Why leave a ransom note but not take ...

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#83 Nov 29, 2013
Just thought I would mention, more for newer posters, that I do NOT read Steve Eller’s posts. Not a single word. I do notice when he pops up, and sometimes – sometimes – I notice when he’s replying to one of my posts; but, I have no idea in what way. Just saying...
...

AK
Steve Eller

Bronx, NY

#84 Nov 30, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
Just thought I would mention, more for newer posters, that I do NOT read Steve Eller’s posts. Not a single word. I do notice when he pops up, and sometimes – sometimes – I notice when he’s replying to one of my posts; but, I have no idea in what way. Just saying...
...
AK
Actually the reason that AK does not respond to my posts is because he was thoroughly exposed in his unscrupulous attempts to heavily distort what Kolar wrote about, Kolar's integrity and credentials, as well as a very pathetic attempt to misrepresent the actual DNA evidence in the case. Moreover after those campaigns were well rebuked he tried one LAST and SAD attempt to claim that the Grand Jury did not Indict the Ramseys. When having to walk back comments he claims he 'MISREMEMBERED'. From imperiously proclaiming that Kolar was a hack, that Kolar didn't understand the evidence, that the DNA evidence proved an intruder, to averring that the Grand Jury did not indict and that the rest of us just couldn't speak english or understand law, AK has now been reduced to CLINGING to the ransom note. Very fitting indeed.

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

#85 Nov 30, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, that’s what I’ve been trying to tell you guys!
...
AK
No it is not, but ok, think what you will. We are still speaking of misdirection here, and lots of it. The more idiotic things one does, the less straightforward the scenario appears. Like throwing jello at a wall to see what sticks. You throw it more than once.
robert

Yellowknife, Canada

#86 Nov 30, 2013
docG wrote:
This is an interesting thread. But why am I reminded of stuff I was reading on the forums 15 years ago? Never ceases to amaze me how people can go on and on and on in circles year after year over the same old issues that can't possibly resolve themselves because, obviously, there is something missing.
Reminds me of the old story of "Monday Tuesday," with the "intruder" as Monday and "the Ramseys" as Tuesday.
I've stayed away from the forums for a long time because it just gets too frustrating to try convincing people who simply do not want to be faced with the possibility they could be THAT completely wrong.
What's missing: there was never any such thing as "the Ramseys." Why would anyone ever assume there was? There were TWO people, not one single unit acting in lock step, OK? To solve the case you need to understand what role each played.
Which is what I try to do on my blog: http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/
If you read the comments, you'll see that I've managed to convince a lot of people, and change a lot of minds. But don't be afraid. You need not be one of them. Everyone is invited to comment, no one is being censored, even when they get mad. So come on down!:-)
-- I am slightly swayed by you blog and the replies and comments . I can't see a person having the gull to go on to running for public office and having the baggage that may have been in his hands-- but then again there was Ted Kennedy-- I have not read or heard of all theories , So I ask you to tell me if the following one has been entertained before( I am sure it has)
PR knew JB was being molested-- so she had a club ready-- JR was reliving himself of sexual frustration on JB that night, PR hit at JR and accidently hit a sleeping JB.-- JR Bibleized PR and convinced her that She (PR) was the one who killed JB. The rest is anyones guess at events after that.
I have always considered the head blow came last which counters the above theory and the pineapple was eaten earlier in the day.
Shawn

Saranac Lake, NY

#87 Dec 2, 2013
My suspicion is someone really hated the Ramsey's and hated them so much there primary objective was to take away what they cherished most.
docG

Pittsburgh, PA

#88 Dec 2, 2013
Listening to symphonies and like that is no different, socioculturally speaking, than reading serious novels, going to the theater or viewing artsy foreign films. Sure, "classical music" had its start in the cathedrals and courts of the elite, so what? Those cathedrals are now hosting Christian pop and there aren't any more courts, as you may have noticed. And yet there are probably more orchestras in the world today than ever before. More new music groups also.

When I was young everyone was worried that we wouldn't have any more string players in future because young people were "only interested in" pop and rock. Much to my surprise, however, I discovered, when teaching at my local arts high school, that there are in fact a great many young string players, many more than the days of my youth. And they're better than ever, as far as I can tell.

