Why leave a ransom note but not take ...

Why leave a ransom note but not take the body?

Posted in the JonBenet Ramsey Forum

First Prev
of 12
Next Last
Just Wondering

Sophia, WV

#1 Nov 23, 2013
Admittedly, I am a RDI. But just for the sake of covering all bases and, maybe, just to play devil's advocate can we considerate reasons why an intruder might have done this and left a ransom note after killing the child.

Could there possibly have been a very twisted, envious "friend" who plotted to frame Patsy and watched as the screw was twisted?

There would be devastation upon finding the ransom note that morning--yet a thin thread of hope that Jonbenet was still alive. But then would come the agony of finding their daughter tortured and dead in their basement. Then to watch as the Ramseys would have to struggle to prove their innocence and probably lose credibility with the public and waste their fortune on legal representation.

It would be a cruel game to play on people whom you happen to harbor a secret hatred toward.

Even as I am typing this, I can see how incredibly naïve and fallacious this appears.

Anyone else able to think of another reason an intruder might leave behind a ransom note and the body?
Yes

Lexington, KY

#2 Nov 23, 2013
Kidnapping gone wrong.

Since: Feb 12

San Diego, CA

#3 Nov 23, 2013
Hi JW,
I think even MOST of the IDI will concede that the RN was a phony., but these are the "possibilities".

1. According to Lou Smit, the killer tried to put the body in the suitcase, but it didn't fit, so he left it in haste.

2. It was a mean plot by the murderer, to further punish the Ramsey family.

I think that is just about all, and most will agree, that the RN was not written for a ransom.

I think the biggest question in this case, is if an intruder, WHY the head blow AND the strangulation when either would have resulted in death.

Of course as an RDI, I believe the head blow came first, with the strangulation coming as a part of staging the scene. One thing for sure, is the garrote was "constructed" while the cord was already around JBR's neck, because her hair was entwined in the knots.
CC
robert

Yellowknife, Canada

#4 Nov 23, 2013
The RN wrote before or after death becomes a question-- One thing is she wasn't meant to be found right away because the door to the wine seller was latched.
candy

East Lansing, MI

#5 Nov 23, 2013
This case does have a smoking gun, and it's the ransom note. They weren't able to remove the body from the house, so they would have to explain why the child was "missing", and this was it. No one even tried to collect on the PALTRY amount of a hinky $118,000.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#6 Nov 23, 2013
1. a kidnapper could have intended on murdering and hiding his victim in the house right from the get-go, possibly believing that the Ramseys would not call the police and that he could collect his money before the parents discovered the body (why would they look for it?). Murdering and hiding the body in the house relieves him of the risk of having to handle, transport, hide and return/dispose of his victim and reduces the risk of forensic evidence accruing.
...

AK

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#7 Nov 23, 2013
“We know that offenders are more reluctant to admit sexual motives than other types of motives (e.g., profit, revenge, anger, power). Some offenders may not even realize their true motivation. An offender may eventually request a ridiculously small ransom for a child he had abducted to molest in an apparent attempt to convince others, but primarily himself, that he is not a sex offender”
Child Molesters Who Abduct: Summary of the Case in Point Series” Edited by Kenneth V. Lanning and Ann Wolbert Burgess http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/publications...

2. a molester who happened to kill (as opposed to a killer who happened to molest) could have created the note as a means of hiding from himself and/or others his perverse desires and true motivation. Wiping, redressing, covering body and elements of a kidnapping (cord, tape, note) all could have been done as a means to misdirect.
...

AK

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#8 Nov 23, 2013
3. a killer wishing to direct suspicion towards the occupants of the house (thus, away from him)

4. a killer wishing to create an enduring mystery

5. a killer hoping to create for the parents a sense of false hope mingled with hours of angst and pain reaching its peak when the body is discovered

6. The possibilities are endless and it is a blatant error of reason to say otherwise. The claim that there was “no purpose whatsoever” for an intruder to leave a phony (or real) ransom note is false.
...

