A second Jonbenet Ramsey Mr Cruel thought experiment intruder theory

this is a continuation of my first  Jonbenet Ramsey Mr Cruel thought experiment intruder theory

https://jbrwdi.forumotion.com/t942-mr-cruel-jonbenet-ramsey-thought-experiment-proves-the-intruder-theory

to understand RDI vs IDI, consider this optical illusion



which line is longer?

in evaluating the evidence in the Jonbenet Rasmey case, in deciding between IDI or RDI consider this thought experiment

this is Mr Cruel



some of his victims



all girls, all home intrusions  

this is the thought experiment

this is Jonbenet Ramsey


pictures of Jonbenet


this is the family of Jonbenet



all the facts and evidence in the case, from the ransom note to fibers to shoeprint to ligature dna is exactly the same, identical to what was reported

the difference is location

imagine Jonbenet Ramsey and her family were vacationing in




all the facts same, except they were on vacation to Melbourne Australia in Dec 25, 26 1996
being rich they rented a home in Melbourne



all the facts are the same, other than the fact they were in Melbourne Australia on vacation on Dec 26, 1996.

Same events happen.

After Jonbenet's murder, the press and public claim that the parents were innocent, it was Mr. Cruel who entered the Ramsey's home and murdered Jonbenet



and that Taskforce Spectrum is investigating the Jonbenet Ramsey murder as Mr Cruel strikes again



and Mr Cruel's other victims reach out to the Ramseys to express sympathy



the evidence is exactly the same as outlined in the Carnes decision, Lou Smit, Steve Thomas, Perfect Town perfect murder, DNA

but Taskforce spectrum and the public of Melbourne believe Jonbenet Ramsey is the victim of Mr Cruel

how would the evidence be interpreted?

how would the ransom note be read and understood, in light of Mr Cruel's previous crimes?

the people of Melbourne believe Mr Cruel wrote this

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

they understand the ransom note in light of what they know about Mr Cruel

here is another optical illusion



which line is longer?

same evidence, but in one instance the crime happened in Boulder Colorado, in a country USA where serial home invading pedophiles is ZERO - there are no known serial home invading pedophiles in modern US history -  but in the other, the crime happened in Melbourne Australia, where literally dozens of young girls were victims in their own homes, several linked to one offender, Mr. Cruel. Karmein Chan happened in 1991, just 5 years before Jonbenet Ramsey 1996.

same evidence, same facts, different settings.





would this



found close to Jonbenet's dead body be dismissed as either a police officer put it there, or Burke may have owned a pair, or seen as evidence Mr Cruel wears hi-tech boots?

would


be seen as staging by the parents, or evidence Mr Cruel used his expert-level knowledge of ligature, he brought in nylon cord and fashioned a garrote?

would fibers be evidence Mr Cruel wore brown cotton gloves or be simply seen as something the Ramsey's disposed of?

you've been