It was the wife, first of all. So what is more likely: a random person picked $118,000 out of the air and it just so happened to be close to the bonus, or Patsy, in a panic, grabbed the first figure that came to mind?
Have you read the thread?
To me, this suggests a co-worker of Mr. Ramsey, not Ramsey himself. Hell, it might even be Ramsey’s boss, or a close friend of his, if the killer knew how big the bonus was.
The former, especially given the DNA evidence. Even if flustered Patsy had come up with that number, I don’t think John would have been stupid enough not to tell her to change it. I also don’t think they would have been stupid nough to leave the practice notes lying around.
It’s also possible that someone had become obsessed enough with the girl and the family that he could have found out what Ramsey’s bonus was. The window in the basement had been broken for a while. He could have gotten in on prior occasions and snooped around, or he could have found out through Ramsey’s company somehow, or worked at Ramsey’s company.
As it stands, though, we still don’t actully know that the writer of the note knew the demanded amount was the same as Ramsey’s bonus. That’s an inference, not a fact.
Are a lot of bonuses $118,000? I mean, maybe it’s a more common number than we think.
I think it’s at least possible that all the execs of a certain level at a given company get the same bonus, and that these amounts could become common knowledge throughout the company. The amounts aren’t announced publicly, but it’s not like they’re some kind of highly protected, government secret that no one else could possibly find out.
Yeah…I mean, it may not be something the average guy on the street knows. But if it’s common enough for execs to get that bonus, or all execs that year, maybe they’d know it. I doubt John and Patsy were the only people who knew what his bonus that year was at any rate.
Did the amount in the demand actually match the bonus, by the way? I am assuming so, since people keep saying it, but is it really true? That is, has it been confirmed?
DNA Guy: “So, how’s about I come over later and have some personal time with little JB?”
The Ramseys: “Sure, tonight’s good. We told her she was going to be getting a special visit from Santa.”
DNA Guy: “Heh, heh. I can’t fit down the chimney though, so I’ll come in through the basement window.”
The Ramseys: “Just don’t scare her.”
DNA Guy: “Nah, this is like what, the fourth or fifth time? She knows me. I give her pineapple and stuff she likes.”
Ramseys: “Okay then. We’ll be ‘asleep.’ Remember, JB is our little doll money-maker, so no permanent damage or anything.”
DNA Guy: “C’mon, it’s me. No worries.”
Things get out of hand, little JB gets upset and starts fighting, gets strangled.
The Ramseys: “WTF!?! Oh, shit! Get out of here! Just go! We’ll handle this!”
Mrs. Ramsey: “Oh fuck, fuck, fuck, now what do we do?”
Mr. Ramsey: “Shit, I dunno… write a note. No, not with that hand, use your left hand!”
Mrs. Ramsey: “What should I say? Like, how much is the kidnapper demanding?”
Mr. Ramsey: “I don’t know! Um… shit… just put $118,000. Hurry, just do it! We’ll get through this, just keep your mouth shut!”
There you go. No need to plant DNA evidence.
Yeah, that’s really believable.
Right, I’m not going to beat about the bush anymore - I think the family were pimping their daughter out and it all went pear-shaped. The parents know who the killer is and they are protecting him to protect themself. Prove my supposition is totally unwarranted.
See, I hadn’t even read Levdrakon’s post, so it’s not like I’m the only one with such a suspicious mind.
So what do we have now: an intruder that knew the Ramsey, or had broken into the house before, just so happened to choose Xmas as a good time to break in, so that he could kidnap her? Nope, the note was written at the house so that was not his original intent. Murder her? Then why leave that note rather than run out. Why for that matter hide the body at all? Molest her? Really? His plan was to sneak upstairs while the family was home and take her from her bed so that he could molest her in her home rather than taking her with him. Steal stuff? That sounds like a good time for a robbery? When there are probably dozens of houses nearby that are empty because the inhabitants have gone elsewhere for the holiday?
The only scenario that makes sense is that Jon Benet was killed by someone known to the Ramseys and that they constructed the note to misdirect the police.
Who was it? The son, a parent angry because of bed wetting, a family pedophile, someone they pimped out their daughter to? Any of these make more sense than a stranger breaking into the house on Xmas.
Maybe you would and maybe you would not. They did not, in my opinion, do it fast enough: the police went to the press with their suspicions ofthe Ramseys before her body was even removed from the home. Reporters who covered the case have since said they were fed false information by their police sources. This being the case, it is hard to imagine how anyone could conclude that the Ramseys did not need to protect themselves from the police.
This thread is direct evidence that you do not.
Yes it is
So?
Incorrect. Just plain and simply wrong. Circumstantial evidence can support mutliple theories (and therefore not necessarily exclude all theories). It is when this evidence is collected and corroborated that the prevailing theory will emerge.
This is half right. To be evidence againt the Ramseys it would have to point to the Ramseys. It does (there is no requirment that it do so to the exclusion of anyone else). The rest of this statement is simply incorrect. Circumstantial evidence is not the inference. Circumstantial evidence allows the inference. I have provided the defenition of circumstantiasl evidence and an explanation of how this is evidence against the Ramseys. You argue that it is not circumstantial evidence against the Ramseys because it could lead to other inferences yet you provide no authority for the proposition that circumstantial evidence can only lead to one inference.
This again?
It is your inference which is wrong. The inference that the note had any more probability of being written by the Ramseys than an intruder is a baseless one, hence, it’s not evidence against them.
The “pimping” hypotheses are not only baseless and vicious, but absurd in light of the fact that they were already rich.
Incdentally, has anyone ever noticed that Bill O’Reilly looks exactly like John Ramsey?
The note can be written by somebody else; it doesn’t exclude the possibility of the parents knowing the author. And neither does your famously accurate DNA.
Ransom note from the mysterious drifter knew a bunch of details about John–like that he was Southern…how’d he know that? Just guessing?
Ransom note writer managed to find the secret hidden room to stuff Jonbenet’s body in. The room the police missed the first time through. And left the body rather than taking it out with him, despite wanting a ransom because…um…if the parents found the body, they’d be more likely to pay?
The Mysterious Drifter then wrote a 2 page rambling ransom note. Two pages. With a dead body on his hands. Rather than “We have your kid. Give us $118,000 or we’ll kill her. Don’t contact the cops: we’re watching you. We’ll give instructions later.”
Mysterious drifter was able to kill the kid without waking anyone in the house.
What about the handprint?
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/theory_8b.html
It seems like there had to have been a third party. They could have hired some guy to kill their daughter I guess. Or pimped her out. Though I’m wondering why they’d pimp her out since they were already so incredibly rich.
Because rich people never want to make more money, eh? :rolleyes:
And who says they were pimping her for money?