Why docG of solvingjonbenet is an wrong - Son of Sam

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.

docG wrote:
New Improved Intruder Theory
We've seen all sorts of intruder theories, but none I've ever seen can explain 1. why a ransom note was left yet no one was kidnapped and 2. why the body was hidden in that tiny basement room. However, there is in fact a scenario that could account for these two things, though to my knowledge the only person who ever suggested it was someone on one of the anti-Ramsey forums arguing that this must have been what Patsy and John had in mind when they staged their kidnapping for the police. I'll get to that aspect in a moment, but for now, let's consider it purely as an intruder theory:

An intruder enters the house. Possibly a burglar. Possibly a pedophile. Possibly simply on a lark. Since there was no sign of forced entry, we can assume he has a key. He locates JonBenet, or simply encounters her, sexually assaults her, and kills her. Then he gets an idea. If he makes this look like a kidnapping, he could make some money out of it. He finds Patsy's notepad and writes a ransom note. Then he hides the body of his victim in the little windowless room, where no one is likely to look for it. He leaves the note where he assumes someone will find it the next morning. And then he is off. His plan is to call the Ramsey's home the following morning, as stated in the note, and instruct John as to where he should drop off the money.

This looks like a pretty good scenario, as it apparently accounts for some of the strangest aspects of the case: the fact that the note was written while the kidnapper was in the house, rather than beforehand; the fact that the victim was never actually taken from the home; the reason why the body was hidden.

But it also has some serious problems. First, it has many of the same problems as every other intruder theory: why no clear sign of the intruder; why is all the so-called intruder evidence inconclusive rather than the obvious evidence one would expect to see all over the place; why no footprints; why no fingerprints; why was nothing taken from the home; and if the intruder had a key, then what about the scene at the basement window, especially the suitcase propped against the wall, and also the packing peanuts from the window well, found on the floor beneath the window. Since there was no sign of forced entry at that window, or anywhere else, then how do we explain that suitcase and those packing peanuts?

There is also the question of why anyone would want to leave evidence that could be traced back to him, in the form of a hand written note? Or why that person would want to take so much time to write it, knowing someone might wake up and he could be discovered. If his plan is to collect a ransom, a note isn't necessary. He could simply have called the Ramseys first thing in the morning, with instructions on the ransom amount and where to deliver it.

The oddest part of this scenario concerns the "intruder's" plan as outlined in the note. For such a plan to work, this person would need to collect that money as soon as possible. Why give your victims time to think about what to do, time to have second thoughts and contact the authorities after all; time, also, for the body to decay and begin to smell -- sooner or later it is going to be discovered. Yet the kidnapper tells John to expect a call "tomorrow" rather than later that day. There's been some confusion over the meaning of that "tomorrow," but for the writer of the note there was no confusion at all. Clearly "tomorrow" meant tomorrow, i.e., between 8 and 10 AM the following day, i.e., the 27th, NOT the 26th, the day the note was found.

There is no way John could have collected the ransom prior to 8 AM on the 26th. Nor would there have been time for him to be "rested" as suggested in the note. The note writer clearly intended for the call to be expected the following morning. And if the "kidnapper" knows there is a body rotting away in the basement, waiting to be discovered, then why on Earth would he have wanted John to wait a full day before instructing him as to where to deliver the ransom? Under such circumstances, very clearly, the intruder would have called first thing on the morning of the 26th with his instructions, and would have wanted the money delivered as soon as possible.

So. Sorry if the heading of this post gave you Ramsey defenders out there any false hopes. My "new improved theory" is presented in the interests of completeness, to make sure I've left no stone unturned in the investigation of this case. As I see it, this is far more convincing than any other intruder theory I've ever encountered. But it too has some serious flaws. There is still no way to make sense of any intruder doing all that was done that night.

As far as something of this sort having been on the Ramseys' mind in staging their phoney "kidnapping," as was alleged by the author of the "new, improved" theory, this too won't hold water. If this was in fact what they had in mind when the police were called, then they did a good job of keeping it to themselves. To my knowledge, no such scenario was ever suggested by John, Patsy, or anyone else on their legal and investigative team. Certainly nothing of the sort was suggested by Lou Smit, who admitted he was unable to account for the intruder's motives in leaving a note yet not taking his victim. If this was what they were staging, surely they would have found a way to put that idea into the heads of the investigators. Since there is no sign they did any such thing, I see no reason to accept the author's original premise. It's an interesting theory. No more than that.

