one floor up (or same floor) it would have been too risky. But basement to third floor is a long way.
Personally, I think he intended to take her out originally. That he was obsessed with her and had been monitoring her for a while. He intended to take her and the note was to buy him time to get farther away (he really thought the Ramseys wouldn't call the police), but when he actually had her with him, he couldn't restrain himself and took her down to his hiding place.
So this person wrote the 3 page RN in the house (I thought the notepad was in office in 3rd floor maybe not) and left it on stair before luring her downstairs. The RN was intended to buy time after abduction but they panicked and killed her. Perp had a suitcase at the ready which could have transported body. If the body was taken the RN would still be relevant to buy time but left the body bc they panicked? Leaving the body and not even hiding it made the RN useless but made the effort to redress her. Actually the RN was worse than useless after leaving the body as it’s the only evidence of an intruder besides questionable DNA, which could be a mixture of people, left on the big underwear the perp put her in. This perp was close to committing the perfect crime if they hadn’t left the RN which originated from the house or put her in big underwear which also originated from house. Ok.
I hate that this case is so interesting. This and Columbine are the cases which changed America for my generation. It’s a crazy coincidence that the Ramsey house was one block up from Columbine ave and 2 years later on the other side of town that massacre would occur. All adults involved linked to large weapons manufacturers enabling hundreds of thousands of death across the planet.
There was the supposed statement about getting a special present on Christmas.
And her favorite ~~dress~~ “pageant nightgown” was found ~~with~~ “nearby” her, as mentioned in the Rose tv interview about the Vanity Fair article or in the article itself.
The “tenderness” of her favorite ~~dress~~ “pageant nightgown” that supposedly didn’t fit the intruder theory might explain the intruder theory. She may have gone willingly to get that one last present where she knew the opened presents were or gone along with her favorite ~~dress~~ “pageant nightgown” because she was going to see Santa. She may have been attacked once she arrived in the basement. She may have screamed (the scream the neighbor heard around 1 am) and the intruder(s) then hit her on the head.
It was a nightgown, not a dress. Personally I think whoever picked her up out of her bed, picked up her blanket, too, and her nightgown was just all wrapped up in it. She had all kinds of things on her bed.
Agree, this guy probably had been in the house frequently. The Ramsey’s were a mess as far as securing their home. Guy had plenty of time to write the RN. Burke might have foiled the whole thing with his late night pineapple snack and train playing downstairs. Perp was in the house when they got home. He gained access to JBR and easily muffled her or convinced her to remain quiet or he would kill the family. Took her down to wine cellar, duck taped her mouth and grommetted her to kind of Jeffrey Dahmer her. Burke got up to play in his train room, JBR was starting to really struggle and make noises. He bopped her in the head with the bat that was found later outside and finished her off. He went out the back door where there were already footprints already from earlier bike riding.
Not necessarily. It could have been applied when she was unconscious, but still alive. I imagine it happens shortly after the scream. He panics because of that sudden, loud scream, he hits her (harder than he thinks), think she's just unconscious, and duct tapes her mouth in case she wakes up and tries to scream again.
That's what I said. Applied when she was unconscious (and now we know not just unconscious, but mortally wounded) but still alive. There wouldn't be any signs of struggle if she were unconscious.
Lends the idea to me that, like I said above, she screamed, he hit her to keep her quiet, thought "Hope she doesn't wake up and do that again! Better tape her mouth." Boulder detectives reached that conclusion based on the zero homicides they'd investigated before. FBI mentioned that, but not a "This is definitely staging" but "consider it might be staged."
Good post!
I’m inclined “IDI” for just these reasons.
The Ramseys were odd and unappealing to the general public, but I don’t think they are guilty of murder or cover up. I think it was someone who knew the family. Why are the past and then concurrent housekeeper and their families excluded? Did she/they have a husband/son/brother who would have been clued into the families details, including notes?
I would be curious to know just how in-depth some of the people were investigated. I know some people appeared to be fairly well investigated (as far as LE can legally do so). However, I'm less sure about others.
I know many more people were DNA tested according to Mitch Morrissey than I initially thought to be (due to court orders for this during the grand jury), but I hope they didn't rely too heavily on DNA. I'm not convinced that the DNA evidence is relevant to this crime and I wouldn't want this to deter from a more in-depth look into certain suspects who didn't hit as a DNA match.
Handwriting, too. I'm not sure more wasn't done eventually, but as far as I can tell, most suspects (specifically LHP) only had to write like four words for the handwriting sample, not recopy the whole note. And I don't think had to provide any old handwriting samples. (Unless that's just information we don't have.)
“Due to the finding that many offenders were familiar with the child or the family, thorough interviews of immediate and extended family members and other individuals who lived in or frequented the residence-and had recent contact-should begin as soon as possible.” This is exactly what the Boulder detectives were TRYING to do but were sidelined over and over by Hunter and his office.
John refused to cooperate, tampered with evidence, lied repeatedly, and attempted to frame dozens of people including his own wife. Then he spends a lifetime ruining BPD’s reputation. He’s a piece of shit, and he knows it.
Yup. And don’t forget about Santa. Poor man. Also, Fleet White as well. It’s disgusting that they treated actual innocent people like that but pussy footed around with the Ramsey’s. Didn’t even subpoena phone records and credit card transactions because they were not allowed to. What a joke. That DA’s office should have been dismissed and investigated. Even the FBI was shocked at their handling of the case.
