The Purpose Of the Ransom Note

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by Learnin, Apr 5, 2010.

  1. Learnin

    Learnin Member

    I've kicked this ransom note around for months on end. This most important piece of evidence holds the key to the unlocking of this horrible crime. The author had a motive for writing the note. Of all the motives I have considered, there is one which, I believe, explains the most.

    This motive has probably been brought up, kicked around, and dissected long before I came along on these forums. But, I'd like to throw it out again and get some feedback.

    I believe the panicked author wrote that ransom note, and set up the crime scene, to make it look like a kidnapper was holding the girl in that basement room and killed JBR after the Ramseys notified police. The open basement window, the scuff, the suitcase by the window...all to look like kidnapper got out through there.

    It seems to me that the author overkills this "we're monitoring you", "if we observe you getting the money earlier...." "don't try to grow a brain, John"
    "if you want your daughter to see 1997..." "she dies...she dies..." "the two men holding your daughter don't particularly like you...." "use your southern common sense." Who could monitor the Ramseys reactions easier than someone in the basement of the house?

    Consider the basement scene. The taped mouth keeps the girl from screaming. Why does a dead body need a blanket? Well, the kidnapper tried to keep the girl comfortable while awaiting the money. Why was the body wiped clean? Because the kidnapper was after money and not a sexual assault.

    The author instructs that the money delivery will be exhausting....yet, the kidnapper was lying await in the basement...

    What the author did not figure on is that the police, after arriving, did not find the body...

    If this was the motive, then, this means, almost without a doubt, that one or more parents were involved.....

    Comments? I am open to someone convincing me that this is not a valid motive.
     
  2. Learnin

    Learnin Member

    Something horrible happens and how does one explain the death?

    The perpetrator chose a kidnapping scene with the kidnappers holding the girl in a basement room; a warning from the kidnappers to not grow a brain; at least two holding the girl with others observing from the outside;

    This explains everything that the perpetrator did at the crime scene.

    Why do parents call the police and friends over when the ransom note, right away, warns them to follow instructions to a T if they want to get their girl back? There is only one reason I can think of. Not only do they call the police, but, lo and behold, they call a house full over....duh....what better way to tip off the kidnappers.

    Why wipe the body down and attempt a clean up? Because the kidnappers weren't assaulting, they were demanding money.

    Why the tape over the mouth and the staged tying of the arms? Well, the kidnappers had to keep the girl subdued and quiet, no?

    Why the blanket for a corpse? Because the perp wanted police to think the girl was alive for a while down in the basement with her kidnappers.

    Why Patsy looking at Officer French through splayed fingers as he came up from the basement?

    Why all the repetition concerning what would happen if John "grew a brain?"

    Ockham's Razor. When nothing makes sense, the simplest explanation is the most likely.

    The perpetrator, of this crime, staged a kidnapping where the kidnappers killed the child when parents called police.
     
  3. fr brown

    fr brown Member

    I'm not sure I follow all that, but I think the time of death rules out her being murdered at the time of the phone call to police.

    Wrapping the body is considered a sign of remorse.

    I think if both parents were in on it, John would have stayed with Patsy just to know what she was telling police. Instead John Ramsey shunned Patsy.

    I don't know why the ransom note is so long except that maybe it didn't sound convincing to the writer who kept piling it on to make it sound genuine. Maybe it was also meant to tie John up trying to make sense of it while Patsy called her insulating army of friends.
     
  4. Learnin

    Learnin Member


    If the body had been found at 5:45 a.m., instead of 1 p.m., time of death/ discovery of body could have been within 4-5 hours. A panicked, non-medical professional, may have failed to comprehend that time of death could be so accurately ascertained. There is no such thing as a perfect murder...the perpetrators always overlook something or some things.

    As for John and Patsy's behavior. What if Patsy called 911 before John knew she was doing so? Let's say she got on the horn while John was looking at the ransom note. This might explain why John kept his distance from her and hired separate attorneys.

    But let's say they were both involved in cover up. They might still be at odds over how the horrible incident happened and who was to blame; they could be at odds as to how they should proceed. Maybe one was threatened by the other. "Go along or else I'll......"

