evaluating RDI poster claims vs the real world Murder of JonBenet Ramsey & Katie Rough

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 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 sun wrote:
KATIE Rough was just seven years old when she was found with her throat cut in a playing field near her home in Woodthorpe, York.

The death of the little girl, a bridesmaid at her parents' wedding just two weeks earlier, left the community reeling.

Who was Katie Rough?

Katie was a seven-year-old girl from York who died after she was found in a field with fatal knife wounds on January 9.

She had been smothered then slashed and stabbed with a Stanley blade.

Residents told of the heart-wrenching scenes when devastated mum Alison found Katie and fell to her knees, screaming "no, no my little girl".

Little Katie had been a bridesmaid at her parents' wedding just two weeks before she was killed.

She was pictured wearing a silver sequined dress as she proudly stood by mum Alison and dad Paul.

The little girl's death shocked her local community, with people banding together to support the family.

Katie was described as a "kind and thoughtful child" by her teachers at Westfield Primary School.

What happened to Katie Rough?

Little Katie Rough playing after school when she was smothered and hacked to death in a playing field close to her home in Woodthorpe, York on Monday January 9, 2017.

The killer had suffocated Katie with a gloved hand before slashing her throat with a Stanley knife and stabbing her in the chest.

At 4.37pm her attacker called 999 to say: “She’s dead.”

Officers used mobile phone technology to locate the caller. They then frantically launched a search for Katie.

Thirteen minutes later Katie’s mum, Alison, 38 — unaware of the horror — rang police to report her missing.

She said she had not seen Katie for 45 minutes, it is understood.

Officers found Katie unconscious in a playing field behind a row of houses.

Her parents rushed to the scene, and Alison cradled her daughter's bloodied head as she screamed out: "She's killed my daughter", a court heard.

Prosecutor Graham Reeds, QC, said in July: "Upon seeing the bleeding in Katie's hair, Alison started to scream.

"She tried to cradle Katie's head and the officer led both parents away in considerable distress."

Katie was taken to hospital but was pronounced dead shortly after.

Who has been charged with Katie Rough's murder?

A 16-year-old girl was charged with the murder of seven-year-old Katie Rough.

The girl, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, was 15 at the time of the horror attack.

A court heard the teen was suffering from a schizo-personality disorder at the time of the attack and had a history of depression, delusional beliefs - which included thinking other people were "robots" and "not real" - and self harm.

Prosecutor Graham Reeds QC said the defendant got stressed when a psychologist asked her whether she killed Katie “to test if she was human”.

Mr Reeds told the court: “She thought that Katie was not human and was a robot.

“A letter at the scene said ‘they are not human’.”

The court also head the teen had planned to kill and cops found a Lion King stuffed toy in her bedroom with its ears ripped off and chest sliced open.

The accused denied murder but admitted the manslaughter of Katie by means of diminished responsibility.

She was due to be sentenced on September 7 but it was delayed until at least November.

The girl sobbed at Leeds crown court as she was told she would be assessed in a specialist hospital for 12 weeks.

The judge Mr Justice Soole told her: "It is not in dispute that you currently pose a high risk of serious harm to others and to yourself."

What was said at Katie Rough's inquest?

An inquest into Katie Rough's death opened in York in January.

It heard how hospital staff tried to save the seven-year-old but were unable to resuscitate her.

Det Insp Mark Pearson of North Yorkshire Police was the only witness.

He said that on the 9th of January 9, 2017, following a call to police, officers attended a field where they found Katie Sharon Rough with severe injuries.

She was taken to York Hospital where, despite best efforts, she could not be resuscitated.

Katie was confirmed dead at 5.45pm the same day and identified by her dad, Paul Rough.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2584801/katie-rough-york-teen-girl-guilty-manslaughter-sentence/

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 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?

16-year-old girl was charged with the murder of seven-year-old Katie Rough.

The girl, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, was 15 at the time of the horror attack.

A court heard the teen was suffering from a schizo-personality disorder at the time of the attack and had a history of depression, delusional beliefs - which included thinking other people were "robots" and "not real" - and self harm.

Prosecutor Graham Reeds QC said the defendant got stressed when a psychologist asked her whether she killed Katie “to test if she was human”.

Mr Reeds told the court: “She thought that Katie was not human and was a robot.

“A letter at the scene said ‘they are not human’.”

Mr Reeds told the court: “She thought that Katie was not human and was a robot.

“A letter at the scene said ‘they are not human’.”

schizo-personality disorder at the time of the attack and had a history of depression, delusional beliefs

Mr Reeds told the court: “She thought that Katie was not human and was a robot.

“A letter at the scene said ‘they are not human’.”

“A letter at the scene said ‘they are not human’.”

schizo-personality disorder at the time of the attack and had a history of depression, delusional beliefs

“A letter at the scene said ‘they are not human’.”

koldkase wrote:
"Me, I can use my own eyes and I don't need no special training to see that Patsy wrote the note.

koldkase wrote:
"Patsy Ramsey wrote the note. Period. No question. No reasonable argument. All anyone who is objective has to do is compare her exemplars with the ransom note, not to mention the repeated, innumerable writings, statements, and interviews with the Ramseys which repeat excessively the language in the ransom note." -

Capricorn wrote:
Patsy wrote that note; there's no denying it. Not only would anyone with a working pair of eyes see it, but the lying about the scale and the rest just prove the point. Yes, Patsy was the one and now inadvertently, AK drove the point home for me

Capricorn wrote:
Again, the naked eye is never obsolete or outdated.

All anyone has to do is look at the comparisons and graphology, shmaphology, the writing is the same, both in handwriting and linguistically. You don't even need an expert to state it; it's blatantly a match

For every expert who is wishy washy or "excludes" Patsy, you'll find another who will state it IS Patsy.