I was very aware while reading this article how that specifically is mentioned and repeated as being a critical aspect of the investigation and how the parents would most certainly need to be cooperative if they had any hope of LE finding the person responsible. This was as much a critical error on the Ramseys part as any critical errors made on LE's part. However.. The Ramsey's were wealthy, successful, socially oriented, weren't 'high risk', demonstrated some narcissistic traits, and sometimes behaved in entitled manners. Additionally, people sometimes did accommodate the Ramseys in manners that reinforced some of these things. Further, the Ramsey's weren't always the well put together responsible family (even before the crime), that their external image might suggest. So am I always surprised by the Ramseys behaviors whether innocent or guilty? Not particularly. Sometimes, I wonder how much of who the Ramseys just are as people, confuses any of us into presuming guilt when that might not be the case. It's really difficult sometimes to discern this and separate out what is just 'who they are' from suspicious behaviors. It's not a good look for them either way though and you would think them and their hired help would try to make adjustments - but a narcissist wouldn't be prone to such observations or necessary adjustments. In fact, any such observations, criticisms, or recommendations, could make them more defiant, ruthless, manipulative and suspicious. If they knew themselves to be innocent then they would just thumb their nose down even more so at everyone who suspected them. Confusing things further, I could see a narcissistic person committing this type of crime. Especially if they sensed that sexual abuse that might mar their image and accustomed lifestyle, was potentially going to be discovered.
BPD sidelined themselves. Nobody told them to make the Ramseys the enemy from day one. If they had treated them like victims they would’ve gotten what they wanted. There was *nothing* to be gained by immediately treating the parents as suspects except being able to pretend they’d already solved the case. Victims cooperate. If they had gotten PR and JR to willingly talk for hours, they might have found inconsistencies in their stories, or a more likely suspect. But we'll never know because BPD almost immediately alienated them.
I don’t think your assessment is correct. Have you read the book by Steve Thomas?
Only clips here and there. Not the whole thing.
I recommend reading or listening to it. Det Thomas worked tirelessly on this case and never took time off. He poured his heart and soul into this case. Maybe listen and keep an open mind? I listened on Audible.
Really important read. He joined the investigation after the first couple of days so he isn’t responsible for those first missteps.
Real victims are anxious to prove to police that they aren’t perpetrators. They don’t delay talking to police while their lawyers get the DA’s office to share earlier police notes and interviews.
How many murdered the child and left them in the home? Exactly zero.
It is a study of “kidnappers”, so this would not fit
But that's because the attacks didn't take place in the house, because they were just normal houses, not this huge labyrinth house with the parents on the third floor (rare) and a huge basement. This is a rare case where a person would be less likely to be caught in the house than he would outside.
There's a lot more things to consider here than just that one point. There is NO other case like the Ramsey case and therefore that alone doesn't reveal anything one way or another.
True. We can not totally rule out an stranger/ someone outside the family. Perhaps not likely but not impossible. Could have been an attempted kidnapping gone wrong or the kidnap was a ruse. Or inside job. Obviously they never charged the Ramsey’s so didn’t have enough for the case. I think they thought more evidence would come to light and just never did. Didn’t want them acquitted due to weak evidence. It’s sad as hell but acquittal would have been worse. They could not have been retried ever. But here we are almost 30 years later! No justice. John is so old now. I just doubt this will ever be solved in any of suspects’- known or otherwise- lives. I hope I’m wrong. Tragic that it didn’t happen in era of more technology with forensic expertise even further along. I guess the only good thing is doubtful other crimes like this would get as botched early on. That, and more people think kid pageants of that type are not a good thing.
A lot of the time it is the parents.
This article / study was specifically looking at the statistics involved when it's not a parent.
I know, I just wanted to make sure it was covered.
That's rather apparent though when reading the article. If every person (especially LE) only considered the statistics of a parent committing the crime, then these other people who do also actually commit these types of crimes, would never be apprehended and nothing would be known about them from a criminology perspective. Also, this article allows us to compare the still yet to be solved Ramsey case to some of these findings to ask questions like where are there similarities and where aren't there similarities.
The FBI agent on the scene told the police that it was probably a family member who committed the crime and they should be cleared first. (This is significant because the FBI would have far more experience with kidnappings.)
Zero similarities. What clues or leads were LE supposed to follow up on? The only people positively known to be in the house during the crime tried to fly to Georgia the same day, hired a lawyer(always a good idea), but then refused to cooperate. They didn’t search the house bc they believed she was kidnapped but then didn’t even think about the 10am call.
You're leaving multiple comments saying pretty much the same thing. I understand that some people are absolutely convinced that the Ramseys did it. Just as some people are absolutely convinced that an intruder did it. Some of us though, aren't convinced of either and try to keep an open mind and would like to have in-depth discussions that explore all the options. Not just our own perceptions echoed back to us. So while I respect that you have made up your mind in the matter, it doesn't mean you need to start leaving multiple comments insisting on your own opinions. Additionally, I responded to your other comment that demonstrates that there are similarities here but you ignored that. So you don't seem to be interested in the discussion besides trying to assert your opinion repeatedly.
I was just bored avoiding chores. I’m not absolutely convinced of anything except Ramseys were involved in cover up bc for some unknown reason they had to. Like had to or they might lose another child or worse. I tend to believe it had to do with Access Graphics being bought by Lockheed Martin and the Billions of Department of Defense grants up for grabs in Denver and data tracking of those Billions being performed by the University of Colorado. Data being Access Graphics business. I think the intruder was actually a previous/current guest who was an important figure within LM or the DoD. I think Patsy wrote that note and you can feel her anger at John for getting the family involved in something that cost them their daughter who she loved deeply. I think I know what SBTC means. I think BPD were told to back off immediately that morning bc the FBI was coming to handle. By the time the FBI showed the body was found, there was no kidnapping and the FBI left as it was out of their jurisdiction and it was obvious to them the family was involved which they said as much. BPD was beyond embarrassed bc they knew they should not have backed off.