    If Burke struck the first blow, they could be at odds about going to the police or covering up....
     
  5. fr brown

    fr brown Member

    According to both their accounts, John was crouched on the floor reading the ransom note at the time that Patsy was calling 911. It couldn't have been easy to read the note down there on the floor so early in the morning in the middle of winter.

    Det. Arndt said that John Ramsey was calm and collected, even smiling and joking, early in the morning until undergoing a change in demeanor, presumably after finding his daughter's body. Fleet White described Ramsey as "puzzled" that morning. It seems to me that Ramsey didn't realize exactly what was going on until he went down in the basement by himself and discovered her corpse.
     
  6. Learnin

    Learnin Member


    Good point.
     
  7. DeeDee

    DeeDee Member

    BOTH the location of the pineapple in her digestive tract and the stage of FULL rigor mortis place the TOD at between 11 pm and 1 am. Full rigor takes about 12 hours to achieve in room temperature. Even though she was in a basement in Colorado in December, it is still considered room temperature, because it is indoors and the air was not freezing. That's forensic science, not conjecture, so not much room for "what ifs". In a tropic climate, with the body out in the heat, full rigor comes on more quickly because decomposition (which breaks rigor) begins more quickly. But that is not the case here.
    The pineapple would have had to be eaten at about 4 am for it to have moved from her stomach to the small intestine where it was found. While that is not impossible, it us unlikely. But the rigor mortis is pretty much not a variable.
     
  8. Learnin

    Learnin Member

    This is all true, DeeDee. I'm just putting forth the possibility that the perpetrator failed to realize forensics could ascertain TOD so closely when coming up with a kidnapping-killing scenario. Come to think of it, maybe the perpetrator wasn't too far off the mark. How long did it take the coroner to arrive at the Ramsey home? Body was found at 1 p.m. and coroner arrives around 7 that night?

    I've placed myself into the shoes of the perpetrator to try and find a motive for that stupid ransom note; one that fits best with the other parts of the crime scene and subsequent Ramsey behavior.

    This was not a kidnapping that went bad but, rather, something that went bad and was made to look like a kidnapping/murder.

    I've looked at this crime scene, for the past several years, and thought it was an attempt, by the perpetrator, to confuse LE because it seems like a hodge podge of conflicting evidence. Was it a kidnapping or a sexual assault? Why two fatal assaults? Why was the body redressed and cleaned? Why leave the body in the farthest reaches of the house?

    But maybe all these things are not conflicting. Maybe everything can be explained by the perpetrator's plan.

    You have a body that bears the marks of an assault with bleeding from the vagina, bruising on the cheek and neck. How explain it?

    The perpetrator decides to make it a ransom/kidnapping which ends in murder because the parents contact the police against clear instructions to the contrary. Who can blame the panicked parents?

    The ransom note is written, body is cleaned and redressed (because this is not a sexual assault but a ransom kidnapping). You can't leave the house (for fear of being seen) so body is placed into a seldomly entered basement room. Tape is placed across the mouth so child cannot scream; arms are bound and child is covered with blanket. (kidnappers not wanting to cause undue discomfort-only wanting money). Basement window is opened, suitcase placed nearby.

    While it is still dark, screams go through the house after ransom note is found...panicked loud 911 call is made......kidnappers hear the call and "behead" the little girl before exiting out basement window.


    It's the best scenario I've been able to conceive which best explains this scene...
     
  9. zoomama

    zoomama Active Member

    Learning,

    You are struggling with trying to find an answer for the RN just as all of us have done for years now. It is the only and best clue in this whole awful murder.

    I take exception to your saying that the perp opened the basement window and placed the suitcase under it. By his own admission (silly that it is) John Ramsey says he broke that window months earlier when he forgot his house key. The suitcase was moved from the nearby wall to under the window by Fleet White by his own telling of that morning. So in your scene you have to exclude those 2 movements as they are already accounted for.