There is no such thing as "classical music" anyhow, there is just some music that's more challenging, both for the performer and listener, than other music. And that's the kind of music I usually prefer, thank you.
docG

Pittsburgh, PA

#89 Dec 2, 2013
docG wrote:
Listening to symphonies and like that is no different, socioculturally speaking, than reading serious novels, going to the theater or viewing artsy foreign films. Sure, "classical music" had its start in the cathedrals and courts of the elite, so what? Those cathedrals are now hosting Christian pop and there aren't any more courts, as you may have noticed. And yet there are probably more orchestras in the world today than ever before. More new music groups also.
When I was young everyone was worried that we wouldn't have any more string players in future because young people were "only interested in" pop and rock. Much to my surprise, however, I discovered, when teaching at my local arts high school, that there are in fact a great many young string players, many more than the days of my youth. And they're better than ever, as far as I can tell.
There is no such thing as "classical music" anyhow, there is just some music that's more challenging, both for the performer and listener, than other music. And that's the kind of music I usually prefer, thank you.
Sorry but this is NOT what I posted to this website, but something I posted on another site. I have no idea how it got here. Please ignore.

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#90 Dec 4, 2013
Legal__Eagle wrote:
<quoted text>
No it is not, but ok, think what you will. We are still speaking of misdirection here, and lots of it. The more idiotic things one does, the less straightforward the scenario appears. Like throwing jello at a wall to see what sticks. You throw it more than once.
That sums up quite a bit.

The "jello" includes the stun gun, Gigax, JMK, FW, Santa, Merrick and so much more.

They just kept throwing and throwing and luckily, in the end, the GJ saw through all of that despite the "presentation" and the jello

It didn't stick where it was most important and I am grateful for that
Delta88

United States

#91 Dec 4, 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?
It seems unlikely that JR and/or PR could have assumed the police would not find the body themselves. Even LS said one of the first things he'd have done, were he on the scene that morning, is to bring in tracking dogs.(The K9 unit was in fact on standby, but never called in) The dogs would have found the body in a minute or so (IIRC LS put the time at 30 seconds). I don't see how anyone could fail to consider the very real possibility of using dogs. So, basically, to call the police is to give up the body.

Any plan to dump the body would have had to take place prior to calling 911.

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#92 Dec 4, 2013
Delta88 wrote:
<quoted text>
It seems unlikely that JR and/or PR could have assumed the police would not find the body themselves. Even LS said one of the first things he'd have done, were he on the scene that morning, is to bring in tracking dogs.(The K9 unit was in fact on standby, but never called in) The dogs would have found the body in a minute or so (IIRC LS put the time at 30 seconds). I don't see how anyone could fail to consider the very real possibility of using dogs. So, basically, to call the police is to give up the body.
Any plan to dump the body would have had to take place prior to calling 911.
“...to call the police is to give up the body.” Exactly.
...

AK

“WAX ON”

Since: Jul 10

WAX OFF

#93 Dec 5, 2013
To call the police is "moving on" which they did immediately!
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
“...to call the police is to give up the body.” Exactly.
...
AK
The Truth Hurts

Farmington, MI

#94 Dec 6, 2013
Delta88 wrote:
"Anyone else able to think of another reason an intruder might leave behind a ransom note and the body? "
An intruder, no. John, yes. John was going to dump the body somewhere, but Patsy, who was not in on the murder, or coverup, called 911 before John could get rid of the body.
And yet it was John who told Patsy to call 911.
icedtea4me

Saint Louis, MO

#95 Dec 6, 2013
I think the only way it makes sense for the three page note to have been left in the house is if the true intent of the three page note wasn't that of a ransom.
Delta88

Lansing, MI

#96 Dec 8, 2013
The Truth Hurts wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet it was John who told Patsy to call 911.
Are you sure about that?

http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/07/m...

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

#97 Dec 8, 2013
Delta88 wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you sure about that?
http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/07/m...
From the link you provided (CAPS emphasis mine)

CABELL: John, you subsequently read the note. Was there anything in there that struck you in any sense?
RAMSEY, J: Well, no. I mean, I read it very fast. I was out of my mind. And it said "Don't call the police." You know, that type of thing.

AND I TOLD PATSY, CALL THE POLICE IMMEDIATELY.

And I think I ran through the house a bit.
Delta88

Lansing, MI

#98 Dec 8, 2013
Legal__Eagle wrote:
<quoted text>
From the link you provided (CAPS emphasis mine)
CABELL: John, you subsequently read the note. Was there anything in there that struck you in any sense?
RAMSEY, J: Well, no. I mean, I read it very fast. I was out of my mind. And it said "Don't call the police." You know, that type of thing.
AND I TOLD PATSY, CALL THE POLICE IMMEDIATELY.
And I think I ran through the house a bit.
But if you read the whole thing you'll find that PR says, in the A&E documentary, that it was her idea to call 911. In this version JR goes along with her decision, but it's fundamentally different than JR telling her to call.

