http://www.ridiculopathy.com/news_detail.php?id=1646
Posted on 08/20/2006 5:37:25 AM PDT by Rte66
For your bookmarking assistance, this is a reference list of links to the Aug 2006 or newer Free Republic threads on the topic of the JonBenet Ramsey murder case and the possible arrest of John Mark Karr as a suspect in her murder.
I think you are right about the note indicating it was a researched crime and not a random one.
The $118,000 was not a cash bonus, but a stock option that was given as a bonus 10 months prior. It's current value at the time of the murder was roughly rounded to $118,000.
Stock option bonuses are a matter of public record so this indicates someone with a desire to know about the Ramseys. If the Ramseys wrote the note to throw suspicion off themselves I think it would have been very short and generic instead of rambling, personal and strange.
Somebody knew exactly who they were targeting. No doubt whatever about that.
As to the ransom note being a cover for the Ramsey's guilt, I ask you, if you were trying to cover your guilt in the death of your child by pretending a kidnapper/sexual sadist/murderer had entered your home and done it, would YOU make a ransom demand for the exact amount of that year's bonus of one of the two of you???
I certainly would not.
How deliberate can you get. No one, not an intruder not the Ramseys could have accidentally grabbed that figure out of the air. To pin it on a kidnapper, just make the demand for a large sum of money. That's all you would have to do...not to raise all these suspicions against yourselves.
Some may think they were rattled and made a mistake in their plan to coverup. But no, it had to be a very deliberate choice to put that amount there. What did it get them, but more suspicion coming down on their own heads, because no one could figure out how a kidnapper would have known that to the dollar amount. If he was so close to them as to know down to the exact dollar, the cops could have zeroed in on such a person among those that they looked at.
I think, more likely, it is someone who should not have known because he was not really close enough to know, but somehow he found out. This fits Karr's MO, or if not Karr then somebody LIKE Karr.
I don't rule out the Ramseys until this case comes to court. But I don't see the dollar amount pointing to the Ramseys, just the opposite.
I don't mind if you see it differently. I don't fall out with anyone as long as non-hostile debate occurs.
JonBenet Suspect's Polly Klaas Obsession
Karr had girl's death certificate, letter from her killer in home
AUGUST 17--During a 2001 raid at the California home of John Karr, who was charged yesterday with the murder of JonBenet Ramsey, police discovered a copy of the death certificate of 12-year-old Polly Klaas, who was kidnapped and brutally murdered in 1993, and a letter from the girl's killer, court records show
~SNIP~
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0817062karr1.html
But if it was an intruder, he felt comfortable enough inside the home to tear up two drafts of the letter, then pen a three-page missive, taking it back upstairs to leave it on the stairway - all risking the chance that he would be caught or would leave incriminating evidence. Almost anyone who is skilled at committing a crime knows to get the heck out of dodge as fast as possible rather than staying around to pen a long note.
My theory all along is that the Ramseys are hiding something about that night - maybe not that they were the killers but that they know who it was. If my child was murdered in my home, I would be pounding on the door of the police and the sheriff demanding justice until the killer was caught and then I'd be at the trial every day to see that the fiend was put away. My instinct would not be to lawyer up, hire a PR firm and then play keep-away from law enforcement. A large amount of the animosity towards the Ramseys from LE and the media they brought upon themselves because they became defensive after their child's death instead of taking the offensive and demanding justice like most parents would do.
The amount of the bonus is public information in the company reports because it was a stock option bonus. Which also means it was not an actual dollar amount, but fluctuated with the market. The general amount may have even been report in trade or business publications, along the lines of "rising star CEO of yada yada company received a stock option bonus currently valued at.....".
I've always thought it was someone who "knew" the Ramseys but not necesarrily someone they knew of or about. Someone who wanted both to posess JonBenet and punish the parents.
Karr seems tailor made for that role, but they need to place him at the crime with some hard evidence and not just his crazy confessional statements.