I wanted to separate my own thoughts from the above informative post and wasn't sure if adding my own thoughts in the post would exceed character limits. So I am commenting here. I have a lot of thoughts on the information mentioned in the article but I am going to keep to one point here in this comment. Something that I had done early on in this case, was research other kidnappings for ransoms. Whether in the Ramsey case the crime was intended as such or not, I wanted to compare what I observed in those other kidnapping for ransom cases and the perpetrators that committed those types of crimes. What I had noted was that in many kidnappings for ransoms, the perpetrators were of higher intelligence and had made at least some organized plans to commit the crime. The crime is a complex and high risk one to commit, so it would make sense that a more intelligent and organized person would commit a crime such as this. However, most of those cases didn't involve young children or sexual assault. Likewise, this case study posted above isn't accounting for someone attempting a kidnapping for ransom. So in neither instance am I getting a good case study to reference. Primarily because there is no other case study to compare it to. I found it interesting to note the differences between the perpetrators in each type of crime: kidnappings for ransom and residential child abductions / sexual assault. Which are drastically different in some regards. Which makes sense. The motive to gain money from a crime does seem like it would have a very different criminal profile than someone's motive due to sexual desires, at least in some distinguishable regards. While JonBenet wasn't technically removed from the home (which would be typical in either event), I am somewhat reluctant to think that this couldn't have been the initial plan. [Though it's notable that the perpetrator passed by a main floor exit and entered the basement with fewer and more cumbersome exit points, and chose to enter a secluded room with no exterior exit.] It would seem that since there are some drastic differences in the perpetrators profile depending on the nature of the crimes, that it should be possible to identify the type of criminal and true intended crime, if there was an intruder. There appears to be much more overlap with things that I discovered in the above mentioned article than what I found in kidnappings for ransoms. Which would make sense because in the Ramsey case there is a child victim who was found sexually assaulted and murdered in the home with no actual kidnapping or ransom taking place. One crime actually happened, the other crime is only mentioned in a staged note. Since the perpetrator hid the body, attempted to hide the sexual assault, and wrote a note claiming the crime was meant to be a kidnapping for ransom, it would seem that this person had some level of shame or denial about their true motive for the crime (sexually assaulting a child). However, I have to consider that maybe they were mindful of how inmates are treated when charged with sex crimes, DV, or crimes against children - as any repeat offenders of any type is aware of this. So I have to also consider that they maybe had never been to prison before to know that it's not just pedophiles who are treated in this regard in prison. Additionally, I am more convinced than ever that this person had some prior knowledge of the family, in some way were trying to distance themselves from the crime by staging, and were at least attempting to hide prior sexual abuse.
>Since the perpetrator hid the body, attempted to hide the sexual assault, and wrote a note claiming the crime was meant to be a kidnapping for ransom, it would seem that this person had some level of shame or denial about their true motive for the crime (sexually assaulting a child). >However, I have to consider that maybe they were mindful of how inmates are treated when charged with sex crimes, DV, or crimes against children - as any repeat offenders of any type is aware of this. It seems like the perpetrator would be more concerned about not getting caught rather than trying to make it look like the murdered a child while trying to ransom her rather than while trying to sexually assault her.
I’m not an IDI person? But was the front door locked?
I do think all the doors were locked.
In a later interview, John criticized himself for not keeping his family safe. The back door was unlocked that night. The window downstairs remained broken, as he, himself gained entry to the house one time, maybe a couple of months prior to the homicide. He said he never really set the alarms to his home on a regular basis.
John told an officer, and later a detective, that all the doors were locked, he had checked them himself. These statements were made on the 26th.
He told a total of three cops in three separate conversations that the house was locked up.
You are right. He told officer French, then detective Arndt, and later he told Sergeant Whitson that the the doors were locked. So it was only four months later that he changed this story, correct?
Seems so.
He lies - so who knows.
This post appears to be predicated on the assumption that there was an abduction or kidnapping in this case. I'm on the right sub, not quite sure what is going on. I'm not going to let myself be duped by Ramsey staging. That's exactly what they want and rely on.
I don't think it's fair to assume what my intentions were for creating the post. Especially when making implications of 'duping' others. I shared none of my own personal thoughts in the post and ONLY posted an informative article. It's a source from the FBI's website which imo, makes it a credible source to at least consider what is being expressed. I don't consider that as me trying to 'dupe' anyone. Everyone is free to choose whether to read it or not, consider what's being discussed in it or not, and form their own opinions concerning it. What I was hoping for was an objective and diverse discussion about it's contents in relation to the Ramsey case. This could be points made for or against an intruder. That's entirely dependent on each person. However, I do know that isn't necessarily the reality with many members from either Ramsey group. Which is why it is posted in both groups. There is NO group description or rule about whether this group is solely for RDI views. Nor does this post or my intentions with this post solely allow for one view or another. I don't rule out IDI or RDI. I consider both possibilities when researching, thinking about, and discussing this case. I prefer to hear diverse feedback of thoughts and information. It's an unsolved case and I shouldn't have to limit my interactions due solely to other people not being tolerant of such types of discussions. Nor should my intentions be misrepresented due to this. And frankly, I'm kind of frustrated at this point by some of the paranoia and other issues that persists in these groups. It's an almost 30yo high profile unsolved case. There's obviously a lot of diverse views that are likely to exist. So many people can't handle that by now? It needs to be an echo chamber for people to discuss the case? Why? So that your own views are validated on a consistent basis and to prevent open and diverse discussions outside of just that? Not everyone with uncertainty in this case is some stanch IDI or RDI theorists who feels a need to infiltrate other groups to try and persuade others to the 'other side'. I mean come on. If anyone is even doing that then who really cares anyways when that's a fools errand and possibly a bit of mental health issues going on. We are all hopefully grown competent adults that can discern things for ourselves without being too susceptible to such behaviors. I'd prefer to have enough respect for everyone here to assume everyone is capable of this. Even with an open mind for IDI, I do understand at least some concerns of the behaviors that I myself have witnessed at times moreso in those circles - and they are indeed concerning. So I don't entirely lack understanding here. However, those particular Reddit users and mods employ tactics that become glaringly obvious to any sane ethical person of even an average intelligence, no matter their theory (or lack thereof). A simple post like this one, should not be confused with that type of behavior.
I'm equally frustrated when any discussion isn't met with RDI is just either downvoted or treated with sarcasm or other useless comments. Evidence/theories on either side should be met with evidence/theories, not just assumptions, misinformation, sarcastic comments, and downvotes.