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.

   United States
   DocG is a composer, artist, poet and playwright. You can contact him directly via the following email address: doktorgosh at live.com

Alexander Esau and Valentina Suriani shooting

At about 3:00 a.m. on April 17, 1977, Alexander Esau, 20 and Valentina Suriani, 18 were sitting in Suriani's car near her home in the Bronx, only a few blocks from the scene of the Lauria–Valenti shooting, when each was shot twice.[29] Suriani died at the scene, and Esau died in the hospital several hours later without being able to describe his attacker(s).

Police asserted that the weapon used in the crime was the same as the one which they had suspected in the earlier shootings.[29] In the days afterwards, they repeated their theory that only one man was responsible for the .44 murders. The chubby teenager in the Voskerichian case was still regarded as a witness, while the dark-haired man who shot Lauria and Valenti was considered the suspect.[30

The Son of Sam letter
Final page of the first Son of Sam letter

Police discovered a handwritten letter near the bodies of Esau and Suriani, written mostly in block capital letters with some lower-case letters, and addressed to NYPD Captain Joseph Borrelli.[31][32] With this letter, Berkowitz revealed the name "Son of Sam" for the first time.[32] The press had previously dubbed the killer "the .44 Caliber Killer" because of his signature weapon.[33] The letter was initially withheld from public view, but some of its contents leaked to the press, and the name "Son of Sam" rapidly eclipsed the old name.[33]

With its rambling and feverish tone, the letter expressed the killer's determination to continue his work, and taunted police for their fruitless efforts to capture him.[34] In full, with misspellings intact, the letter read:

   I am deeply hurt by your calling me a wemon hater. I am not. But I am a monster. I am the "Son of Sam." I am a little "brat". When father Sam gets drunk he gets mean. He beats his family. Sometimes he ties me up to the back of the house. Other times he locks me in the garage. Sam loves to drink blood. "Go out and kill" commands father Sam. Behind our house some rest. Mostly young — raped and slaughtered — their blood drained — just bones now. Papa Sam keeps me locked in the attic, too. I can't get out but I look out the attic window and watch the world go by. I feel like an outsider. I am on a different wave length then everybody else — programmed too kill. However, to stop me you must kill me. Attention all police: Shoot me first — shoot to kill or else. Keep out of my way or you will die! Papa Sam is old now. He needs some blood to preserve his youth. He has had too many heart attacks. Too many heart attacks. "Ugh, me hoot it hurts sonny boy." I miss my pretty princess most of all. She's resting in our ladies house but I'll see her soon. I am the "Monster" — "Beelzebub" — the "Chubby Behemouth." I love to hunt. Prowling the streets looking for fair game — tasty meat. The wemon of Queens are z prettyist of all. I must be the water they drink. I live for the hunt — my life. Blood for papa. Mr. Borrelli, sir, I dont want to kill anymore no sir, no more but I must, "honour thy father." I want to make love to the world. I love people. I don't belong on Earth. Return me to yahoos. To the people of Queens, I love you. And I wa want to wish all of you a happy Easter. May God bless you in this life and in the next and for now I say goodbye and goodnight. Police — Let me haunt you with these words; I'll be back! I'll be back! To be interrpreted as — bang, bang, bang, bank, bang — ugh!! Yours in murder Mr. Monster[31]

At the time, police speculated that the letter-writer might be familiar with Scottish English. The phrase "me hoot, it hurts sonny boy" was taken as a Scots-accented version of "my heart, it hurts, sonny boy"; and the police also hypothesized that the shooter blamed a dark-haired nurse for his father's death, due to the "too many heart attacks" phrase, and the facts that Lauria was a medical technician and Valenti was studying to be a nurse.[35] On July 28, New York Daily News columnist Jimmy Breslin alluded to the "wemon" quirk and referred to the shooter watching the world from "his attic window."[36]

The killer's unusual behavior towards the police and the media received widespread scrutiny. Psychologists observed that many serial killers draw additional gratification from manipulating their pursuers and observers. The feeling of control over the media, law enforcement, and even entire populations provides a source of social power for them.[37] After consulting with several psychiatrists, police released a psychological profile of their suspect on May 26, 1977. He was described as neurotic and probably suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and believed himself to be a victim of demonic possession.[36]
The Breslin letter