AK

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#9 Nov 23, 2013
7. one more, for the fun of it; borrowed from BrotherMoon, with intruder substituted for Mrs Ramsey: An intruder killed JonBenet deliberately. No one else was involved. There was no staging for police. Everything that was done was done by an intruder for the intruder as part of a psychotic fantasy revolving around an imagined relationship with a supernatural being, the fear of judgment by that God and the fear of death. What people mistakingly take as staging for police had symbolic meaning known only to the intruder. This includes the ransom note. There were two aspects to what was done to the body: the ligatures were suspension devices, the body was posed and viewed and then taken down, placed in the small room, wrapped and the duct tape applied to set the kidnapping scene up in the intuder's mind. The ransom note is full of the ideas that swirled in the intruder's mind that night and plagued him for many years.

.

Virtually any reason you can think of for a Ramsey to write the note with the body in the house works just as well for an intruder, and they make more sense. They make more sense because no one writes a ransom note, or even considers to write a fake ransom note if there goal so to explain a body in the house. People only write or consider writing a fake ransom note if they are trying to explain why there is NO body in the house.
...

AK

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#10 Nov 24, 2013
Good morning AK,

The link you provided along with the paragraph is all well and good if you know that the offender was in FACT, a sexual predator/offender, which is not fact in this case.

The crime was made to look like a sexual assault and yes I know she was violated but this was not the assault she would have sustained had a pedophile or other sexual predator been there for such an evil purpose whatever the ultimate purpose was.

Yes she was assaulted and while there is no minimizing that horrible fact, the fact is that she was assaulted IMO and the opinion of many others, to attempt to disguise the prior assault. It was, IMO believed that this would possibly mask the priors.

After all, while I personally believe the Ramseys had addressed this issue somewhat with the "culprit", they would have no way of knowing what, if any real damage had been done or to what extent. The theory for them is that covering up with a fresh assault may hopefully cover any prior injury that may be present. They just didn't know

Also, if a killer wanted to create an enduring mystery, he/she would have taunted either the family, the police, etc. to keep the mystery hot and enjoyable over the years

With an "intruder" that has no name and no boundaries for the sake of discussion because for lack of a better term, IMAGINARY,(at this point) any scenario can make sense when you "imagine" the circumstances surrounding it

With the Ramseys, one has to really really use the facts as they are KNOWN

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#12 Nov 24, 2013
Capricorn wrote:
Good morning AK,
The link you provided along with the paragraph is all well and good if you know that the offender was in FACT, a sexual predator/offender, which is not fact in this case.
The crime was made to look like a sexual assault and yes I know she was violated but this was not the assault she would have sustained had a pedophile or other sexual predator been there for such an evil purpose whatever the ultimate purpose was.
Yes she was assaulted and while there is no minimizing that horrible fact, the fact is that she was assaulted IMO and the opinion of many others, to attempt to disguise the prior assault. It was, IMO believed that this would possibly mask the priors.
After all, while I personally believe the Ramseys had addressed this issue somewhat with the "culprit", they would have no way of knowing what, if any real damage had been done or to what extent. The theory for them is that covering up with a fresh assault may hopefully cover any prior injury that may be present. They just didn't know
Also, if a killer wanted to create an enduring mystery, he/she would have taunted either the family, the police, etc. to keep the mystery hot and enjoyable over the years
With an "intruder" that has no name and no boundaries for the sake of discussion because for lack of a better term, IMAGINARY,(at this point) any scenario can make sense when you "imagine" the circumstances surrounding it
With the Ramseys, one has to really really use the facts as they are KNOWN
Good Morning.

Your last two paragraphs sum up my position rather well. With an intruder, the possible explanations/reasons are virtually endless because the intruder is UNKNOWN. The Ramseys are KNOWN. If you eliminate the UNKNOWN, then you must find some way reconcile the evidence with the KNOWN – the Ramseys. Problems ensue...

No evidence connects prior abuse to the sexual assault that occurred at or near time of death, and no evidence tells us who was responsible for any prior abuse or who may have been aware of any prior abuse, etc. if you start with the Ramseys and work backwards a narrative develops, but if you start with the evidence and work forwards the narrative changes direction.

.

It’s easy to find objections to possible explanations, but we can’t disprove them. The problem is that we can’t prove them, either! We need that UNKNOWN to become a KNOWN before we can set about doing that.
....