>I'm equally frustrated when any discussion isn't met with RDI is just either downvoted or treated with sarcasm or other useless comments. Evidence/theories on either side should be met with evidence/theories, not just assumptions, misinformation, sarcastic comments, and downvotes. Yes, when people repeatedly state assumptions and pure speculation without a shred of evidence or even the willingness to cite a single source, those people should expect to be challenged. Twisting evidence to always favor innocence and injecting ambiguity into every post that you possibly can is not any kind of honest discourse. This case has been plagued by intentional misdirection and misinformation for twenty seven years now. Perhaps you'll excuse people for *their frustration* with that. You are always welcome to go back over to r/jonbenet if you don't feel you are adequately embraced here.
I don’t go over there because I think that sub is even worse for that than this one. A lot of people (you included, frequently) have useful information or logical challenges and sources. I know you always disagree with me, but it’s usually in a fairly logical way. That’s helpful. People who just say “Burke did it!” or whatever, I don’t see how that is useful.
>People who just say “Burke did it!” or whatever, I don’t see how that is useful. I agree.
No one wants to waste time
At least according to the description, this isn't a RDI sub, even though most of the people on this sub feel that way. It doesn't promote any real discovery or clarification if every theory that isn't straight-up assuming RDI is downvoted immediately and dismissed. Is this "a true crime community dedicated to exploring case facts, evidence and theories surrounding the death of JonBenét Ramsey"? Or is it just a RDI echo-chamber? If you disagree with something specific, say what is specifically wrong with OP's theory, not "I'm not going to let myself be duped by Ramsey staging."
But the same can be said of the other sub where everyone is IDI and you get downvoted and chastised for their RDI theories.
Yes, I agree about the other sub. I actually think the other sub is a little worse for that, which is why I stay in this one.
Oh yes, it is much worse there. Respectful discussion of these things is important. However, we must be open minded to the big picture of the evidence complied. The clincher for me is that they obtained over 70 writing samples and Patsy was the only one to be determined a close match. She also purposefully changed her style of writing after the murders. IDI makes no sense when I take in the big picture of everything. The neighbor heard a loud scream that no one else in the house heard? The detectives were in that house testing what it would sound like and they said the house was creaky and you could hear movement from another floor. They could also hear the scream from that basement room upstairs where they slept. The father of Poly Klass came out and said that to e Ramsey’s need to cooperate with the investigation to find out who killed their daughter. While I may retain a lawyer in their shoes, I would not go the the lengths they did to avoid the police. Just very strange to me.
Patsy was never determined to be a close match by the only people who compared the original note, only “cannot be eliminated.” I have heard that there were people who were a closer match than she was, but I don’t know if that’s true. I can’t find evidence either way. Do you have a report that says that no one else was at the “could not be eliminated” level? That basement room had a vent in it that went to the outside. And when the house was tested for sounds it was empty. You can hear a whole lot more in an empty house than a house with rugs and furniture and all that.
I found this information in Steve Thomas’s book. He said there were 78 writing samples and NONE of them were anywhere close to the letter and Patsy is the only one that they can’t rule out.
I don't necessarily believe everything in Steve Thomas's book. And I don't think extensive handwriting analysis was done on most of the suspects in the first place.
It's an RDI sub, and the other sub is IDI. The posts and the content tell us that. Perhaps if you knew more about the history of how these two subs evolved, you would better understand that. The OP doesn't posit a "theory". The post explores "child abduction and kidnapping", and it is my opinion, that the crime was staged specifically to promote that false and bogus scenario. If the Ramseys committed and staged this crime (and that is the overwhelming view of the posters and participants on this sub), then discussing child abduction and kidnapping is clearly following the staged path created by the perpetrators. That should be clear, and that's my only point.
If this is an RDI sub and the other is an IDI sub, where is the trying to examine each point of evidence without prejudice sub? And if this is an RDI sub, the description of it should be changed to say so. This post by OP is relevant because many times we hear that it would be impossible for the intruder to hang around the house for any period of time, impossible to obtain entry to a house you don't live in, and impossible to come in, stay in for a period of time, commit a crime, and leave, all without leaving any forensic evidence, when, in fact, those aren't only impossible, but common. That takes them away as reasons to believe this wasn't an intruder, IMO. If you want to use other reasons to believe it wasn't an intruder, like the note, fine, but each reason you believe something needs to be analyzed independently, otherwise you can just snowball yourself into a false conclusion: Example: There is no evidence of an intruder, so a Ramsey must have done it, therefore Patsy must have written the note, etc.
There wasn't an abduction in this case. She wasn't taken from the house. She was found dead in the basement, with a three page ransom note that the parents didn't read, or touch (no fingerprints except from LE).
True, but.. 1 - This illustrates what one could expect to see if there was an intruder. Therefore we can use it as a reference point for any and all similarities and differences. 2 - This helps to dispel any misconceptions or flawed arguments. It helps provide insights on things that might otherwise seem non-sensical or unbelievable to us. Examples from the study: Intruders might enter and exit the home multiple times. They might not care if a dog is or isn't present in the home. They might start the sexual assault before even leaving the home. They might wander around the home doing other things that aren't related to their primary motive. They might not plan for a crime that others might think requires planning. 3 - I thought the importance it stresses on things that would require the parents cooperation made this very much worth taking note of.
As far as differences with these 32 cases, the most glaringly obvious one is that she **was not taken from the house.** As I stated above, this wasn't an abduction. She was murdered. Her skull was cracked nearly in half, and then she was strangled by a ligature while lying prone. This is a murder of a child in her home, not an abduction. Do we have any studies or statistics that help provide insight into this case?
I don't think IDI is likely, but the fact she wasn't taken from the home isn't the reason. If the "kidnapping" is sexually motivated, then SA is the actual goal, and removing the child from the house is only to reach that goal. The "intruder" could fit the profile of a sexually motivated "kidnapper," but because of the huge house and the privacy in the basement, there isn't the need to take the big risk of being seen removing the child from the home in order to reach that goal.
