A CRIME TO REMEMBER Leopold and Loeb & JonBenet Ramsey

Go down

A CRIME TO REMEMBER Leopold and Loeb & JonBenet Ramsey

Post by redpill on Tue Mar 20, 2018 12:11 am

i only know of 2 persons who read my blog on JonBenet Ramsey

rootlesswriter & MurderMysteryReader

so i'm writing for you 2

I just watched

A CRIME TO REMEMBER S5 • E3 Hearts of Darkness
Leopold and Loeb

In what became known as "The Crime of The Century," a boy from one of Chicago's wealthiest families is kidnapped and found murdered. The ensuing investigation zeroes in on the wealthy, thrill-seeking college students Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb.



this post contains spoilers in case u intend to watch it.

note this documentary only covered the crime, not the actual trial.

this is a crime and episode every sleuther interested in JonBenet Ramsey should watch, esp
rootlesswriter, along with the Barbara Mackle episode I mentioned earlier here

A CRIME TO REMEMBER Barbara Mackle & JonBenet Ramsey
http://jbrwdi.forumotion.com/t1381-a-crime-to-remember-barbara-mackle-jonbenet-ramsey


I've argued before that the JonBenet Ramsey ransom note in comparison to the Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb ransom note appears very similar

Mr. Ramsey,

Listen carefully! We are a group of individuals that represent a small foreign faction. We do respect your bussiness [sic] but not the country that it serves. At this time we have your daughter in our posession [sic]. She is safe and unharmed and if you want her to see 1997, you must follow our instructions to the letter.

You will withdraw $118,000.00 from your account. $100,000 will be in $100 bills and the remaining $18,000 in $20 bills. Make sure that you bring an adequate size attache to the bank. When you get home you will put the money in a brown paper bag. I will call you between 8 and 10 am tomorrow to instruct you on delivery. The delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be rested. If we monitor you getting the money early, we might call you early to arrange an earlier delivery of the money and hence a [sic] earlier delivery pick-up of your daughter.

Any deviation of my instructions will result in the immediate execution of your daughter. You will also be denied her remains for proper burial. The two gentlemen watching over your daughter do not particularly like you so I advise you not to provoke them. Speaking to anyone about your situation, such as Police, F.B.I., etc., will result in your daughter being beheaded. If we catch you talking to a stray dog, she dies. If you alert bank authorities, she dies. If the money is in any way marked or tampered with, she dies. You will be scanned for electronic devices and if any are found, she dies. You can try to deceive us but be warned that we are familiar with law enforcement countermeasures and tactics. You stand a 99% chance of killing your daughter if you try to out smart [sic] us. Follow our instructions and you stand a 100% chance of getting her back.

You and your family are under constant scrutiny as well as the authorities. Don't try to grow a brain John. You are not the only fat cat around so don't think that killing will be difficult. Don't underestimate us John. Use that good southern common sense of yours. It is up to you now John!

Victory!

S.B.T.C

with

Dear Sir:
As you no doubt know by this time, your son has been kidnapped. Allow us to assure you that he is at present well and safe. You need fear no physical harm for him, provided you line up carefully to the following instructions and to such others as you will receive by furture comminications. Should you, however, disobey any of our instructions, even slightly, his death will be the penalty.
1. For obvious reasons make absolutely no attempt to communicate with either police authorities or any private agency. Should you already have communicated with the police, allow them to continue their investigations, but do not mention this letter.
2. Secure before noon today $10,000. this money must be composed entirely of old bills of the following denominations: $2000 in $20 bills, $8000 in $50 bills. the money must be old. Any attempt to include new or marked bills will render the entire venture futile.
3. The money should be place in a large cigar box, or if this is impossible, in a heavy cardboard box, securely closed and wrapped in white paper. The wrapping paper should be sealed at all openings with sealing wax.
4. Have the money with you, prepared as directed above, and remain at home after one o'clock. See that the telephone is not in use.
You will receive a further communication instructing you as to your final course.
As a final word of warning, this is an extremely commercial proposition and we are prepared to put our threat into execution should we have reasonable grounds to believe that you have committed an infraction of the above instructions.
However, should you carefully follow out our instructions to the letter, we can assure you that you son will be safely returned to you within six hours of our receipt of the money.