“If life gives you melons”

Since: Nov 06

You might be dyslexic

#99 Dec 8, 2013
Delta88 wrote:
<quoted text>
But if you read the whole thing you'll find that PR says, in the A&E documentary, that it was her idea to call 911. In this version JR goes along with her decision, but it's fundamentally different than JR telling her to call.
Hmmm, TV program versus transcript?
A crocumentary by Michael Tracey as factual?
Surely you jest?
Delta88

Lansing, MI

#100 Dec 8, 2013
It's not crocumentary vs transcript (though I agree it's a crocumentary). It's the Rs, specifically Patsy, telling one story in one setting, another story in another setting.

In the crocumentary she says it was her idea. In the transcript JR claims it was his idea and she does not disagree.

Neither venue is reliable because the "testimony" is from the Ramseys. Yet the story changes. Was it Patsy who decided to make the call (we know it was she who actually did call) or was it John's idea? It could go either way, but it's telling that some prefer to believe John's version - probably because it tends to confirm their theory of the case. In reality we don't know who decided 911 should be called, we just know PR did the calling.

Since: Oct 08

Grande Prairie, Canada

#101 Dec 8, 2013
Delta88 wrote:
It's not crocumentary vs transcript (though I agree it's a crocumentary). It's the Rs, specifically Patsy, telling one story in one setting, another story in another setting.
In the crocumentary she says it was her idea. In the transcript JR claims it was his idea and she does not disagree.
Neither venue is reliable because the "testimony" is from the Ramseys. Yet the story changes. Was it Patsy who decided to make the call (we know it was she who actually did call) or was it John's idea? It could go either way, but it's telling that some prefer to believe John's version - probably because it tends to confirm their theory of the case. In reality we don't know who decided 911 should be called, we just know PR did the calling.
At minimum, Mr Ramsey allowed Mrs Ramsey to make the call, something that he could have prevented if he had wanted to; something he NEEDED to prevent if Docg’s version of JDI were true.

There is some sense saying that the Ramsey’s, having faked a kidnapping, would not call the police until they managed to dispose of the body. And, from there we can reason that the one who made the call must not have known about the body; but what happens to that argument when both Ramseys are in agreement about making the call?

That logic leads us to an intruder. Because to call the police is to give up the body, and after faking a kidnapping the Ramseys would not, could not, singly or together, allow the police to be called while the body was in the house.
...

AK

“May you all come home”

Since: Mar 07

safely Bless you all

#102 Dec 9, 2013
Anti-K wrote:
<quoted text>
At minimum, Mr Ramsey allowed Mrs Ramsey to make the call, something that he could have prevented if he had wanted to; something he NEEDED to prevent if Docg’s version of JDI were true.
There is some sense saying that the Ramsey’s, having faked a kidnapping, would not call the police until they managed to dispose of the body. And, from there we can reason that the one who made the call must not have known about the body; but what happens to that argument when both Ramseys are in agreement about making the call?
That logic leads us to an intruder. Because to call the police is to give up the body, and after faking a kidnapping the Ramseys would not, could not, singly or together, allow the police to be called while the body was in the house.
...
AK
Hi AK,

Your logic is extremely flawed IF you are willing to consider (as you claim to do), even for discussion sake, that it was one of the Ramseys

What exactly, IF it were a Ramsey would they have done with the body? At some point, the body has to be found and have a "proper burial" At some point, the body would be found anyway.

They couldn't remove the body during the night for reasons that have been discussed many times and Patsy surely wouldn't have left JBR dead in the elements for the animals to scavenge, alone and cold. They even made sure she was in a blanket in the basement of their own home

What would they have done with the body? The Ramseys had no choice but to call the police and start ActI of the play

SOMEBODY had to find the body, which is why they staged the scene in the first place. Initially it is a kidnapping, the police aren't checking for a body, but a missing child, the Ramseys are initially the victims, their friends and neighbors get to ruin the crime scene, and the questioning in a kidnapping in the beginning is a lot less stressful than the 4 months of practice they got to answer questions about a MURDER

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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
News Clooney's restraining order 1 hr stoned luck aka ... 18
In Touch Weekly on the JonBenet Ramsey case 4 hr Undrtheradar 101
News Twenty Times the JonBenet Ramsey Murder Has Bee... 5 hr stoned luck aka ... 7
ICU2 's Child Trafficking (Dec '14) 19 hr icu2 449
Sig 21 hr stoned luck aka ... 61
20th anniversary: JonBenet Ramsey case Fri Heloise 28
Radaronline FOIA - JonBenet Ramsey case Fri Just Wondering 26
More from around the web