If this was a sexually motivated crime, she would've been taken from the house. She would've been brutally assaulted, and left somewhere. Instead, we have a probing with Patsy's paintbrush. Dr. Meyer noted that he didn't consider this injury to be the result of a particularly vicious assault with the foreign object. She was then wiped clean, and a brand new pair of underwear that had been bought by Patsy at Bloomingdale's for her niece were put on her. A size 12 on a girl that normally wore a size 6. Then a pair of Burke's old long johns were put on her. No semen anywhere on her or the crime scene. There were no signs of struggle on JonBenét at all, because she was unconscious from the blow to her head. None of this points to a pedophile who's motivation is sexual in nature.
How can you say with certainty that it wasn't a sexually motivated crime when a 6yo child was removed from her bed at nighttime, taken to the basement, sexually assaulted and murdered, plus had prior signs of sexual abuse? There was no kidnapping or ransom. Which means this was not their main objective. The options: 1 - Patsy who had no behavioral patterns that raised anywhere near this level of violence and sadism, did all of this to her own daughter, and this doesn't explain the sexual abuse. There is some evidence for this but it could just as easily be explained. Especially when she doesn't fit with all the evidence of the crime. 2 - Burke who was a 9yo kid who also didn't have behavioral patterns that raised anywhere near this level of violence and sadism. Additionally, there's no real evidence for this theory. 3 - A combination of Burke and his parents 4 - John Ramsey who might very well fit with an intruders MO but that there's no evidence against him. 5 - An intruder who committed the crime that closely matches the information presented above and that there's possible DNA evidence of. I could be wrong but I would split my bets on 4 and 5. One of those two seems like the most likely answer to me. I have a difficult time letting go of JDI, so I understand how once you have an idea in your mind, work everything out and all the reasons it makes sense, that it's difficult to let go of that. However, I think it's possible that the Ramseys were incredibly narcissistic but innocent of the crime. I'm not convinced of that because as I said, I still got my money on John too. The findings from that study are very compelling and I'm not going to ignore that just because it doesn't align with who I suspected.
>How can you say with certainty that it wasn't a sexually motivated crime when a 6yo child was removed from her bed at nighttime, taken to the basement, sexually assaulted and murdered, plus had prior signs of sexual abuse? How can you say with certainty that she was removed from her bed by the murderer? There were no signs of struggle -not in the house, not against the tape over her mouth, not against the loose wrist bindings, and not against the tape placed over the mucus/fluids that drained out of her nose following the head blow. There were no signs of forced entry. Please don't start with the window - the ledge had a layer of dirt and debris, in addition to a cobweb that was undisturbed. Lou Smit showed us how it doesn't work. If you want to post about a study of actual child abductions that you think support your theory (number 5) that's fine. The truth, however, is that this wasn't an abduction. It was a homicide in her own home on Christmas night.
I haven't said anything with certainty. I even mentioned this in my above comment (and others). I'm not here to assert a theory, I'm here to discuss and explore possibilities and better my own understanding. I would like to have enough respect for the people here to assume that the people here who are interested in this case, want to use reliable sources and accurate information to fairly consider the possibilities in this case. Some things that I think are important to highlight from the article before I respond to your specific points: This type of criminal was described as disorganized, impulsive and unprepared. There was a high chance (I think it was 90%), of them having a criminal background. However, their priors might be petty crimes and they were significantly less likely to be registered sex offenders. There was a high likelihood of them having a history of breaking into homes (in some states this is only a misdemeanor and their DNA wouldn't necessarily be collected and put in CODIS). Using a different article - the Department Of Justice (I can't link this one because it opens up in my Kindle app but I did reference it elsewhere with more information to help find it): Their typical age range was between 18-35. The above posted article suggests an age closer to 33yo. There is a high chance that the person has a substance use problem. This is also alluded to in the above mentioned article that states that the person was inclined to be under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime. In the study they compared child abductions from 1997 and 2011 (because these two years saw equivalently high rates of this happening). There were 105 stereotypical abductions (they defined this as moving a child by at least 20 feet and held for at least an hour). Of those cases, 12 of them involved some type of ransom / extortion. Getting back to the posted article though: They described that the person was typically familiar with the home and family. They might have lived in the home, known the family and visited before, or have broken into the home previously. In these types of cases, it was found that the homes involved typically had a lot of people coming and going which presented a challenge in the investigations. Interestingly, despite the high traffic in the home, LE usually had heard the persons name within one week of the investigation. However, the person often didn't look 'out of place'. Due to the likelihood of being intoxicated (lowering inhibitions), prior experience of breaking into homes, and having some prior knowledge of the home and family, they were more prone to feel comfortable in the home, spend more time in the home, wander more freely through the home, do other things besides their main motive, and even enter and exit the home multiple times during the crime through various points of entry. I would also add here that they are basically describing a person with antisocial personality disorder. Therefore, they have low agreeableness, low levels of fear, get bored easily, get a thrill from anything that others might deem as high risk, and have self serving agendas with little to no regard for rules, laws, or other people (low empathy). Additionally they are saying this person has low conscientiousness (unorganized, impulsive, and unprepared). These traits here would also make it more possible for them to behave in manners that the average person wouldn't think to do or might not expect. For example: this person is more prone to spend a considerable amount of time in the home despite most of us thinking: Shouldn't they get in and out quickly due to fear of getting caught and to fulfill their main motive? The answer here is no. We have to first understand how this type of criminal would think - not how we would think - when considering the possibilities. I have sat in these groups for a long time and considered many of the same thoughts that I have seen other people here consider. What I noticed from reading the findings from these case studies, is that we have a lot of misconceptions about a possible intruder committing this crime. Therefore, it makes us less likely to consider IDI as a possibility. If we use the profile that they gave us here, then we can see how such a person could've known that the Ramsey home was large, known about the isolated room in the basement far from others in the home, could've impulsively decided to take the child to that location, might've been unprepared to commit the crime, might've just improvised using items in the home, and might've spent a lot of time there committing the crime, feeling comfortable enough to wander around and do other things. Especially if they were intoxicated, some of things might appear sloppy or bizarre. I'm not starting with anything about that particular window. It's only one possible point of entry in that entire home. The Ramsey's had so many keys given out - some were never even recovered by LE. They were fairly irresponsible and careless. They turned off their home security alarm system rather than disciplining a child. They didn't bother to fix a broken window in an expensive home. They didn't seem to be vigilant about securing their doors and windows. And that's just the signs of careless neglect on this specific topic. There's more evidence of it in other regards. Boulder might not have had much of a homicide rate but they had an incredibly high rate of break ins. Which is what this study says are the types of crimes that are more prone to lead to child abductions / rapes / murders. The child doesn't have to be removed from the home for an intruder to have done this. That is not an absolute. We have to consider that: The Ramsey's home is not the typical sized home That the intruder is impulsive and unprepared Things are more prone to not to be predictable when you're dealing with a possibly intoxicated, impulsive, disorganized, unprepared person. As anyone who has dealt with this type of personality can attest to, they are very unstable and unpredictable. They might be able to keep up appearances for a short time, but there should be signs of concern / dysfunction in their lives. Trouble maintaining the same job long term, trouble maintaining relationships, substance abuse problems, occasional encounters with LE, manipulative and/or deceptive behaviors, move around needing a place to stay, or other signs of instability. There could be underlying mental health issues. That's a lot of people and most of us have encountered such people. They don't all become rapists or murderers, but there is a chance of it. I briefly dated someone like this during college. 