Yours truly,
George Johnson

i discuss the comparison in more detail here

The Leopold and Loeb Jonbenet Ransom note forensic text comparison and conclusions

http://jbrwdi.forumotion.com/t1008-the-leopold-and-loeb-jonbenet-ransom-note-forensic-text-comparison-and-conclusions?highlight=leopold

the reason every IDI should watch this documentary and be familiar with the facts of this case is that RDI are fond of making unsubstantiated claims along the lines of

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:
Mama2JML,
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:

Questions

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.

Answers

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?

are RDI claims, which they provide no reference to social science literature, true?

How do RDI bullshite claims compare when you test these claims with Leopold and Loeb and Bobby Frank crime?

Suppose you were to take RDI claims about intruder and ransom note, and apply that reasoning to the abduction kidnapping and murder of Bobby Frank, with a ransom note. What conclusions would you draw from applying the above stated reasons to Bobby Frank murder?

that since there was no reason for a kidnapper to kidnap Bobby Frank and leave with body and ransom note, therefore the parents did it? is that sensible conclusion to draw when applying RDI reasoning to Bobby Frank?

screen shots, note copyrighted to ID presenting here under fair use

Bobby Frank alive



Bobby Frank dead



Leopold and Loeb



what happened in this case and it is explicitly stated in the documentary

Bobby Frank was a nephew to Loeb and he liked tennis which they knew and told them they have a new tennis racket gift for him which is how they lured him to their car.

He was promptly killed in the car.

Bobby Frank was dead. Just like JonBenet Ramsey

Leopold and Loeb than make a ransom note and deliver it to Bobby Frank's family, even though both were immensely wealthy. Leopold's father was an executive at Sears. both had genius high IQ, Leopold knew 15 languages.

but then Bobby Frank's body was found



so you have a kidnapper with a ransom note making ransom demand, but Bobby Frank the ransom victim was dead.

The documentary explicitly states that the police considered this an abnormal kidnapping.

In a usual kidnapping you keep the victim alive and hidden, collect the ransom money and then deliver the body.

Based on these claims


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:
Mama2JML,
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:

Questions

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.

Answers

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?


Why did Leopold and Loeb 2 geniusly high IQ individuals who were also immensely wealthy abduct Bobby Frank and hid his body where it was easily found and identified, like Jonbenet and left the ransom note using RDI reasoning?

How would an RDI explain the motive for Bobby Frank abduction?
What Leopold and Loeb motive for actually kidnapping and abducting Bobby Frank and writing a ransom note with body found?

they explain




what i have to say is far beyond the intelligence and comprehension of RDI. You see I believe RDI are stupid people.

in the documentary Leopold and Loeb 2 University of Chicago grads were explaining to a homicide detective

have you ever read or heard of Fredrich Nietzsche



as in God is dead.

I doubt any RDI has ever heard or read Nietzsche, their primitive brains cannot comprehend it.

Same Nietzsche reference in Good will Hunting and Day After Tomorrow

Hall: Mankind survived the last ice age. We're certainly capable of surviving this one. .... We cannot burn Friedrich Nietzsche; he was the most important thinker of 19th Century! Elsa: Oh, please!


In Goodwill Hunting Good will who is a super genius said Nietzsche is his friend to Robbin Williams psych guy.

Nietzsche is for the high IQ, not low IQ RDI nonsense.

the actual reason that Leopold and Loeb abducted kidnapped killed and wrote a ransom note
was that they read Fredrich Nietzsche saw themselves as the Nietzchean superman and above and beyond ordinary morals, and murder is wrong is ordinary herd animal morality.

