Comments
1 - 20 of 92 Comments Last updated Jan 27, 2013
First Prev
of 5
Next Last
Archimage

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Jan 11, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

JonBenet was a child beauty queen contestant which means she when to several beauty pageant competitions. At one of these competitions she meet her killer, her killer was unimportant someone who faded into the background. In fact the killer could be around one of the pageant mothers all day and if you were to ask her she wouldn’t even recollect the killer had been there. This was JonBenet’s killer someone who felt small and unappreciated a man who worked around several spoiled undeserving children and their fat cat parents. A man envious of everything that others had that he did not. At some point he formulates a plan to get the money he believes he is entitled to.
The night JonBenet was murdered the events most likely took place like this: the killer and his accomplice waited for a night when the parents would be out and the children would be home alone. They had planned this out for some time they went to the house where are killers familiarity with the girl allowed enough trust to be allowed in without alarm. It was strange that are killer was there but although not a close friend he was well known enough for his presence not to cause any alarm to the girl. He leaves the door unlocked and proceeds to entertain the girl until his accomplice arrives.
While waiting he cuts up some pineapple for the girl until his accomplice arrives. Once the accomplice arrived the killers try to subdue the girl by tying her up and gagging her. Unfortunately, she fights back and at some point the girl is accidently killed. It takes a while for what just happened to sink in; they know ransom is out of the question. There panicked now, they know they need to do something; after the initial panic has worn off they realize the parents will be coming back soon and they hide the body.
Next they attempt to cover their tracks by leaving a distraction both for the family and the police. They had already written a ransom note, but they were going to deliver it to the house after the family had realized the child was gone. Since they did not have the actual ransom note they hurriedly rewrite the note they had already written. To make it more convincing they write down the instructions that were in the original ransom note. However, their hurried and working against a clock the writer misspells words and even forgets a “not” in the note. After they finish the copy note it is read over, the writer realizes he has forgotten a not and quickly adds it in either an unconscious reflex or the thought that if the note did not make sense the police might see that it’s a red hearing.
They leave the girl’s body in the basement and leave the ransom note in plain view so they will not discover the girl. Along with the statement in the note warning against calling the police the accidental murders know that they should now have enough time to escape. Once all is done they leave the house unlocking a window and leaving clear footprints in order to give the illusion an intruder kidnapped the girl. Their cover-up completed to the best of their ability our killers are now able to do what they do best fade unnoticed into the background and disappear from everyone’s thoughts.
Archimage

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Jan 11, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

To anyone interested in my reasoning for this let me know and I will gladly post them.
The Truth Hurts

Oak Park, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Jan 11, 2013
 

Judged:

8

8

6

I think you need to learn the facts about the case before you present a theory. ;)
(I say this because you've gotten so many of them wrong.)
Archimage

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Jan 11, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

The Truth Hurts wrote:
I think you need to learn the facts about the case before you present a theory. ;)
(I say this because you've gotten so many of them wrong.)
That was just an idea of what could have happened but the point was a family member seems unlikely because of the note. The note its wrong, what I mean is the girl was killed and hidden in the house; there was no way the body was going to be missed so why the note? If they really wanted to collect on the ransom it would have made more sense to take the body. Still this could have been panic due to the accidental murder of the victim.
Another point is the ransom note itself it looks like it was written by an eight year old. Some of the bigger words are misspelled and at one point a ^ is written in where a not should be. This letter was supposed to be written beforehand, who leaves a “^ not” in it? The handwriting looks disguised but why the make to look illiterate? And for me, the biggest point the note says the money is to be split between $20’s and $100’s; if it was her brother who accidently killed her and the parents were trying to cover it up with a bogus ransom note wouldn’t they have just said $118,000.00 in one-hundred dollar bills or just the sum of money. Therefore an kidnapping gone wrong looks more probable.
The main theories of this case are family or an intruder; I don’t think either of these is correct. In the case it was reported the girl ate pineapple before her death. A bowl of said pineapple was found in the kitchen but the family said they didn’t put it there. Since there seemed to be no real evidence of struggle or screams heard an intruder seems unlikely. What would make more sense is that JonBenet knew her killer someone who was overlooked because they are there but unnoticed. I would bet someone she met at the beauty pageants she frequented someone who probably helped her out every now and again a person she felt meant her no harm.
The reason I further expect someone at the pageant is in the note itself “use that good southern common sense” the description suggest a familiarity with the victim and her family but all the friends and neighbors would have been checked out. Another comment is “fat ones” not fat cats so I thought what kind of people most often out their child in a beauty pageant? Just a suggestion but I would look into people at the pageant someone in the background, someone everyone knows but no one notices.

