I’m very confused.
Weren’t the Ramseys cleared of all suspicion years ago?
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
As to the note, yeah, it demanded $118,000, which was the same as Ramsey’s Christmas bonus, but it didn’t say anything about the bonus and there’s no reason it couldn’t have been a coincidence.
[/QUOTE]
This part always seemed weird to me. It’s an odd amount, and for the killer to ask for that same amount… just seems off.
Wouldn’t a kidnapper ask for $100,000 or $200,000? Okay, I don’t know what the killer/kidnapper was thinking, and sure, it could be a coincidence, but for him or her to just pull that figure out of thin air?
I’m not arguing for their guilt, I’m just saying…
I understand the new DNA testing clears them, but I can’t help but think they the Ramseys) knew more that what they were telling.
[QUOTE=Lamar Mundane]
Not really comparable cases. Both of these were actual kidnapping cases where the child was taken from the home.
[/QUOTE]
Which didn’t stop people from doubting that they had actually being kidnapped. Thus the comparison.
In the end the cases turned out to be different, but at the beginning a lot of people saw all three as a case of “parents are ‘strange’, they must be up to no good”.
Here:
This was even *after *she had turned up.
It was much worse outside the Dope. The Van Dam had it really bad, swingers are not exactly popular in mainstream society.
[QUOTE=BiblioCat]
This part always seemed weird to me. It’s an odd amount, and for the killer to ask for that same amount… just seems off.
Wouldn’t a kidnapper ask for $100,000 or $200,000? Okay, I don’t know what the killer/kidnapper was thinking, and sure, it could be a coincidence, but for him or her to just pull that figure out of thin air?
I’m not arguing for their guilt, I’m just saying…
I understand the new DNA testing clears them, but I can’t help but think they the Ramseys) knew more that what they were telling.
[/QUOTE]
Somehow Jon-Benet knew of the bonus when her abductor was asking about how much he should ask ask for a ransom?
[QUOTE=Ludovic]
Somehow Jon-Benet knew of the bonus when her abductor was asking about how much he should ask ask for a ransom?
[/QUOTE]
She was only six years old. Do you think she was that involved with her family’s finances? That seems like a stretch.
Also, the ransom note always bothered me as well. Why do you break into someone’s home and then sit down and handwrite a two page ransom note? Why not do it beforehand?
Also, and I don’t have a cite, but an FBI expert took apart the wording of the note and concluded that it was bullshit. The kidnapper said that he represented a “small foreign faction”. Nobody describes themselves that way.
Also the note told Mr. Ramsay to get plenty of rest as he would need it. Again, why would a kidnapper care about whether you have had the proper amount of sleep?
Give me money or the girl dies. One sentence. Not two pages of fluff.
http://www.statementanalysis.com/ramseynote/
Here is a good analysis of the ransom note.
[QUOTE=jtgain]
http://www.statementanalysis.com/ramseynote/
Here is a good analysis of the ransom note.
[/QUOTE]
I find that anaylsis to be specious and tendentious from start to finish – and what’s with the random Christian proselytizing?
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I find that anaylsis to be specious and tendentious from start to finish – and what’s with the random Christian proselytizing?
[/QUOTE]
What Christian proselytizing? He simply mentioned a statement that the Ramsey’s made in their church bulletin a year later and compared it with the ransom note.
Since they were Christians, it is also legitimate to look at their views about God “watching over” someone.
But how do we know that the guy didn’t write the note beforehand?
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Especially when DNA is available. There’s no longer any question that the DNA in this victim’s undergarments belonged to the killer, nor is there any question that said DNA does not match anyone in the family. Ergo, the Ramseys have to be innocent.
[/QUOTE]
Maybe I read too many detective novels, but I think the logic in this post is deficient. (Disclaimer - I never really followed the details of the Ramsay case.) This new DNA discovery would prove that someone else was present on the evening of the murder. It does not prove that the Ramsays are innocent. In theory, they could have been present, accomplices, using gloves, or probably other possibilities. Note that I am treating this as a logic exercise such as you see in fiction, not trying to be a real life homicide detective.
[QUOTE=Freudian Slit]
But how do we know that the guy didn’t write the note beforehand?
[/QUOTE]
The note was written on stationery from the Ramsey kitchen and by a pen in the Ramsey home.