I agree with your assessment. Something puzzling was going on in that house:
1.) Patsy and Burke's fingerprints were all over the bowl of pineapple which we know was the last thing Jonbenet ate. The bowl was taken down from a high shelf. If not taken down by Patsy or the intruder, then who?
2.) How did Patsy's jacket fibers end up entwined in the ligature, on the inside of the tape that covered jonbenet's mouth, and ALSO in the paint tray from which the stick to make the ligature was used? She said she never wore that jacket down there.
3.) Why, according to pathologists, was the tape put over Jonbenet's mouth AFTER she died?
4.) Why were both Patsy and John apparently wearing the same clothes they had on the night before?
5.) Why did Patsy claim that Burke was asleep during the morning of the discovery of the ransom note when he was clearly heard on the 911 tape? What did he mean by saying "but what did I do" and "but what did you find"?
6.) Why was a 45 lb. girl dragged?
7.) The coroner pinned her time of death very close to 10 p.m. How did an intruder, by virtue of the theory, botch a kidnapping (and thus write a long, 3 page rambling note), THEN kill her all between about 10:30 and 11 p.m. that night? By all appearances of forensics, the note was written after she died, not before. That defies the intruder theory. Even if he was already in the house when they got home he would have had to kill jonbenet at about the same time they walked in the door.
8.) What type of blow to the head would an intruder likely put on the child's head that would not create a laceration? An intruder in the bathtub? Why?
That's too much basic forensic evidence to ignore, regardless of what we may conjecture about how the Ramseys thought or what they would have done in x or y situations.
In their defense...in addition to posting about the ransom note...they have said the police made accusative noises toward them immediately and as time went on it got worse. I'm certain the Ramseys had a lawyer already to handle their business affairs, and I'd bet that lawyer told them in no uncertain terms to get legal help.
You're entitled to your suspicions...I used to think exactly your way but not so much now. I'm open to other ways of looking at it, whereas way back then my suspicions were on THEM.
Of course.
A couple of additional points that may not have been clear:
There were no other fingerprints found on the bowl.
Also, the bat and flashlight had NO fingerprints on them. How is that?
Why didn't the intruder leave any fingerprints on the note or notepad? Was he wearing gloves through all this, including while he was feeding Jonbenet pineapple?
Pineapple, according the pathologists, was the last thing Jonbenet ate.
Yes, I agree that there is a lot more to this story and I'm reserving judgment until the DNA evidence is sorted out.
And finally one more point to support your assessment. If the coroner was off on the time of death, then why was her body already smelling by lunch time? She couldn't conceivably have died much later than 10 p.m.
Sorry, I'm no expert on the forensics.
If the forensics are as cut and dried against the Ramseys as you indicate, why were they not indicted?
I can't stipulate as to all your forensic facts. Even if true, there can be exculpatory explanations that aren't considered by people whose minds are made up the Ramseys did it, or their son did and they covered up.
Hopefully the Grand Jury did the right thing, because the case was botched and the myriad of circumstances were confusing.
Did you mean to post this one to Tall_Texan, not me?
PER FOX... Karr was a transgender patient at the clinic.
I guess this explains why his mother raised him as girl until he was 12.
All I know about the forensics is that this is what is in the reports.
"...why were they not indicted..."
My only guess is good lawyers. All that evidence doesn't say who killed jonbenet, only that something doesn't add up. They can't convict on that, I don't think. DNA would be key, but if one of the Ramseys did it then it may never be revealed.
Yea, sorry, that was for Tall_Texan.
According to some of those same pathologists, the asphyxiation actually occured 10 to 45 minutes AFTER the head trauma. That's their finding, not mine.
Where did you hear this?...do you have a link.....this is contrary to what I heard yesterday by pathologists yesterday....
FROM CRADLE TO THE GRAVE
BIZARRE KARR 'GIRL'-CRAZY LONG
BEFORE JONBENET
http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/from_cradle_to_the_grave_nationalnews_philip_recchia.htm
I've heard the same as you, mystery. Do we possibly have "dueling experts" here? And I don't mean on TV, but in official proceedings. I mean there was a Grand Jury that heard the evidence and they did not indict anyone.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.