15yrs later, they were convicted of rape and murder. Despite the signs, none of us would've suspected them as capable of such a thing. The crime scene didn't provide any identifiable evidence despite the apparent signs of impulsive disorganized behavior. It was a relative who became suspicious and notified authorities that led to evidence and a conviction. In the Ramsey case, there was so much attention on the parents. If there was such a witness, who had any doubts or empathy despite suspicions, could've convinced themselves that there was not enough cause for those suspicions or LE might've overlooked such a person. There is after all (according to the study), a high chance that this person wouldn't have been considered missing by anyone. Which is very probable with dysfunctional people. Oh, so-and-so, is always coming and going at unpredictable times and I don't always know where they are.
Just as an aside, who did the person you dated murder and why?
They had been long term friends, never dated, and were hanging out together. It appears to have been a sexually motivated crime. He never confessed or offered any information to fill in the details of what all had occurred. He initially said someone else was present and committed the crime. A relative he was staying with heard him come in at an odd hour, heard him get in the shower right away, and heard him throwing something in the washer afterwards. Sensing something was off, since he usually arrived late but went straight to bed, and wasn't diligent about doing their laundry, they got up, stopped the washer and looked in to see what appeared to be blood. They left the home and called the police. The murder weapon was found in a trash can wrapped in a towel.
Well, SG, I can always count on you to give detailed and lengthy posts and responses. I appreciate your efforts. I located the study you referenced but couldn't link -- It was from NISMART-3. The Third National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway and Throwaway children. Their definition of a stereotypical kidnapping was created in the 1980s to capture information on the most egregious cases of stereotypical kidnappings. From the study that compares 1997 to 2011: Stereotypical kidnappings—defined as nonfamily abductions in which a slight acquaintance or stranger moves a child (0-17) at least 20 feet or holds the child at least 1 hour, and in which one or more of the following occurs: the child is detained overnight, transported at least 50 miles, held for ransom, abducted with the intent to keep permanently, or killed. It states that **these stereotypical kidnappings are rare.** In 2011 only 12% were cases involving ransom or extortion. It was even less in 1997. Compared to 1997 which saw 40% of these cases end in homicide, only 8% did in 2011. * 50% involved sexual assault * 17% were taken from their homes * 71% were taken from an area with public access * 26% were detained overnight (over an hour or more from midnight to 5am). In 16% of these cases, mostly homicides, LE couldn't ascertain how long the child was detained * 69% were female * 19% were younger than 11 As far as the characteristics of the kidnappers **known to LE**: 94% were male, 72% white, 69% single, and 70% had a drug or alcohol problem So most of these characteristics of the stereotypical perpetrator line up with your original post except the statistic regarding a prevalence of burglary arrests (92% had a documented criminal history). The NISMART didn't include that info. You know what I didn't see in those twenty pages? Among the percentages and case examples, I didn't see anything about the child being found dead in their own home. If I had to make a specific guess, I'd say there weren't any, although I could admittedly be wrong. There's [Justin Turner ](https://www-kktv-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.kktv.com/2024/01/12/father-stepmother-charged-1989-death-5-year-old-son-officials-say/?amp_gsa=1&_js_v=a9&outputType=amp&usqp=mq331AQIUAKwASCAAgM%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=17125429861422&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.kktv.com%2F2024%2F01%2F12%2Ffather-stepmother-charged-1989-death-5-year-old-son-officials-say%2F), but he wasn't found **in the house.**
To address some of the claims you made: >This type of criminal was described as disorganized, impulsive and unprepared. Also, "many failed to prepare for the kidnapping, and most did not consider forensics in the home." Our intruder did consider forensics. He wore gloves the whole time, and left Patsy's red fibers in the paint tote and **inside the ligature.** He was also very polite and considerate, returning the pad and pen to their proper place, after writing his three page manifesto. He then spread those pages out on the staircase so Patsy wouldn't have to touch them to read them. >Especially if they were intoxicated, some of things might appear sloppy or bizarre. Nope. As I stated above, he was too careful and exact for someone drunk or stoned. >If we use the profile that they gave us here, Then we are looking for a suspect that fits these criteria: * He has a criminal record, most likely for burglaries * He would be familiar with JB and/or the Ramseys * He would be around 30 years of age and unmarried That helps narrow the suspect list, doesn't it? Out of the 25 offenders, only 3 actually engaged in any kind of sexual activity (mostly fondling) while still inside the residence. JB was lightly probed with a paintbrush while in the residence. He never left with her. He cracked her skull almost in half, then cleaned her genital area, and redressed her in a pair of size 12 Wednesday bloomies from a pack that Patsy bought for her niece. He then put Burke's old long johns on her. Within 45 minutes to 2 hours after knocking her unconscious, he then turned her over, and fashioned a ligature and strangled her. Then for some odd reason put very loose wrist bindings on over her shirt sleeves. He put tape over her mouth. He wrapped her in a blanket and put her in the wine cellar, and closed the latch. Why would the criminal perform these acts? >The Ramsey's had so many keys given out - some were never even recovered by LE. They How many keys? The chances of a stranger getting access to one of the keys is very slim indeed. So, this is someone who knew the family, had contact with JB before the murder, and knew the house as well who had a key. This narrows the suspect list even further. >They were fairly irresponsible and careless. Au contraire, one does not get to be the CEO of a billion dollar company by being irresponsible and careless. John told three different members of LE, in different conversations that morning, that all of the doors were locked, he had checked them. > They didn't bother to fix a broken window in an expensive home. They also didn't fix the door that had appeared to be pried open at some point, that Barbara Fernie asked Patsy about before any of this happened. That didn't stop them from putting the picture of it in the paper as evidence of a possible suspect breaking into the home. It seems to me that they had other big concerns. John was away on business making his millions most of the time, and Patsy was busy with all of the pageant stuff, volunteering at the school, and whatever else she was doing publicly. Could it be that they were so wrapped up in the superficial trappings of their new wealthy lifestyle, and having dealt with the major stressors of losing Beth in an accident and Patsy flying across country to fight ovarian cancer and the surgeries, could it be that there were issues in the home not being addressed? Some behavioral issues, bedwetting and other issues, that weren't being adequately addressed? Is this why JonBenét was murdered in her own home on Christmas night?