So what WAS the purpose of the ransom note, given that she was actually dead in the house? Did he intend to abduct her at the time he set down the note, only to kill her unexpectedly? 
[QUOTE=Tom Tildrum]
So what WAS the purpose of the ransom note, given that she was actually dead in the house? Did he intend to abduct her at the time he set down the note, only to kill her unexpectedly? 
[/QUOTE]
That’s the $64,000 question. According to the link I provided, there was never a kindnapping plan, only a note to cover up a murder..
[QUOTE=Tom Tildrum]
So what WAS the purpose of the ransom note, given that she was actually dead in the house? Did he intend to abduct her at the time he set down the note, only to kill her unexpectedly?
[/QUOTE]
This is the question I always have. How do we know the note wasn’t originally written with the intent of actually carrying out an abduction (and the killer could have been in the house alone hours before the Ramseys got home – plenty of time to write a long note), an accidental killing happened secondly (I believe Michael Baden has said he thinks the cord around the neck was part of a sex ritual and that the death was accidental) and the killer fled without the body?
I’m also a bit baffled by the language of the DA’s exoneration letter. She writes:
[QUOTE=Boulder DA]
Unexplained DNA on the victim of a crime is powerful evidence. The match of male DNA on two separate items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of the murder makes it clear to us that an unknown male handled these items. Despite substantial efforts over the years to identify the source of this DNA, there is no innocent explanation for its incriminating presence at three sites on these two different items of clothing that JonBenet was wearing at the time of her murder.
[/QUOTE]
On the face of it, this seems to say that, previous to the touch DNA test, they were open to the possibility that maybe there was an innocent explanation for the unidentified male DNA on her underwear. But matching that underwear DNA to another sample on the long johns forecloses that innocent explanation.
I don’t understand. What is the possibly innocent explanation for the underwear DNA? And what changes now that it’s matched to the long johns?
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
This is the question I always have. How do we know the note wasn’t originally written with the intent of actually carrying out an abduction (and the killer could have been in the house alone hours before the Ramseys got home – plenty of time to write a long note), an accidental killing happened secondly (I believe Michael Baden has said he thinks the cord around the neck was part of a sex ritual and that the death was accidental) and the killer fled without the body?
[/QUOTE]
We don’t know much except that some none familiar DNA was found on the clothing and the body.
[QUOTE=Tom Tildrum]
I’m also a bit baffled by the language of the DA’s exoneration letter. She writes:
On the face of it, this seems to say that, previous to the touch DNA test, they were open to the possibility that maybe there was an innocent explanation for the unidentified male DNA on her underwear. But matching that underwear DNA to another sample on the long johns forecloses that innocent explanation.
I don’t understand. What is the possibly innocent explanation for the underwear DNA? And what changes now that it’s matched to the long johns?
[/QUOTE]
Because “touch” DNA is just that. A worker in the garment factory could have left sweat on the article of clothing.
But since the same DNA is from two different articles of clothing that she was wearing, you can count out that “innocent” explanation. The DNA from both clothing sources did indeed touch both of those articles of clothing that she was wearing when she was killed, and that DNA did NOT belong to any member of the Ramsey family. Big news..
[QUOTE=jtgain]
Give me money or the girl dies. One sentence. Not two pages of fluff.
[/QUOTE]
But wouldn’t that sort of reasoning apply equally well to writing a fake ransom note to cover a murder? Especially considering that if I had killed someone, I’d really want to minimize the amount of material for the handwriting analysts to work with.
[QUOTE=jtgain]
Because “touch” DNA is just that. A worker in the garment factory could have left sweat on the article of clothing.
[/QUOTE]
But if I’ve been reading everything correctly, it wasn’t touch DNA that had already been found on her underwear. The touch DNA came off the long johns, but there had previously been a conventional finding of unidentified male DNA on her underwear.
So my question is, why wasn’t the previous finding of unidentified male DNA on her underwear sufficient to exonerate her family back then?
Someone broke into the Ramsey’s house then either:
Abducted JonBenet, molested and accidently killed her in the same house where her whole family was sleeping, wrote a ransom note to cover up the murder and then left, leaving the body in the basement?
OR
Abducted JonBenet, wrote a ransom note expecting to get money from John, then decided to molest the child while her whole family was sleeping upstairs, accidentally killed her, put the body in the basement and left, leaving the ramson note in the house?
Either scenario stinks to high heaven.