Since: Dec 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Jan 12, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Archimage wrote:
..........her killer was unimportant someone who faded into the background. In fact the killer could be around one of the pageant mothers all day and if you were to ask her she wouldn’t even recollect the killer had been there. This was JonBenet’s killer someone who felt small and unappreciated..........
Isn't that the other Ramsey kid, the boy? The one the mama couldn't put a dress on and perm his hair all fancy. That boy is the killer

The father focused on the children of his first nuclear family. He was just a sperm donor for the second crop.

Since: Feb 12

Honolulu, HI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Jan 12, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

The Truth Hurts wrote:
I think you need to learn the facts about the case before you present a theory. ;)
(I say this because you've gotten so many of them wrong.)
I agree... What most of the RDI cannot realize, is that an intruder cannot be created with nothing, and there is no credible evidence to support an intruder.
CC
Fancypants

Lincoln, NE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Jan 12, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

come on, all those people in the house? where did they park? No fingerprints, dna, footprints? It is a narrow street, close neighbors, no one saw or heard a thing. Who is going to camp out in a strange house that is occupied. Burke did it, the parents protected him. He was their child, they loved him too. No point in loosing both kids.
Fancypants

Lincoln, NE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Jan 12, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

too many people in the house moving around. What if the kid screams, or somehome the folks wake up. Are perps going to hang out and look for a pen and paper to write a 3 page note and then tidy up? It was the boy and a coverup.
Archimage

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Jan 12, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Fancypants wrote:
too many people in the house moving around. What if the kid screams, or somehome the folks wake up. Are perps going to hang out and look for a pen and paper to write a 3 page note and then tidy up? It was the boy and a coverup.
Originally I agreed and I am not saying its not possible but the ransom note bugs me. Why the split in cash it was written by the family to protect the son wouldn't they have just asked for one lump sum of money? why the instruction for some in 100's and the rest in 20's? that to me sounds like it was thought through originally. I think the parents knew more then they were telling but the note does not look like a cover up for a family murder.
Archimage

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Jan 12, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Fancypants wrote:
come on, all those people in the house? where did they park? No fingerprints, dna, footprints? It is a narrow street, close neighbors, no one saw or heard a thing. Who is going to camp out in a strange house that is occupied. Burke did it, the parents protected him. He was their child, they loved him too. No point in loosing both kids.
Actually its not as unusual as you might think. There was a professor in New York who took his class to a basketball game. Throughout the game the professor and his TA's asked the student about the game. Most gave different accounts, half way through the game a man in a gorilla costume was released onto the court. When the students were asked about the gorilla half of them said "what gorilla?". People always see but they rarely observe and often forget what they consider common. Now think about it if your house were being watched by an inconspicuous person would you or your neighbors, who have there own lives to deal with, really notice him? In my experience people don't notice things unless it affect them personally.
The Truth Hurts

Plymouth, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Jan 12, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Archimage wrote:
<quoted text>
That was just an idea of what could have happened but the point was a family member seems unlikely because of the note. The note its wrong, what I mean is the girl was killed and hidden in the house; there was no way the body was going to be missed so why the note? If they really wanted to collect on the ransom it would have made more sense to take the body. Still this could have been panic due to the accidental murder of the victim.
Another point is the ransom note itself it looks like it was written by an eight year old. Some of the bigger words are misspelled and at one point a ^ is written in where a not should be. This letter was supposed to be written beforehand, who leaves a “^ not” in it? The handwriting looks disguised but why the make to look illiterate? And for me, the biggest point the note says the money is to be split between $20’s and $100’s; if it was her brother who accidently killed her and the parents were trying to cover it up with a bogus ransom note wouldn’t they have just said $118,000.00 in one-hundred dollar bills or just the sum of money. Therefore an kidnapping gone wrong looks more probable.
The main theories of this case are family or an intruder; I don’t think either of these is correct. In the case it was reported the girl ate pineapple before her death. A bowl of said pineapple was found in the kitchen but the family said they didn’t put it there. Since there seemed to be no real evidence of struggle or screams heard an intruder seems unlikely. What would make more sense is that JonBenet knew her killer someone who was overlooked because they are there but unnoticed. I would bet someone she met at the beauty pageants she frequented someone who probably helped her out every now and again a person she felt meant her no harm.
The reason I further expect someone at the pageant is in the note itself “use that good southern common sense” the description suggest a familiarity with the victim and her family but all the friends and neighbors would have been checked out. Another comment is “fat ones” not fat cats so I thought what kind of people most often out their child in a beauty pageant? Just a suggestion but I would look into people at the pageant someone in the background, someone everyone knows but no one notices.
The main thing wrong with your theory is that you said the "intruder" waited until the parents were gone before he/she entered the home. The parents were there all night and the kids were never alone.