AK

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#13 Nov 24, 2013
Capricorn wrote:
Good morning AK,
The link you provided along with the paragraph is all well and good if you know that the offender was in FACT, a sexual predator/offender, which is not fact in this case.
The crime was made to look like a sexual assault and yes I know she was violated but this was not the assault she would have sustained had a pedophile or other sexual predator been there for such an evil purpose whatever the ultimate purpose was.
Yes she was assaulted and while there is no minimizing that horrible fact, the fact is that she was assaulted IMO and the opinion of many others, to attempt to disguise the prior assault. It was, IMO believed that this would possibly mask the priors.
After all, while I personally believe the Ramseys had addressed this issue somewhat with the "culprit", they would have no way of knowing what, if any real damage had been done or to what extent. The theory for them is that covering up with a fresh assault may hopefully cover any prior injury that may be present. They just didn't know
Also, if a killer wanted to create an enduring mystery, he/she would have taunted either the family, the police, etc. to keep the mystery hot and enjoyable over the years
With an "intruder" that has no name and no boundaries for the sake of discussion because for lack of a better term, IMAGINARY,(at this point) any scenario can make sense when you "imagine" the circumstances surrounding it
With the Ramseys, one has to really really use the facts as they are KNOWN
I don’t think that this crime was made to look like a sexual assault.

I think it was made to look like a (fake) kidnapping: the note, the tape, and the wrist ligatures. The only aspect of the crime that appears to be sexual is the penetration at or near point of death. However, the wiping, the redressing, the blanket and the (fake) kidnapping – even the missing end of the paint brush - all suggest a killer who wanted to hide the sexual aspect of the crime.
As for a killer who wanted to create an enduring mystery: intended or not, this is exactly what has happened. The murder of Jonbenet Ramsey is going to be on most Top Ten lists for a long, long time.
...

AK

Since: Feb 12

San Diego, CA

#14 Nov 24, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
I don’t think that this crime was made to look like a sexual assault.
I think it was made to look like a (fake) kidnapping: the note, the tape, and the wrist ligatures. The only aspect of the crime that appears to be sexual is the penetration at or near point of death. However, the wiping, the redressing, the blanket and the (fake) kidnapping – even the missing end of the paint brush - all suggest a killer who wanted to hide the sexual aspect of the crime.
As for a killer who wanted to create an enduring mystery: intended or not, this is exactly what has happened. The murder of Jonbenet Ramsey is going to be on most Top Ten lists for a long, long time.
...
AK
Hi AK,
Looking at everything, don't you think your "theory" is at best, extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible?

This is what I mean. For your killer wanting to hide the sexual assault, and at the same time, put suspicion on the family, it would have to take extreme premeditation, including the fact that the alleged killer left no evidence at all of his entry, exit, or presence of the home, yet spent the time to write the RN, and make the garrote.

These are some of the things that were a must IF there was an intruder.
1. He would have to know at the very least, John Ramsey, but most likely the whole family.
2. He would have to know the home, inside and out.
3. He would have to know where JBR's clothing was.
4. He would have to know where Patsy's art supplies were.
5. He would ask for chump change for a ransom with no intention to collect it.

You agree, that there had been previous sexual abuse,(Which I still don't) yet you are not suspecting a family member? This would mean that the culprit knew JBR, was sexually abusing her, weeks, or months before murdering her then decided to break into the home and murder her?

That makes no sense.
CC

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#15 Nov 24, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
.....No evidence connects prior abuse to the sexual assault that occurred at or near time of death, and no evidence tells us who was responsible for any prior abuse or who may have been aware of any prior abuse, etc. if you start with the Ramseys and work backwards a narrative develops,....
Exactly my point. One has to go with the logical explanation and the unknown can only be logical and sound with at least some real evidence of an intruder. What we have is evidence ONLY pointing inward to the Ramsey home

That said, your "no evidence connects.." above, it goes to my point of a sexual predator not only doing more damage to her but certainly wouldn't take the time to redress, wipe down, etc. One has to ask themselves which makes more sense:

A sexual predator who "minimally" entered her with the point of a paintbrush, wiped her down, redressed her, covered her with her favorite blanket, etc., wrote a lengthy "kidnap" note, etc. etc. and let's not forget that they had some pineapple along the way

or......

someone minimally invading her to cover up a prior molestation of a six year old who was not "available" to others for that purpose, wanting to protect the person who was responsible and taking the time to redress her and try to do this with love, staging a scene to protect someone "else" that they loved

Arguments can be made either way but it comes down to what should be the sounder argument
Gamester

Williamston, MI

#16 Nov 24, 2013
"Admittedly, I am a RDI. But just for the sake of covering all bases and, maybe, just to play devil's advocate can we considerate reasons why an intruder might have done this and left a ransom note after killing the child."

Sorry for not playing along, but there simply isn't a good reason for an intruder to leave the body and a ransom note, there are only fatuous reasons.

By the time the "kidnapper" has JB downstairs, on the main floor, there is nothing to make the kidnapping "go wrong". He'd just exit through the door and into the night. If things "went wrong" before getting to the main floor, how does going down the basement help?

The killer would have to expect the police to search so a plan to hide the body in the house while still trying to collect ransom is very unlikely.

The crime scene did not look as if a sexual assault took place. The evidence of vaginal injuries would only come to light during autopsy. Nothing sexual about the garrotte. The writs ligatures might suggest a bondage game I suppose. No reason for a sex killer to redress the body. No reason for a sex killer to hide the body.

The real question is this - why, in RDI, would the Ramseys expect the police to buy into a kidnapping scenario if the body was likely to be found in the house?

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#17 Nov 24, 2013
Bakatari wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi AK,
Looking at everything, don't you think your "theory" is at best, extremely difficult, or perhaps impossible?
This is what I mean. For your killer wanting to hide the sexual assault, and at the same time, put suspicion on the family, it would have to take extreme premeditation, including the fact that the alleged killer left no evidence at all of his entry, exit, or presence of the home, yet spent the time to write the RN, and make the garrote.
These are some of the things that were a must IF there was an intruder.
1. He would have to know at the very least, John Ramsey, but most likely the whole family.
2. He would have to know the home, inside and out.
3. He would have to know where JBR's clothing was.
4. He would have to know where Patsy's art supplies were.
5. He would ask for chump change for a ransom with no intention to collect it.
You agree, that there had been previous sexual abuse,(Which I still don't) yet you are not suspecting a family member? This would mean that the culprit knew JBR, was sexually abusing her, weeks, or months before murdering her then decided to break into the home and murder her?
That makes no sense.
CC
I have no idea what “theory” you’re referring to. I outlined six or seven scenarios. There are more, and variations of these galore.

As for wanting to hide a sexual assault, that is essentially what this killer did. He minimized the assault, he wiped the area, he redressed the victim; he wrapped her in a blanket and he created the illusion of a kidnapping with tape, wrist ligature and note.
“some of the things that were a must IF there was an intruder” is a bust.

1. He didn’t need to know any of the Ramseys
2. He would only need to know how to find the victim’s bedroom and how to get to the basement.
3. Nonsense
4. Nope
5. He did ask for chump change for a ransom with no intention to collect it. So, one out of five aint bad.
...

AK

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#18 Nov 24, 2013
Capricorn wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly my point. One has to go with the logical explanation and the unknown can only be logical and sound with at least some real evidence of an intruder. What we have is evidence ONLY pointing inward to the Ramsey home
That said, your "no evidence connects.." above, it goes to my point of a sexual predator not only doing more damage to her but certainly wouldn't take the time to redress, wipe down, etc. One has to ask themselves which makes more sense:
A sexual predator who "minimally" entered her with the point of a paintbrush, wiped her down, redressed her, covered her with her favorite blanket, etc., wrote a lengthy "kidnap" note, etc. etc. and let's not forget that they had some pineapple along the way
or......
someone minimally invading her to cover up a prior molestation of a six year old who was not "available" to others for that purpose, wanting to protect the person who was responsible and taking the time to redress her and try to do this with love, staging a scene to protect someone "else" that they loved
Arguments can be made either way but it comes down to what should be the sounder argument
We can forget the pineapple along the way because so far no connection has been made between it and the crime.

You can tweak any of the scenarios I laid out anyway you like. In my proposal I had a killer who happened to molest. For example, he intended to commit murder with no intent to engage in anything sexual, but then, you know, sometimes these things happen, eh. We can make this guy someone inexperienced at something like this, maybe a first-timer, not quite comfortable with his own desires and such, disgusted with himself, he keeps it short and to a minimum, cleans up the mess and tries to hide it as best as possible, staging a kidnapping to misdirect from what he did.
...