The superman can do anything he pleases including murder. Murder is wrong is Christian herd animal morality.

Perhaps the reason Jonbenet killer abducted and killed Jonbenet and left a ransom note with a body is that he read Nietzsche and Leopold and Loeb and wanted to copycat that crime.

What i said is far above the inferior intelligence of RDI.

Also, the actual forensic evidence that cracked the case was the glasses. Bobby Frank's family said the glasses don't belong to Bobby Frank. Detectives investigated and found only 2 people own such glasses, one was out of the country, the other was Nathan Leopold.

Compare this with RDI denialist claims there's no evidence of an intruder when in fact they found ligature tape etc unsourced to the Ramsey home.

Rootlesswriter like Snoke I've transcended the use of lightsaber combat to rely on my Force, or in this case Forensics abilities.

The documentary didn't discuss the trial but at trial their lawyer brought up the Niezsche defense, that Nietzsche was absolutely the reason Leopold and Loeb abducted murdered and left Bobby Frank body where it was quickly and easily found, and a ransom note.

Compare Leopold and Loeb's actual motivation with RDI bullshit about what an intruder would or would not do.

Leopold and Loeb attended University of Chicago, which US News and World report rank #3, tied with Yale, behind only Stanford and Harvard. Playboy magazine ranks University Chicago on fun and partying at #300, with #1 being Arizona state University

not everyone goes to college. among those who do go to college there are many reasons to go.
some go to study science and engineering. others want to be lawyers, doctors or some profession. others go to party and do drugs and alcohol and sex. others want to be political activists, esp leftists and study women studies and feminism.

then there is a small few

University of Chicago is famous for forcing its students to study the Great Books, a canon of lists of classics in literature like Shakespeare and Milton Dostoevsky and Tolstoy, Plato Aristotle Kant Nietzsche Hegel, and classics in history and theology. Dead white european males.

Students there are expected to read Nietzsche's works like Thus spoke Zarathustra and Beyond Good and Evil and participate in discussion of their philosophies at a high level.
Clearly beyond the capabilities of RDI you read on forumsforjustice and websmear.

Leopold and Loeb with their genius high IQ decided that they would go to college ostensibly to be lawyers but they also spent their time reading Nietzsche, which is taught at the University of Chicago. Their goal is not to use their high intelligence to become the next Einstein or Bill Gates but to kill and head to prison.
Watching Leopold discuss Nietzsche with a homicide detective on a crime documentary is a surreal experience. Narrator said for them to kill Bobby Frank was no different than killing a rat for them. They have super genius IQ and saw themselves as better than everyone. Loeb was murdered in prison and Leopold was released after I think 40 years. Those 2 had a homosexual relationship.
Documentary shows 2 men making out in gay love.

Part of their narcissism and megalomania was they wanted to out smart the police with this crime. thus the ransom note was written. as opposed to out smarting Einstein and Newton and Paul Dirac and Ramanujan.

The reason for the ransom note, as stated explicitly in the documentary was they wanted to throw police off and mislead police as to the true motive of the crime. Their real reason for abduction and kidnapping is to prove themselves to be a superman as per Frederich Nietzsche.

Leopold and Loeb's crime is classified as a thrill kill. The ransom note is a part of staging the crime scene and misleading investigators, making them think money was the reason.

Applying this to the Jonbenet crime, it would mean that the ransom note was to mislead the intruder's reeason to murder Jonbenet, which was a thrill kill. No need to remove her body, since no intention for collecting a ransom.

RDI statements have no basis in actual crimes. RDI is simply junk.

Leopold and Loeb abduction of Bobby Frank, murder, leaving his body to be easily found and the ransom note debunks RDI claims of what an intruder would do.

RDI are stupid. RDI live in a fantasy world. Rolling Eyes

_________________
If you only knew the POWER of the Daubert side
avatar
redpill

Posts : 2191
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