"Fat ones?" Never heard that before. "Fat Cats" was used and John was familiar with his friends and cohorts "The Atlanta Fat Cats." (He was probably considered one of them.)

Why would an intruder (familiar with JB or not) feed her pineapple? That makes no sense at all. Why would you believe the family when they said they didn't put the pineapple there? Patsy and Burkes fingerprints were on the bowl. No one elses were.
Heloise

Heywood, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Jan 14, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Another issue I have with this theory is the idea that they wrote the ransom note to buy themselves time. The best way of buying themselves time and the best chance of escape would have been not wasting time writing a ransom note in the house where they risked being caught in flagrante.

For me, it's just not feasible for an intruder to have fed JonBenet pineapple and to have kept her alive long enough for it to reach the stage of digestion we know it reached without being apprehended by someone in the family. Didn't Burke say that you could hear the fridge door opening from his bedroom?

Since: Jul 10

Crimson Tide Bulldozed

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Jan 14, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

There is just so much wrong with the theory according to the facts we know, that I can't even find a starting place to discuss it. All of the fact corrections alone would make the post sound mean, and I don't want that. Suffice it to say it couldn't have happened this way for many reasons.
Heloise wrote:
Another issue I have with this theory is the idea that they wrote the ransom note to buy themselves time. The best way of buying themselves time and the best chance of escape would have been not wasting time writing a ransom note in the house where they risked being caught in flagrante.
For me, it's just not feasible for an intruder to have fed JonBenet pineapple and to have kept her alive long enough for it to reach the stage of digestion we know it reached without being apprehended by someone in the family. Didn't Burke say that you could hear the fridge door opening from his bedroom?
Archimage

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Jan 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The Truth Hurts wrote:
<quoted text>
The main thing wrong with your theory is that you said the "intruder" waited until the parents were gone before he/she entered the home. The parents were there all night and the kids were never alone.
"Fat ones?" Never heard that before. "Fat Cats" was used and John was familiar with his friends and cohorts "The Atlanta Fat Cats." (He was probably considered one of them.)
Why would an intruder (familiar with JB or not) feed her pineapple? That makes no sense at all. Why would you believe the family when they said they didn't put the pineapple there? Patsy and Burkes fingerprints were on the bowl. No one elses were.
Yes sorry I misread the report but the fact that the parents were home suggest even more that the killer was someone she knew a person she would have had to reason to fear. because although it would have been strange for him to be there at the time he was known enough to the child not to raise any alarms.
also the pineapple that the main point if the parents were trying to cover up an in family murder why would they lie about pineapple? there is no point to it. An untold truth that no one likes to admit is that the stranger and more ridiculous a story sounds the more likely it is to be true. And just for my personal curiosity would you have lied about pineapple in the same situation?
Archimage

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Jan 14, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

DrSeussMd wrote:
There is just so much wrong with the theory according to the facts we know, that I can't even find a starting place to discuss it. All of the fact corrections alone would make the post sound mean, and I don't want that. Suffice it to say it couldn't have happened this way for many reasons.
<quoted text>
Congratulations you have just said this is wrong because its wrong and I don't need to prove it because it so obvious. In math we are taught an answer without proof is worthless I say is you can not argue and defend your position you have no right to take up that position in the first place.
Archimage

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Jan 14, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

The Truth Hurts wrote:
<quoted text>
The main thing wrong with your theory is that you said the "intruder" waited until the parents were gone before he/she entered the home. The parents were there all night and the kids were never alone.
"Fat ones?" Never heard that before. "Fat Cats" was used and John was familiar with his friends and cohorts "The Atlanta Fat Cats." (He was probably considered one of them.)
Why would an intruder (familiar with JB or not) feed her pineapple? That makes no sense at all. Why would you believe the family when they said they didn't put the pineapple there? Patsy and Burkes fingerprints were on the bowl. No one elses were.
One last thing I know the official writing of the letter says fat cats but look at the original poorly written not it looks more like Fat Ones than Cats unless I am reading the wrong letter. other than that How do you account for the Split in the ransom money?
Archimage

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Jan 14, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Heloise wrote:
Another issue I have with this theory is the idea that they wrote the ransom note to buy themselves time. The best way of buying themselves time and the best chance of escape would have been not wasting time writing a ransom note in the house where they risked being caught in flagrante.
For me, it's just not feasible for an intruder to have fed JonBenet pineapple and to have kept her alive long enough for it to reach the stage of digestion we know it reached without being apprehended by someone in the family. Didn't Burke say that you could hear the fridge door opening from his bedroom?
Not necessarily, minutes of planning is worth hours of work, the note was in plain view to be found first so that they would not look through the house and immediately find the girls body. Next the note says don't call the police; naturally they are going to call the police but the delay gives them time. You can see the nervousness in the note when they forgot the not and wrote in if it had been the family they would not have left out the not and would have rewritten the note if they got something wrong. As for the pineapple I suspect the would be kidnapper attempted to get the girl to willing come with them before the unfortunate death.

