3 Conflicting Motives

Hey, that's great! She's very beautiful. I have no kids of my own, so it's nice to imagine what they'll look like eventually.

 

You make the mistake of assuming the killer's motive included the goal of killing the child.

The killer may have been motivated to do something else, and killing was only one step in reaching that goal.

Patsy said it herself; she believed JonBenet was an angel in heaven with God awaiting her mother's arrival.

If the goal was to make an angel then the killing was not the end product. It was only a means to an end.

This of course is a psychotic fantasy and what was done to her body and what was in the ransom note become part of a psychotic's dream.

Logic, reason, rationality, time sequence, object relations and reality testing go out the window in a psychosis.

Looking at it this way, there are no incongruities or contradictions in the note or what was done to the body. It's just one big bad dream.

 

Oh really?

I assume you're talking to me. Bring it on.

Actually I didn't make any "mistakes" because I never said "the goal was to kill Jonbenet."

You know "Paradox," your post reeks of the same old same old attempts to bland out the evidence in this case, to make it appear that it doesn't follow a certain logic. Even psychotics follow a certain line of thinking, whether it be religious grandiosity or something else. But in this case we have three well defined motives, where there should only be one.

This is typical in cases of staging by an unsophisticated, first time killer. Throw enough strands of spaghetti at the wall, and hope one sticks.

 

Lou Smit tried to squeeze himself through the small window to 'prove' there was an intruder, but what is his opinion on the ransom note? How do all those contradictions in the note fit into his intruder fantasy? Has Smit ever been asked about this?

The ransom note is indeed the key piece of evidence in this case, it is the royal road to the truth: there was no foreign faction, there was no kidnapping, there was no sexual predator.
Those who believe in the Ramseys' innocence must accept an intruder scenario. But if they do, that ransom note blows their own theory to pieces: if they say the motive was kidnapping, how do they explain the sexual assault? If they say the motive was sexual assault, how do they explain a political kidnapping ransom note for money?
They can't explain it because their theory automatically excludes a staged
scene.
In their blind belief in the Ramseys' innocence, they refuse to see that this was a rage killing committed by a parent who then tried to cover it up in a panic.
I think the Ramseys initially considered dumping JB's body somewhere outside, which is why they wrote the ransom note. But then they didn't dare to do it because it was too risky.
Now they know that the police will discover their dead child in her own home.

They feel they must invent an additional element which in its bizarreness should point away from the child's parents as the perps, which is why they create the sexual assault scene done by an 'intruder'.
The ransom note as well as the sexual predator are 'outside elements' which they had to build in to avoid the question investigators would ask themselves: "Locked home. Dead child. Two parents in the home. Hello?"
But despite all their staging, Steve Thomas still asked himself this question of course.

 

I agree Rashomon. In ten years, I've heard Smit discuss the ransom note exactly once--and that was when he did his assinine, bizarre hypothesis that the $118K really meant 118 pesos. In other words, when the whole world was stunned that the ransom note said $118k, and JR's bonus that year was $118K, Smit's mind was going a million miles per hour, trying to come up with a scenario that made this sum less incriminating. So he came up with pesos!

The rest of the note, needless to say, was not discussed

 

Not only that, but Smit, "Mr. Impartiality" flat-out refused to even look at evidence that other people presented.

 

What has always struck me as extremely odd in the ransom note: why would Patsy (I'm convinced that she wrote it), who was the wife of a millionaire who could have raised up to ten million dollars for ransom, put that ridiculously low $118,000 sum in the note?
Patsy may have known nothing about tying ligatures and constructing garrotes which work, but in terms of the ransom sum, she can't have been that dumb. Impossible.
And isn't it interesting that Patsy herself asked Linda Arndt around 10 a.m. on Dec 26 (PMPT paperback, p. 15) why the author of the ransom note had not asked for a larger sum of money, or at least a round sum of money.
To me this shows that Patsy consciously laid out that red herring, putting a ridiculously low sum in the RN, which was not even a round sum, and which happened to be the sum of John's bonus. I suppose that her intention was that in case the sexual assault or political kidnapping scenarios should not be swallowed by investigators, they should focus on some disgruntled, low-paid Access Graphics employee who happened to know John's bonus and for whom $118,000 was an awful lot of money.

 

You makes some good points here, Rashomon. That $118, 000 could have been put there to point to some connection to AG, since that is what the note FIRST says is the reason for the "kidnapping."

Also, I've often wondered if the low amount might have to do with being able to get to the money quickly, in case they actually had to go through with getting it for the "10 am call" from the kidnappers. I think they wanted to get out of Dodge as fast as their getaway plane could fly.

 

I think that is exactly why she used that amount. Patsy thought such a small amount would lead LE and eveyone else to believe her bs story about the small foreign faction taking her daughter. Patsy thought that amt would be believable.

 

Since she threw everything else into it, that actually makes sense: the amt needed to connect to AG.

 

That's exactly why Smit should have had NOTHING more to do with this case.

 

I think you guys are right. You know, the red flags in this ransom note are astounding and yet for the past seven years or so, almost nobody talks about the note beyond the handwriting.

 

Patsy was a pro when it came to psychology, rashomon. It's all through this crime from start to finish. Scheming and planning. I can almost hear her thoughts as she's writing; I'll put down $118,000 and this will take the cops to Access Graphics. I'll do this-n-that and this will make the cops think this-n-that. She was a pro!

 

"That's exactly why Smit should have had NOTHING more to do with this case."

Hear, hear! Let's turn it over to a special prosecutor! The feds can foot the bill!