Dardeen Family Murders home intruders and The Unsolved Murder of JonBenet Ramsey

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?

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

Posted byu/DonaldJDarko
1 day ago
Helpful2Hugz3Take My Energy
The Dardeen Family Murders: No Mercy, No Motive, No Answers.
Murder

It was November, 1987, in Ina, the southernmost village in Jefferson County, Illinois. Nestled among woodland stood a mobile home, on a piece of land rented from a nearby farm. The mobile home stood for sale, not only because the family living within were expecting their second child and could use some more space, but also because they did not like staying in the area, as it had been becoming increasingly violent. Jefferson County had seen 15 homicide cases in the past 2 years.

Russel Keith Dardeen, 29, his wife Ruby Elaine Dardeen, 30, and their 2 year old son Peter had bought their trailer in 1986, after Russel had completed the training required for his job as a treatment plant operator. Keith got a job at a treatment plant, and Elaine at an office supply store in nearby Mount Vernon. In their free time the couple played in a musical ensemble in a local baptist church. They were looking forward to welcoming their second child, and had landed on either Ian or Casey for a name, depending on whether it was a boy or a girl. Shaken by the growing unrest in their area, Keith had become more protective of his family. When one night a young woman knocked on the door of his home, asking to make a phone call, he refused to let her in, later relaying the experience to a good friend.

On November 18th, a supervisor at the treatment plant became increasingly worried when Keith, who had always been a reliable worker, didn’t show up for his shift. He had not informed anyone of his absence, and calls to the Dardeen home went unanswered all day. Keith’s supervisor even went so far as to call Keith’s parents, but neither of them knew what had happened to their son either. Concerned by the supervisor’s phone call, Keith’s parents contacted the sheriff’s office and agreed to drive to Ina with their house key to meet the deputies.

What they found within the Dardeen’s mobile home was far worse than anyone had been ready for, and would scar them for years to come. Lying together in the mobile home’s bed were the badly beaten bodies of Elaine, little Peter, and the newborn baby. Elaine and Peter had been bound and gagged with duct tape, both beaten so severely that Elaine had gone into labour, and had given birth to a little baby girl. Their attacker(s) had shown no mercy, and had beaten the newborn to death as well. Both Elaine and Peter’s skulls had been fractured. They were beaten with a baseball bat that had been a birthday gift from Keith, to Peter, earlier that year.

Keith, however, was nowhere to be found. Neither was the family’s car. Not a hint of his whereabouts were found in the early hours of the investigation, and police assumed that Keith had killed his family and ran. A team was quickly assigned to search for Keith, but as quickly as they had been assigned, so quickly the team disbanded again, when the following day Keith’s body was discovered by some hunters, located in a wheat field not far from the family’s home. He had been shot three times, in his head, in the right side of his face, and in the left cheek. His penis had also been cut off.

The family’s car was located shortly after, outside of a police station, some 11 miles away from the family home. The insides splattered with blood, police concluded that Keith had been killed inside the car. While autopsies could not conclusively say the order in which the family had been killed, one thing was certain, they were all killed within the same 2 hour time span.

Fear in the already on-edge area grew even stronger as news of the violent murders spread, security systems and guns both saw a rise in sales, and the once welcoming locals now made sure to check twice if their doors were locked. It is therefor no wonder that local law enforcement responded with force, and a total of 30 full-time investigators were put on the Dardeen case. Despite interviewing 100 people, yet not finding any leads, investigators were set on finding the motive behind the gruesome murders.

One by one investigators eliminated possible motives: there had been no sign of forced entry, and not only a VCR and portable camera had been in plain sight, cash and jewellery had been up for grabs in just the next room. As far as the police could see, nothing had been taken from the home. Police turned to a possible sexual motive, due to Keith’s mutilation, but that too was dismissed. Neither had they found any evidence of an extramarital affair involving either of the couple, nor could they find anyone who had a grudge against them. They ruled out any debts, any problems, any disagreements the couple might have had, and slowly the well of possible motives started to dry up. Police did find a small bag of marijuana in the trailer, too small to indicate that either of the couple had been dealing, so that angle too was discarded.

How did the killer(s) get to the Dardeen home, if they were able to drive away with the family car? Did they walk there? Was there a second person driving the killers’ car?

If this was premeditated, why did the killer(s) use a baseball bat already owned by the family? Wouldn’t it have made (more) sense if the killer had brought their own weapon? Does that make this a crime of opportunity?

How did the killer(s) get to the Dardeen home, if they were able to drive away with the family car? Did they walk there? Was there a second person driving the killers’ car?

If this was premeditated, why did the killer(s) use a baseball bat already owned by the family? Wouldn’t it have made (more) sense if the killer had brought their own weapon? Does that make this a crime of opportunity?

Considering Keith’s genital mutilation, I’m not sure how exactly police ruled out any sexual motives. I couldn’t find anything concrete on that, please point it out if I missed it somewhere. There are a lot of articles about this case, all with varying degrees of info.