Since: Jul 10

Crimson Tide Bulldozed

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Jan 14, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

No, I said there is so much wrong that I didn't know where to start in correcting the misinformation without sounding mean.

I will try and find some time tomorrow to list everything, according to the evidence we have all seen, to list out what you have wrong, ergo, why your theory is implausible.

If this is just an opinion on your part, then fine - we disagree.
Archimage wrote:
<quoted text>
Congratulations you have just said this is wrong because its wrong and I don't need to prove it because it so obvious. In math we are taught an answer without proof is worthless I say is you can not argue and defend your position you have no right to take up that position in the first place.
Anti-K

Grande Prairie, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Jan 14, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

Archimage wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually its not as unusual as you might think. There was a professor in New York who took his class to a basketball game. Throughout the game the professor and his TA's asked the student about the game. Most gave different accounts, half way through the game a man in a gorilla costume was released onto the court. When the students were asked about the gorilla half of them said "what gorilla?". People always see but they rarely observe and often forget what they consider common. Now think about it if your house were being watched by an inconspicuous person would you or your neighbors, who have there own lives to deal with, really notice him? In my experience people don't notice things unless it affect them personally.
In his book “The Greatest Show on Earth,” pages 14 and 15, Richard Dawkins recounts an experiment that sounds remarkable similar to the one you cite. A Prof. Daniel Simons of the University of Illinois showed his "subjects" a 25 second film of a half dozen people standing in a circle and tossing a “pair of basketballs to each other.” The “players” wander in and out of the circle as they bounce and pass the ball. The professor’s subjects were told, in advance, to count the number of times that the ball is passed from person to person.

After the “subjects” results are tallied, they were asked,“And how many of you saw the gorilla?”

Nine seconds into the film a man in a gorilla costume walks to the center of the group of “players,” faces the camera and thumps his chest before strolling off. He is on screen for more than a third of the total time of the film. Dawkins provides photographs of this on page 8 of the color pages.

Just one more of many and several experiments conducted over the years that demonstrate the fallibility of eyewitness testimony.

Anyways, I have nothing to say as regards your IDI hypothesis. I barely skimmed over it. I don’t have the time to follow more than one thread at a time here at topix, and I’ve been away for a few days. I can’t remember what thread I was last on or what the conversation was! Oh well, carry on….


AK
The Truth Hurts

Livonia, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Jan 14, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Archimage wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes sorry I misread the report but the fact that the parents were home suggest even more that the killer was someone she knew a person she would have had to reason to fear. because although it would have been strange for him to be there at the time he was known enough to the child not to raise any alarms.
also the pineapple that the main point if the parents were trying to cover up an in family murder why would they lie about pineapple? there is no point to it. An untold truth that no one likes to admit is that the stranger and more ridiculous a story sounds the more likely it is to be true. And just for my personal curiosity would you have lied about pineapple in the same situation?
They lied about the pineapple because either they didn't know she ate it (which I find unlikely since JB could not have gotten it out on her own) or they forgot about it when they told the police that she was asleep when she got home. IMO You can't eat pineapple (or anything else) in your sleep, you know. ;)

There is simply no way anyone would sit around the Ramseys home with the family sleeping nearby and feed the child anything. How does that make any kind of sense at all?

Would I lie about it in that situation? Well, yes. If I was involved with the murder of my child and it was brought to my attention that the kid I said was sleeping from the moment I got home and that was sleeping the last time I'd seen her had eaten something before her death that indicates I was lying, of course I would. Wouldn't you?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 5
Next Last
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

21 Users are viewing the JonBenet Ramsey Forum right now

Search the JonBenet Ramsey Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Jeffrey MacDonald Is Guilty (Sep '08) 3 hr glazier 7,456
"Mr Ramsey Listen Carefully!" New book released... Thu candy 17
Before I Die Thu Guilty 6
Note-odd detail? Jul 30 Undrtheradar 221
I know what really happened to JoneBEnnet Jul 29 Biz 69
Snow Prints? Jul 29 Biz 34
Sid Wells mother complains (Mar '08) Jul 28 candy 26
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••