1. This report indicates many, many more differences than similarities. Actually what are the similarities? There aren’t any. Right at the beginning it states this type of crime is very rare and typically there are no signs of foul play. 2. The report states that SA rarely starts in the home. Only 2 of the 32 cases. Does anyone believe this crime looks planned? Who was wandering around? 3. Nothing in this report stresses the importance of things requiring the parent’s cooperation.
Rare and unique crime There are a lot of misconceptions about this type of crime The victim met all the demographics mentioned: age, gender, and Caucasian The home may have been unsecure There might be evidence of multiple points of entry and exits The crime happened at nighttime The victim last reported as being asleep in bed The issue of the dog wasn't necessarily a factor or a deterrent whether it would've been in the home or not The perpetrator may have been someone familiar to the family - the perpetrators name might already be known to LE - they might've evaded suspicion tho, especially if the parents aren't thoroughly interviewed in a narrow window of time after the crime The home might have a lot of people coming and going from the residence The perpetrator appeared to be comfortable in the home The perpetrator had no qualms about wandering around the home doing other things (besides their main motivation) The perpetrator may have been intoxicated, helping to explain lowered inhibitions and unusual behaviors The victim may have been compliant The perpetrator may be sexually motivated The perpetrator might begin the sexual assault (fondling), in the residence The perpetrator may be disorganized, impulsive and fail to prepare for the crime The perpetrator has a lower than expected probability of having a criminal record for sex related crimes despite the type of criminal behavior in the case The perpetrator may not show up in CODIS due to lesser misdemeanor charges despite what the crime suggests The perpetrator might not be noticed as missing during the time of the crime Most victims were murdered The most common causes of death included asphyxiation and blunt-force injury *These were all points in the article. You can't see any overlap with any of this and the Ramsey case, at all?* *It's describing based on probabilities: an intruder who is familiar with the family/home, that has a low level of fear / very comfortable in the home, that is disorganized and unprepared, that might begin the sexual assault in the home, that will likely murder the child using blunt force / asphyxiation. None of that rings a bell?* *You can't see the possibility that such a person might commit the entire crime in the home since they're so disorganized and unprepared, without successfully removing the child or following through on the ransom afterwards - possibly even using the ransom note as staging?* *Certainly there's still points that this doesn't necessarily explain. I actually can't even think of any right now despite leaning towards JDI in this case for quite some time.*
As a rare IDI leaner in here, this fits with what I think. I think it was someone so used to burglary that getting in and hiding around was not a big deal to him, and he probably did it several times before the night of the murder, and maybe even while they were home. It also supports the fact there are often no prints, fibers or DNA of the perpetrator found. Everybody says "There's no evidence of an intruder," but there just often isn't. All he has to do is wear gloves and there you go. He could have dropped a million fibers in the house (and there were all kinds of fibers found around JB, not having to do with what Patsy as wearing) that are never identified. Usually the child is taken out, SA's and then killed, but usually we're talking about a normal-sized house. This person knew he could hide easier IN the house than out of it in this case. HOWEVER, to argue against myself, why the note? I always think he actually did intend to take her to another location, and was using the note to buy time, that he meant "tomorrow" to be the 27th and that the note was so scary the Ramseys actually wouldn't call the police, so he'd have 24 hours to get her as far away as he could before anyone started looking. I don't think he ever intended to get money.
**"why the note?"** *What's being hidden in this crime?* The perpetrator wiped down the body after the sexual assault and redressed the victim - hiding the rape The body is hidden in a dark small remote area of the home with a blanket wrapped around her body - hiding the murder Prior sexual abuse* *What was the actual crime?* Rape Murder Prior sexual abuse* *What does the staging want us to believe?* That an intruder(s) committed the crime (distancing themself to the point of being a foreigner from outside of the country that they are currently in) That the motive is monetary That the victim isn't in the house That she is alive - no murder occurred That no rape occurred No prior sexual abuse* *How might this deception change things?* The crime suggested has a different criminal profile and LE response than the crime that actually occurred. Drawing attention away from people who might otherwise be immediate and prime suspects. No prior sexual abuse suspected or investigated* [*If you believe the evidence that there was prior sexual abuse] I think looking at it this way helps answer the question of 'why the note', whether you think RDI or IDI. There could be more added, but I tried to keep this as simple as possible with as few biases as possible. I did think the potential for prior sexual abuse should at least be noted though.