On May 30, 1977, Daily News columnist Jimmy Breslin received a handwritten letter from someone who claimed to be the .44 shooter. The letter was postmarked early that same day in Englewood, New Jersey. On the reverse of the envelope, neatly handprinted in four precisely centered lines, were the words: Blood and Family – Darkness and Death – Absolute Depravity – .44 The letter inside read:

   Hello from the gutters of N.Y.C. which are filled with dog manure, vomit, stale wine, urine and blood. Hello from the sewers of N.Y.C. which swallow up these delicacies when they are washed away by the sweeper trucks. Hello from the cracks in the sidewalks of N.Y.C. and from the ants that dwell in these cracks and feed in the dried blood of the dead that has settled into the cracks. J.B., I'm just dropping you a line to let you know that I appreciate your interest in those recent and horrendous .44 killings. I also want to tell you that I read your column daily and I find it quite informative. Tell me Jim, what will you have for July twenty-ninth? You can forget about me if you like because I don't care for publicity. However you must not forget Donna Lauria and you cannot let the people forget her either. She was a very, very sweet girl but Sam's a thirsty lad and he won't let me stop killing until he gets his fill of blood. Mr. Breslin, sir, don't think that because you haven't heard from me for a while that I went to sleep. No, rather, I am still here. Like a spirit roaming the night. Thirsty, hungry, seldom stopping to rest; anxious to please Sam. I love my work. Now, the void has been filled. Perhaps we shall meet face to face someday or perhaps I will be blown away by cops with smoking .38's. Whatever, if I shall be fortunate enough to meet you I will tell you all about Sam if you like and I will introduce you to him. His name is "Sam the terrible." Not knowing the what the future holds I shall say farewell and I will see you at the next job. Or should I say you will see my handiwork at the next job? Remember Ms. Lauria. Thank you. In their blood and from the gutter "Sam's creation" .44 Here are some names to help you along. Forward them to the inspector for use by N.C.I.C: [sic] "The Duke of Death" "The Wicked King Wicker" "The Twenty Two Disciples of Hell" "John 'Wheaties' – Rapist and Suffocator of Young Girls. PS: Please inform all the detectives working the slaying to remain. P.S: [sic] JB, Please inform all the detectives working the case that I wish them the best of luck. "Keep 'em digging, drive on, think positive, get off your butts, knock on coffins, etc." Upon my capture I promise to buy all the guys working the case a new pair of shoes if I can get up the money. Son of Sam[38]

Underneath the "Son of Sam" was a logo or sketch that combined several symbols. The writer's question "What will you have for July 29?" was taken as an ominous threat: July 29 would be the anniversary of the first .44 caliber shooting.[17] Breslin notified police, who thought that the letter was probably from someone with knowledge of the shootings. The Breslin letter was sophisticated in its wording and presentation, especially when compared to the crudely written first letter, and police suspected that it might have been created in an art studio or similar professional location by someone with expertise in printing, calligraphy, or graphic design.[39] The unusual writing caused the police to speculate that the killer was a comic letterer, and they asked staff members of DC Comics whether they recognized the lettering.[40] The "Wicked King Wicker" reference led police to arrange a private screening of The Wicker Man, a 1973 horror film.

The Daily News published the letter a week later, after consulting with police and agreeing to withhold portions of the text, and Breslin urged the killer to turn himself over to authorities. Reportedly, more than 1.1 million copies of that day's paper were sold.[41] The letter caused a panic in New York, and police received thousands of tips based on references in the publicized portions of the letter, all of which proved baseless.[39] All the shooting victims so far had long dark hair, and thousands of women in New York acquired short cuts or brightly colored dyes, and beauty supply stores had trouble meeting the demand for wigs.[42]

David Richard Berkowitz (born Richard David Falco; June 1, 1953), also known as the Son of Sam and the .44 Caliber Killer, is an American serial killer convicted of a series of shooting attacks that began in New York City in the summer of 1976, perpetrated with a .44 caliber Bulldog revolver. He killed six victims and wounded seven others by July 1977. As the toll mounted, Berkowitz eluded a massive police manhunt while leaving brazen letters that mocked the police and promised further crimes, highly publicized in the press. He terrorized New York and achieved worldwide notoriety.

Berkowitz was arrested by New York City police homicide detectives in August 1977, and was indicted for eight shooting incidents. He confessed to all of them, and claimed to have been obeying the orders of a demon, manifested in the form of a dog ("Harvey") who belonged to his neighbor ("Sam").