John Waterman Jackie Galloway and Jonbenet Ramsey

Go down

John Waterman Jackie Galloway and Jonbenet Ramsey

Post by redpill on Fri Dec 02, 2016 11:40 pm

from time to time i watch

there most recent series is

Season 1, Episode 4 – ”Stranger Than Fiction”

is about the murder of  Jackie Galloway


John Waterman

like a lot of crimes, i've never heard of this one before.


over at websleuths posters have claimed

detective pinkie wrote:
Hold yourself to the same standards - explain why an intruder would leave a body and a note, simply and believably

tawny wrote:
the fail in logic is astounding.

This is an example of NO IDI explanation. Why would an intruder hide her body? Seriously, please answer that for me. Why would an intruder hide her body rather than take her with them and dump her, or leave her where she was? Did an intruder seriously believe she would NEVER EVER be found inside the house?

Serious question: Why would an intruder hide her body in a dark room in a basement?

If he wanted to ensure it was found, why hide it? If he had to bug out, not taking the kidnapped-turned-murdered with him, why did he leave the note?

Delay discovery to what end? If he were bugging out, why would he care when, where, and how she's found?

It makes zero logical sense.

ukguy wrote:
Why does an intruder need to bother with a RN at all, all that sitting around authoring a RN, increases the risk of being caught.

No JonBenet in the house tells its own story, when followed up with a ransom phone call, no RN is required.

There is no IDI explanation forthcoming as to why the said intruder did not remove JonBenet from the house, which is just as inconsistent as any staged kidnapping leaving JonBenet in the house!

Intruder plan of action: Enter Ramsey household remove JonBenet, dead or alive, relocate to the boot of awaiting car, then simply drive away. Next day phone ransom demands. Total time to execute less than fifteen minutes!

nimyat of reddit wrote:
There is absolutely 0 reason to start to write a draft ransom note and then write the real thing and make it that ridiculously long.

If it was a premeditated kidnapping, ('hid in the house' theory) why the fuck wouldn't you bring a ransome note with you and why the hell would you start to draft one and then write one on paper found in the house.

If it was a burglary turned kidnapping, why would you start to draft a ransom note, and then write the real thing 4 pages long? You would scribble something like "I've taken your daughter, dont contact police, deposit money at this location at this time if you want to see her again." A panicked burglar does not sit and start writing about his 'organisation'.

A lot of people get bogged down in the details of the case, because it is a fascinating one and it is very interesting, but the ransom note is the most ridiculous thing ever and was totally written by one of the family in my opinion. They also completely over thought it - mentioning the fathers business, his bonus, writing 4 pages worth etc.

There's no way the family wasn't involved. As for which one did it, that is what is hard to prove.

docg makes a similar claim
docg wrote:


An intruder intending to express his anger or disdain for the Ramseys would have had no reason to write a meaningless ransom note. A kidnapper would not have left both the note and the body. If the parents were involved in this together, as so many assume, such a note might serve to throw the police off the track, but only if the body were found, days later, in some remote area. Or never found. With the body hidden in the house, where it is sure to be discovered, the note only creates problems for the Ramseys, the only ones who could "logically" have written it. If they were not planning on getting the body out of the house before the police came, then why would they write an obviously phony note?

Also, why was the note hand printed? Why not print it via computer? Or paste words together from newspapers? If the parents, or anyone at all close to the family, wrote it, they would be risking exposure for sure.


No intruder would have had anything to gain by writing the ransom note. No intruder would have any reason to write it. A kidnapper would have taken the child (or her body) with him. If something had gone wrong with his plan, he would have had no reason to leave a possibly incriminating note. Someone intending to frame John or Patsy would not have written the note in his own hand, as that would be evidence of an intruder. The conclusion is simple: there was no kidnapper. There was no intruder. The note must have been written by someone on the inside -- and it does indeed read like a staged kidnapping attempt.

tawny wrote:
the fail in logic is astounding.