    Years ago when this case was still fresh and new to everyone and esp here, I wrote something about the RN and asked why on earth it was even written. One of the replys I got from someone I don't now recall said that they felt that John was the master of misdirection. His whole actions that day were to make LE look elsewhere at someone else rather than at the house owners so to speak for the perps. And to this day 13 years later he succeeded. Master of misdirection. What I don't understand and I'll ask it again, WHY DID THE RAMSEY'S GET AWAY WITH THIS? Yes, some sloppy police work for sure but District Atty Hunter and gang of thieves with him just dropped the ball. WHY??? Who was John that he held such power or whatever it was? Just rambling here I guess. I still say that if it were you or I we would be rotting in jail from the get go.
     
  10. Learnin

    Learnin Member

    Thanks for your comments. One of the things that hampers our theorizing about this case is that there are so many conflicting stories about what happened and when it happened. Take for instance this broken basement window. Read what is written in PMPT on page 44:

    "White told the detectives that he had been thre only a few minutes when he started to search the house. Alone, he went down to the basement, found some of the lights on, and started calling out JonBenet's name. It was so cluttered down there-with boxes stacked everywhere and shelves overflowing with odds and ends-that he could hardly see any open spaces where she might be. he started in Burke's train and hobby room, where HE SAW A SUITCASE SITTING UNDER A BROKEN WINDOW. ON THE FLOOR UNDER THE WINDOW, HE FOUND SMALL PIECES OF GLASS. HE PLACED SOME OF THEM ON THE WINDOWSILL. THEN HE MOVED THE SUITCASE A FEW FEET TO GET A CLOSER LOOK AT THE WINDOW...." (emphasis mine)

    This sounds to me that the suitcase was right under the window and White moved it away to get a closer look at the window. Glass was still under that broken window. I cannot fathom that any one would leave broken glass lying on the floor in a basement where children play.

    I know that someone will direct me to other testimony, or transcripts, which contradict what is written here in PMPT. But this is just my point. There are so many little things, things which are so critical in the investigation of this crime, that are missing for we who do not have access to the truth contained in the investigative files. It's these little things (for instance, did White move the suitcase under the window or away from the window), that make a big difference.

    When I'm confronted with these conflicting reports, I tend to accept the testimony that best fills in the gaps. As you wrote, this crime scene was an attempt at misdirection. This is why I believe the testimony presented in PMPT. I believe the mastermind, of this scene, staged an exit through that basement window...I believe the suitcase was right under that window and the mastermind placed it there.

    I believe John Ramsey poo poohed this broken basement window utilizing reverse psychology....John took Fleet into that room so Fleet could see that broken basement window before discovering the body. When Fleet mentioned it, John was too cool about it in my estimation. THIS WAS A BIG FREAKING FINDING, NO? Someone entered your house and took your daughter; LE tells you to go through the house and look for something unusual...there's a broken basement window....regardless of how the window was broken...would you not go upstairs and tell LE that you found a possible point of entrance????

    John poo-poohed it and downplayed it to distance himself from the staging, IMO. John wanted Fleet to be the first to say something about it just like he wanted LE to find the body but they failed to do it, IMO.
     
  11. Learnin

    Learnin Member

    I agree that you or I would be rotting in jail for sure. I believe that, when the body was discovered, the parents should have had their rights read to them within minutes.......
     
  12. DeeDee

    DeeDee Member

    I have a crystal-clear idea in my mind as to why the note was written, and like Occam's Razor- it is the simplest one.
    There was a dead child in the house. There needed to be a reason for it. The truth was not an option. A kidnapping/ransom note provided the PERFECT way out. With the 911 call, (the other part of the equation) the Rs violated the first rule of ALL ransom notes- call police and the victim dies. There was the explanation for the dead child right there. You called the cops, so we killed her.
    What the Rs didn't think about was how odd it would be for the alleged kidnappers to leave body there. A body can still generate ransom money, and you don't really even have to tell the parents she is dead.
    I think they simply could not bring themselves to leave her body outside somewhere.
     
  13. Learnin

    Learnin Member

    It certainly is the simplest and most logical of explanations.
     
  14. Elle

    Elle Member

    For me the whole scenario was overdramatized because it was Patsy Ramsey creating a play in her head of the whole scenario which had taken place probably after returning home from the White's party. Taking hours covering up the accidental death of her daughter JonBenét. To arrive at the door with not a hair out of place when the first cop arrived after the 911 call says it all for me, plus John and Patsy's strange behaviour, and making sure Burke was ushered out of the house.

    I agree DeeDee, the Ramseys could not leave JonBenét out in the cold.
     
  15. fr brown

    fr brown Member

    This isn't about the purpose per se of the ransom note; it's about elements below the level of consciousness. I read about it on another website (which I can find again if anyone's interested). It may have been thoroughly covered here in the past, but I didn't find it when I looked.

    The author noted that the ransom note phrase "if you want her to see 1997" is an echo of two phrases in Patsy's 1996 Christmas letter: "we'll be seeing the orthodontist in 1997" and "look forward to seeing you in 1997."

    The author also noted that Patsy littered her letters with alliteration (sorry) viz. "flag football...basketball binge," "few fleeting." The ransom note, of course, contains "foreign faction," "adequate...attache" and "brown...bag."
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2010
  16. Elle

    Elle Member

    Isn't this just another form of analysis which has already been expertly done by Delmar England and Cherokee on this very forum fr brown? Yes, I understand perfectly what you're saying here, and I agree with this theory of "elements below the level of consciousness." Patsy's similarities of expression relate to the ransom note style.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 13, 2010
  17. fr brown

    fr brown Member

    I don't remember Cherokee's or England's analyses mentioning either of the particular literary tics or devices I mentioned in my post, but I apologize if I overlooked them. I try to avoid being repetitive--or patronizing.

    I made an error when I said that the ransom note contained "few fleeting." That was in Patsy's 1996 Christmas letter. I'll try to fix that now.
     
  18. Elle

    Elle Member

    Oh geesh FB I truthfully haven't read Cherokee's and Delmar's analysis/analyses for quite some time, but they were excellent relating to the style and content when I read them a few years ago. I'm a Senior Senior now and don't have the same patience you younger ones have here. I know from your posts you are a very intelligent young man and probably know what you're talking about. No need for apologies. :)
     
  19. Elle

    Elle Member

    Oops! Made a mistake. I thought I had opened my post to correct an error.
     
  20. koldkase

    koldkase FFJ Senior Member

    I believe the Ramseys got away with it because they had help, and lots of it.

    The missing cell phone, the blank record for the month of Dec. 96, with lots of activity before that month, but no subpoena ever issued for the Ramsey phone records, obstructed by Hunter himself, never obtained by Lacy--to this day, no one has ever subpoened those phone records that we know of. Yes, it would be too late probably, as someone had to have the power to erase that cell phone record for Dec. 1996 when it was finally "cooperatively turned over" a year later, but the full records might have been sitting in the BPD evidence room all these years, obtained illegally by a private company for a tabloid, with the owners prosecuted and the evidence gathered. Thomas spoke to this in his book, saying those phone records were walked past the Ramsey case detectives who were told, you will never see them. Thomas could see the fix was in from the beginning.

    That's tantamount to obstruction of justice any way you slice it. But not Hunter, not Lacy, not the Ramseys, no one has ever answered for that critical decision in this murder investigation.

    Think about that: if LE had but gotten the Ramseys' complete phone records, the case could have been solved inside of a week.

    This is a sticking point in this murder investigation for me because is it so blaringly ignored by both sides of the investigation. Only Steve Thomas ever spoke about it, in his book, when he described how Hunter crippled the BPD with his repeated interference in the most simple of investigative protocol. The Ramseys' clothes were never subpoenaed, either, right? At least, they were never even requested until nearly a year after the murder.

    The Ramsey lawyers were given police report after lab test result after control of the very investigation through Hunter and Lacy. What private citizen gets that treatment? Especially the prime suspects? Why?

    I believe the Ramseys had big help, through connections with Lockheed Martin. I believe they called for help that very morning, long before they called 911. I believe they were coached and helped to figure out how to mislead LE, while LE was already being reached out to in the form of Hunter, through Bynum, possibly.