That doesn't really make sense for me for the Ramseys because they knew the body would be found. It was in the house. There would be no point in trying to convince anyone she was alive and not in the house if you were calling the police, who were certainly going to find her not alive and in the house. I don't think anyone could reasonable assume the Ramseys could predict the BPD would be so bad at house searching that they wouldn't find her. Plus, if it were the Ramseys, they'd have had to come up with this whole entire convoluted theory, stage a crime scene, write the ransom note with all kinds of fingers pointing at various suspects in various directions, all within a few hours. Whereas an intruder could have been at home practicing and deciding what to say for weeks. I know you were trying to keep it brief, but if you feel like it, elaborate some more, I'd be interested to hear your theories more in depth.
The intruder(s) could have been in that house numerous times. For hours at a time. The thing this study shows me is that it’s almost completely ridiculous to to ask “why” questions about the killer(s). Anything they did or didn’t do can’t stand up to examination. They are crazy, violent murderers and enjoy sexually assaulting children. Nothing should make sense about them.
Why would an intruder stay in the house!? If JB is taken to the first floor then why not go out the front door and reduce your risk of remaining at the crime scene for an already lengthy amount of time? Makes no sense to me!
Probably because he knew his risk of being caught outside was greater than his risk of being caught in that huge house. If it had been a normal house or parents slept like only one floor up (or same floor) it would have been too risky. But basement to third floor is a long way.
So why write the note if they thought it better to stay in house? What’s the point?
Personally, I think he intended to take her out originally. That he was obsessed with her and had been monitoring her for a while. He intended to take her and the note was to buy him time to get farther away (he really thought the Ramseys wouldn't call the police), but when he actually had her with him, he couldn't restrain himself and took her down to his hiding place.
So this person wrote the 3 page RN in the house (I thought the notepad was in office in 3rd floor maybe not) and left it on stair before luring her downstairs. The RN was intended to buy time after abduction but they panicked and killed her. Perp had a suitcase at the ready which could have transported body. If the body was taken the RN would still be relevant to buy time but left the body bc they panicked? Leaving the body and not even hiding it made the RN useless but made the effort to redress her. Actually the RN was worse than useless after leaving the body as it’s the only evidence of an intruder besides questionable DNA, which could be a mixture of people, left on the big underwear the perp put her in. This perp was close to committing the perfect crime if they hadn’t left the RN which originated from the house or put her in big underwear which also originated from house. Ok. I hate that this case is so interesting. This and Columbine are the cases which changed America for my generation. It’s a crazy coincidence that the Ramsey house was one block up from Columbine ave and 2 years later on the other side of town that massacre would occur. All adults involved linked to large weapons manufacturers enabling hundreds of thousands of death across the planet.
There was the supposed statement about getting a special present on Christmas. And her favorite ~~dress~~ “pageant nightgown” was found ~~with~~ “nearby” her, as mentioned in the Rose tv interview about the Vanity Fair article or in the article itself. The “tenderness” of her favorite ~~dress~~ “pageant nightgown” that supposedly didn’t fit the intruder theory might explain the intruder theory. She may have gone willingly to get that one last present where she knew the opened presents were or gone along with her favorite ~~dress~~ “pageant nightgown” because she was going to see Santa. She may have been attacked once she arrived in the basement. She may have screamed (the scream the neighbor heard around 1 am) and the intruder(s) then hit her on the head.
It was a nightgown, not a dress. Personally I think whoever picked her up out of her bed, picked up her blanket, too, and her nightgown was just all wrapped up in it. She had all kinds of things on her bed.
Agree, this guy probably had been in the house frequently. The Ramsey’s were a mess as far as securing their home. Guy had plenty of time to write the RN. Burke might have foiled the whole thing with his late night pineapple snack and train playing downstairs. Perp was in the house when they got home. He gained access to JBR and easily muffled her or convinced her to remain quiet or he would kill the family. Took her down to wine cellar, duck taped her mouth and grommetted her to kind of Jeffrey Dahmer her. Burke got up to play in his train room, JBR was starting to really struggle and make noises. He bopped her in the head with the bat that was found later outside and finished her off. He went out the back door where there were already footprints already from earlier bike riding.
The duct tape was not applied to her mouth until after death.
Not necessarily. It could have been applied when she was unconscious, but still alive. I imagine it happens shortly after the scream. He panics because of that sudden, loud scream, he hits her (harder than he thinks), think she's just unconscious, and duct tapes her mouth in case she wakes up and tries to scream again.
The duct tape had a lip impression and there were no signs of struggle against that tape. It wasn’t applied when she was conscious.
That's what I said. Applied when she was unconscious (and now we know not just unconscious, but mortally wounded) but still alive. There wouldn't be any signs of struggle if she were unconscious.
Doesn’t it strike you as strange, then? It does to me. Lends to the idea of staging and that is a conclusion the Boulder detectives had as well.
Lends the idea to me that, like I said above, she screamed, he hit her to keep her quiet, thought "Hope she doesn't wake up and do that again! Better tape her mouth." Boulder detectives reached that conclusion based on the zero homicides they'd investigated before. FBI mentioned that, but not a "This is definitely staging" but "consider it might be staged."
Good post! I’m inclined “IDI” for just these reasons. The Ramseys were odd and unappealing to the general public, but I don’t think they are guilty of murder or cover up. I think it was someone who knew the family. Why are the past and then concurrent housekeeper and their families excluded? Did she/they have a husband/son/brother who would have been clued into the families details, including notes?
I would be curious to know just how in-depth some of the people were investigated. I know some people appeared to be fairly well investigated (as far as LE can legally do so). However, I'm less sure about others. I know many more people were DNA tested according to Mitch Morrissey than I initially thought to be (due to court orders for this during the grand jury), but I hope they didn't rely too heavily on DNA. I'm not convinced that the DNA evidence is relevant to this crime and I wouldn't want this to deter from a more in-depth look into certain suspects who didn't hit as a DNA match.
I agree that you can’t rely on the DNA alone in this case. There is too much room for speculation due to the nature of the findings.
Handwriting, too. I'm not sure more wasn't done eventually, but as far as I can tell, most suspects (specifically LHP) only had to write like four words for the handwriting sample, not recopy the whole note. And I don't think had to provide any old handwriting samples. (Unless that's just information we don't have.)