AK

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#19 Nov 24, 2013
Gamester wrote:
"Admittedly, I am a RDI. But just for the sake of covering all bases and, maybe, just to play devil's advocate can we considerate reasons why an intruder might have done this and left a ransom note after killing the child."
Sorry for not playing along, but there simply isn't a good reason for an intruder to leave the body and a ransom note, there are only fatuous reasons.
By the time the "kidnapper" has JB downstairs, on the main floor, there is nothing to make the kidnapping "go wrong". He'd just exit through the door and into the night. If things "went wrong" before getting to the main floor, how does going down the basement help?
The killer would have to expect the police to search so a plan to hide the body in the house while still trying to collect ransom is very unlikely.
The crime scene did not look as if a sexual assault took place. The evidence of vaginal injuries would only come to light during autopsy. Nothing sexual about the garrotte. The writs ligatures might suggest a bondage game I suppose. No reason for a sex killer to redress the body. No reason for a sex killer to hide the body.
The real question is this - why, in RDI, would the Ramseys expect the police to buy into a kidnapping scenario if the body was likely to be found in the house?
The question isn’t why would a KIDNAPPER leave a ransom note and a body in the house, but why would an INTRUDER leave a ransom note and body in the house? An intruder does not have to have been a kidnapper.

As outlined previously, there are many scenarios in which an intruder could have intentionally left a ransom note and a body the house. As for a kidnapper intentionally leaving both, he could have simply believed that the extreme threats in the note would prevent the parents from calling the police, so no worries about them discovering the body.

A genuine kidnapping wherein the kidnapper intentionally left the body in the house may seem unlikely, but it is, at least in general, a reasonable explanation. It is also reasonable that someone – a Ramsey -might leave a ransom note if they had removed the body from the house, because a ransom note explains why someone is missing. The Ramseys had the opposite problem, they needed to explain an accident, a body in the house. It isn’t even reasonable to think that they would consider faking a kidnapping, not if they weren’t; going to get rid of the body.
...

AK
Just Wondering

Sophia, WV

#20 Nov 24, 2013
Perhaps the Ramseys' intention, by planting the ransom note, was merely to establish the premise that Jonbenet had indeed been kidnapped. Then they planned on disposing of the body when the police left the home that morning after the ten o'clock deadline had passed--except the police were still there at one o'clock and it was obvious that they had no intention of leaving.

But that doesn't quite fit either. Not if the molestation was staged. Why bother going to the trouble of making a garrote and tying the child's hands unless you expected her to be found?

Could that possibly have been what John was doing during the time that he was "missing"? Realizing that the police were not going to vacate the premises, he staged the body to appear to be the victim of a pedophile?

Would the Ramseys have been naïve enough to think that the police would leave after the kidnappers' deadline had passed?

Since: Feb 12

San Diego, CA

#21 Nov 24, 2013
Just Wondering wrote:
Perhaps the Ramseys' intention, by planting the ransom note, was merely to establish the premise that Jonbenet had indeed been kidnapped. Then they planned on disposing of the body when the police left the home that morning after the ten o'clock deadline had passed--except the police were still there at one o'clock and it was obvious that they had no intention of leaving.
But that doesn't quite fit either. Not if the molestation was staged. Why bother going to the trouble of making a garrote and tying the child's hands unless you expected her to be found?
Could that possibly have been what John was doing during the time that he was "missing"? Realizing that the police were not going to vacate the premises, he staged the body to appear to be the victim of a pedophile?
Would the Ramseys have been naïve enough to think that the police would leave after the kidnappers' deadline had passed?
Well, here is the scenario. Their daughter is apparently dead, with a skull fracture. So, what do we do? Call the police? If you do that immediately, no one else is in the home, so you are forced to tell the truth, that one of the three did the killing.

So, you fabricate a kidnapping, and you stage the scene to make it look like a strangulation.

What happened, is they fooled all of the IDIs, Lou Smit, Alex Hunter, and Mary Lacy. If they didn't fool them, then they BOUGHT them.
CC

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 12
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

JonBenet Ramsey Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Didn't the Ramseys recognize the note pad paper? (Jul '09) 5 min cottonstar 1,010
ARE YOU KATH...? On 911 Call 8 hr Bill 8
Lou Smit email needed (Nov '06) 11 hr Jgenx321 264
Hand Writing Sample Posted on webslueths 5/23 b... 11 hr Tex- 6
It was fruit cocktail in Jonbenet's system (Dec '16) 11 hr Tex- 205
Elevator (Jan '16) 12 hr Tex- 33
Checking on JonBenet during the night (Aug '15) 12 hr berrytea333 54
More from around the web