an intruder leave behind a ransom note and a body vs Manson

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?

Manson follower Leslie Van Houten should be paroled, California appeals court rules

CHRISTOPHER WEBER and AMY TAXIN
Tue, May 30, 2023 at 3:14 PM CDT

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A California appeals court said Tuesday that Leslie Van Houten, who participated in two killings at the direction of cult leader Charles Manson in 1969, should be released from prison on parole.

The appellate court’s ruling reverses an earlier decision by Gov. Gavin Newsom, who rejected parole for Van Houten in 2020. She has been recommended for parole five times since 2016. All of those recommendations were rejected by either Newsom or former Gov. Jerry Brown.

Newsom could request that California Attorney General Rob Bonta petition the state Supreme Court to stop her release. Bonta's office referred questions to Newsom's office, which didn't respond to queries about possible next steps.

Van Houten, now in her 70s, is serving a life sentence for helping Manson and other followers kill Leno LaBianca, a grocer in Los Angeles, and his wife, Rosemary.

Newsom has said that Van Houten still poses a danger to society. In rejecting her parole, he said she offered an inconsistent and inadequate explanation for her involvement with Manson at the time of the killings.

The Second District Court of Appeal in Los Angeles ruled 2-1 to reverse Newsom's decision, writing there is “no evidence to support the Governor's conclusions" about Van Houten's fitness for parole.

The judges took issue with Newsom’s claim that Van Houten did not adequately explain how she fell under Manson’s influence. At her parole hearings, she discussed at length how her parents' divorce, her drug and alcohol abuse, and a forced illegal abortion led her down a path that left her vulnerable to him.

They also argued against Newsom’s suggestion that her past violent acts were a cause for future concern were she to be released.

“Van Houten has shown extraordinary rehabilitative efforts, insight, remorse, realistic parole plans, support from family and friends, favorable institutional reports, and, at the time of the Governor’s decision, had received four successive grants of parole," the judges wrote. “Although the Governor states Van Houten’s historical factors ‘remain salient,’ he identifies nothing in the record indicating Van Houten has not successfully addressed those factors through many years of therapy, substance abuse programming, and other efforts.”

The dissenting judge argued that there was some evidence Van Houten lacked insight into the heinous killings, and agreed with Newsom that her petition to be released should be denied.

Nancy Tetreault, an attorney for Van Houten, said she expects Newsom to request that Bonta ask the state Supreme Court to review the lower court’s decision, a process that could take years.

In addition, Bonta will likely request a stay of the appellate court’s ruling, Tetreault said. The high court could order Van Houten's release while it decides on whether to grant the stay.

“I will, of course, vigorously oppose any stay,” Tetreault said. “And they could let her out during that process.”

Van Houten was 19 when she and other cult members stabbed the LaBiancas to death in August 1969. She said they carved up Leno LaBianca’s body and smeared the couple’s blood on the walls.

The slayings came the day after other Manson followers, not including Van Houten, killed pregnant actress Sharon Tate and four others in violence that spread fear across Los Angeles and captivated the nation.

Anthony DiMaria, whose uncle Jay Sebring was killed along with Tate, said the judges' ruling is the latest painful twist that the victims' families have endured over the decades.

“To say the appellate court’s decision is a travesty of justice is a perverse understatement,” DiMaria said in an email to The Associated Press. “When you look at the profound, horrific nature of her crimes and the historic scars she has dealt American culture, it is unconscionable that an appellate court would make amends for Leslie Van Houten.”

Van Houten was found suitable for parole after a July 2020 hearing, but her release was blocked by Newsom. She filed an appeal with a trial court, which rejected it. She then sought her release through the appellate courts.

Hadar Aviram, a professor at UC College of the Law, San Francisco, said that for many years, some criminals seeking parole in California were kept in custody solely due to the heinousness of their past crimes, a practice that was stopped by a state Supreme Court ruling.

Since then, state officials have made other arguments to block parole, such as claiming defendants lacked sufficient insight about their crimes, said Aviram, who wrote a book about the parole process in Manson-related cases.

Van Houten, in particular, has largely stayed out of trouble since being incarcerated and has an advanced degree, Aviram said, adding that the law also requires that her young age at the time of her crimes be taken into account.

“There is no reason whatsoever to keep her behind bars except for the politics and optics of it,” she said.

___ Taxin reported from Orange County, California.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/manson-follower-leslie-van-houten-201409343.html

Van Houten was 19 when she and other cult members stabbed the LaBiancas to death in August 1969. She said they carved up Leno LaBianca’s body and smeared the couple’s blood on the walls.

The slayings came the day after other Manson followers, not including Van Houten, killed pregnant actress Sharon Tate and four others in violence that spread fear across Los Angeles and captivated the nation.

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?