This is an example of NO IDI explanation. Why would an intruder hide her body? Seriously, please answer that for me. Why would an intruder hide her body rather than take her with them and dump her, or leave her where she was? Did an intruder seriously believe she would NEVER EVER be found inside the house?

Serious question: Why would an intruder hide her body in a dark room in a basement?

the IDI explanation is that he wanted to.

Serious question: Why would an intruder hide her body in a dark room in a basement?

this documentary and this murder is noteworthy for several reasons

when jackie galloway's body was found, it was wrapped tight in a white sheet, it was very tightly bound with ligature with highly specific knots and they found fibers specifically grey fibers and shoe print not close to the body but several yards away, and human hair not matching Jackie. the crime happened in 1991.

based on the grey fibers they think Jackie was placed in a car seat or car trunk that had grey-fiber carpet. no matching grey fibers was found in Jackie's apartment or car.

the evidence is comparable to Jonbenet.

her body was decomposed and no DNA was taken.

one suspect was Jackie's landlord. they didn't find any evidence to connect him, and the cordage he had did not match the cordage for Jackie

the actual evidence that linked John Waterman to  Jackie Galloway was that 3 months later,  they found in his car trunk fibers, grey fibers matched the grey fibers found on Jackie's body, and cordage that matched the ligature on Jackie. his hair is similar to the hair found on Jackie, and his shoes are similar to the shoe impressions they found at the murder scene.

his home had no evidence of jackie being murdered there. no blood or anything. to this day where she was murdered remains a mystery.

this is a clear cut case of a home invasion rapist/killer who entered her apartment and abducted her, but there was no forensic evidence in jackie's home to tie John Waterman to that crime scene.

it remains unknown how he entered jackie's apartment.

so an intruder, in this case rapist/killer can enter an apartment of a woman and not leave behind any evidence of him ever being in that apartment. there is no evidence jackie was in his home.

faced with the evidence he plead guilty in a plea deal, but he only gave a partial accounting of the crime
he admitted to entering jackie's apartment and abducting and killing her and got 50 + years but not any details. he also raped a woman.

obviously the evidence that tied Jackie to John is fully comparable to the evidence of the Jonbenet Ramsey case to an intruder.

the other issue is he did admit he spent several months stalking jackie and his rape victim.

he was initially caught by a detective dressed in black at night prowling.

when they catalogued items in his home they found he had a book titled post-mortem with a serial killer named mr. nobody

while he declines to answer, the investigators discover that the way jackie and his rape victim were raped and murdered matches the descriptions of the serial killer mr nobody in the book.

mr nobody the fictional serial killer ties up his victim's notes in intricate patterns and removes victim fingernails. he kills them and ties up in intricate ligature and wrapps in white sheets.

that book was in his possession and he heavily annotated it.

in other words a fictional book about a serial killer removing fingernails from his victims while still alive and wrapping them in white sheets and tying up in 3 locations on the body with ligature was in the book and also present in john's crimes.

he had a fantasy of being mr nobody and acted on this fantasy entered jackie's home and killed her as described in the book.

this is also a case of a murder being shaped by a fictional book about a serial killer.

so to answer the above rdi objecctions, jonbenet's killer was obsessed by movies like dirty harry ransom speed the fugitive and wanted to kill in accordance with his fantasy. his reason is to act on a fantasy.

that episode definitely worth watching

john waterman who has blue eyes, plan of action, enter jackie galloway's apartment, abduct her, torture her in a way that was described by post mortem's mr nobody, including removing her fingernails while alive, binding up in ligature as described in that book he owned, and dumping her body where it could easily be found, but time for delay discovery.

remember waterman could have dumped her body in florida ponds where it was never found, but like mr nodody the book, he dumped it where it was found in 24 hours from her disappearance.

jonbenet's killer's plan of action, enter ramsey home, based on fantasies from dirty harry ransom speed fugitive, killer her, leave her body in home with ransom note, just like the movies, and be happy
he lived his dream, his fantasy

you've been redpilled cherry

If you only knew the POWER of the Daubert side

Posts : 2285
Join date : 2012-12-08

Back to top Go down

Back to top

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum