Why Mr. Cruel left Jonbenet's body with a handwritten ransom note behind

Go down

Why Mr. Cruel left Jonbenet's body with a handwritten ransom note behind

Post by redpill on Mon May 16, 2016 8:30 pm


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.

why would an intruder leave behind a ransom note and body behind?

one, bc he wanted to. he felt like doing it. it made him happy.

none of these posters have done the most basic research in offender behavioral profiling, specifically the differences between MO and signature behavior. sadly crimeshots is down but this will suffice

Signature Behavior
Brnet turvey wrote:
Turvey provides a very useful two part definition of signature behavior.

Signature Behaviors:

Signature behaviors are those acts committed by an offender that are not necessary to complete the offense. Their convergence can be used to suggest an offender’s psychological or emotional needs (signature aspect). They are best understood as a reflection of the underlying personality, lifestyle, and developmental experiences of an offender.

Signature Aspects:

The emotional or psychological themes or needs that an offender satisfies when they commit offense behaviors.

 it is his signature behavior - he has made ransom demands to his previous victims, most notably Nicola Lynas and Sharon Wills

and two, he left handwritten message at Karmein Chan's home, payback asian drug dealer more and more to come

which resulted in the focus of the investigation on her family

the public thought that perhaps Mr Cruel was not involved in the abduction of Karmein chan, and that the Chans, being recent immigrants from China, and spoke very little English, were actually drug dealers, or that Karmein abduction was the result of drug debts her parents owed, or that the Asian Triad was involved.

It was a success for Mr Cruel, although in the end, LE concluded it is a ruse to lead them away from him, and it almost worked.

Mr Cruel learned that leaving handwritten messages at a crime scene where a young girl is abducted can mislead investigators and throw suspicion back on the parents.  

that's why he did it. that's why he left a "ransom note" with the body in Jonbenet, bc it worked for him in Karmein Chan.

the RDI objections are rooted in total ignorance of posters with no actual knowledge of behavioral psychology and actual crimes against children. essentially a lynch mob  

Mr Cruel wrote handwritten "payback asian drug dealer more and more to come" on Karmein parents car, and the investigators and the public thought it threw suspicion on the parents.

He learned.

Mr Cruel wrote the Jonbenet ransom note to throw the suspicion away from himself and back at the parents. and it worked. look at all the RDI

No  No  No Suspect  Suspect

If you only knew the POWER of the Daubert side

Posts : 2456
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