    I think mistakes were made, because there wasn't a lot of time to work this out. The plane would be ready, the big kids would be in Minnesota awaiting the parents, along with a fiance. The help in Charlevoix would be wondering where was the family. Friends and relatives would be calling as per usual. So the longer the staging took, the less likely it would be successful.

    I don't think it was an accident that Dr. Meyers showed up so many hours after the body was found, either. How much he knew, who knows, but in a county of maybe 100K, with many gone at Christmas, he claimed he had other "calls" he had to finish first. I don't think so. Even if he did, how likely is it he wouldn't have dropped everything, ordered to do so by someone higher up the food chain, to attend the body in the murder of a child in a wealthy home, in the sole murder that year in Boulder? One excuse is that the BPD was getting search warrants before Meyers could show up. BS. They knew that morning this was going to be a crime scene any way it turned out. They should have been working on those search warrants by 7 am at the latest, just for the house. A coroner does not have to have a subpoena to attend to the body of a murder victim, either. Time is critical, and Dr. Meyer wasted it rather spectacularly, even though LE had been in the home all day already, as well. He didn't do the autopsy until the next morning. Why would Dr. Meyer do that?

    It's flat out jaw-dropping how the Ramseys were not even searched when they left the home, not taken to the BPD for questioning immediately. Unbelievable. How did Arndt, who we now know was a weak detective, get left alone in the house for hours with 8 or 9 civilians, her calls for back up ignored when she finally realized she needed help? The detective became unglued, which resulted in one of the worst crime scene blunders in crime history. Her boss knew that either there were child kidnappers on the loose, maybe terrorists, or the child had met an even worse fate at the hands of her own family, yet left Arndt there without one other office. Why would they do that?

    John Ramsey had a lawyer inside of a few hours after the body was "found." His wife had one within days, before their child was even buried. The Ramseys began refusing to talk to LE by that evening, excuses in place, lawyers in place. They should have been arrested then, LOU SMIT SAID HIMSELF, and taken to the BPD. But they weren't.

    One of the D.A.'s prosecutors who apparently wasn't in on the cover up, at least that day, said he had to tell the BPD to get some crime scene techs in the house when they were ready to leave that evening, all done. While the BPD might not have been experienced homicide detectives, how fast do you think a police chief could have figured out the crime scene where a murdered child was discovered in a rich family's home needed the best response possible at the end of the 20th century? The FBI was there, in the background; Agent Walker said he told the BPD that morning by the second time Walker read the ransom note that they would find a body. There were people on hand who knew exactly what was going on and what to do--but for some lame reasons given, all obvious, common protocol was abandoned post haste. Those in charge of following the book and doing the same jobs they did every day as professional police officers in a highly educated and wealthy population suddenly became bumbling cops who didn't know which end was up. Why was that?

    Hadden and his firm of lawyers were the most powerful defense attorneys in the state, connected all the way to the White House. Lockheed Martin is one of the most powerful defense contractors in the world, working for governments world wide, including the U.S. Defense Dept. They're at the cutting edge of technology, power, and influence. John Ramsey was a CEO for Lockheed Martin. He traveled for the company overseas. He should have been trained in protocol when kidnapping is a worldwide problem for rich corporations and has been for many decades now. A Denver lawyer who worked for Lockheed Martin in security at the time of the kidnapping has said in interviews on TV and in articles that he questioned why he never heard a peep from anyone when the child of a CEO was supposed to have been kidnapped, cops on the scene, child missing, with a ransom note left by a "foreign faction" who specifically named John's company as the impetus for the crime. Other executives and their families could have been in danger, but no one was called at LM security, no one alerted, no practiced and specific response to just such a situation was ever set in motion. Shadow also spoke about this: it's very fishy.

    I know what I think. Even if it sounds too much like a "conspiracy theory" and too far fetched, at the very least, Hunter knew exactly what he was doing when he obstructed LE in the investigation. He'd done it for 27 years, his record shows.

    Does this help explain how they got away with it?
     
    Last edited: Oct 13, 2010
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice