Originally posted by ajt400
Just because most of you refuse to admit that YOU are wrong, does not meant he case is solved.
And just because most of you refuse to see how Boulder corruption could prevent this case from going to trial does not mean the case is UNsolved.
But you're right that the case isn't completely solved since no one knows exactly what happened. However, the suspect list is short: Patsy, John and Burke Ramsey. And since the evidence could convict Patsy and would have gone to trial in any other jurisdiction, IMO that's close enough to being
solved.
There is evidence of an intruder...
Really? Where? Please list (current and accurate) "intruder" evidence that has no other possible explanation but an intruder.
...but isn't it funny how all of you point fingers when you have no evidence of any sort of prior criminal/sexual predator history with either one of the parents.
And funny how many of you Ramsey defenders point fingers at innocent bystanders with zero evidence, historical or otherwise, simply to take the heat off the Ramseys.
Again, how does a known history relate to whether or not a perp did a crime? All perps begin their history somewhere. And rich, powerful perps can hide a lot of history.
I wonder again why John lawyered up his first family.
...don't you think that that facade would have come crumbling down by now?
A facade is probably as durable as it needs to be. Even if it did crumble, how would we know? The rich and powerful Ramseys and their legal/pharmaceutical reinforcements can keep a lot hidden.
No pathology is necessary for things such as losing temper or accidents, but garroting a 6 year-old requires a bit of that, don't you think?
In other words, pathology is necessary for staging a crime (i.e. garroting)? How so? If a perp has a choice between (1) calling police and confessing to an accident that could land them in jail or (2) staging a phony crime scene in order to avoid jail, what sort of pathology drives one to choose door number two?
By one saying no pathology is necessary, you basically say any of us could have this happen.
Yes, any of us could have an accident or lose our temper with tragic unforeseen results... of course that could happen. No one is immune from that sort of thing because no one is perfect. As for deciding to stage a phony crime scene... no, I don't think we all would choose that route, but it wouldn't require a pathology to do so.
You think you could raise a child halfway normal, one night lose control, bash their head in, grab a paintbrush and some rope and sexually garrote your child? That is absurd!
Why? It's not like there's a how-to book or a protocol for crime staging.
Hypothetical: What if a child who is being molested by her father, with physical evidence of that molestation, then gets in a struggle with her mother and is inadvertently injured, either by pressure on the vagus nerve or by her head being bashed into something, to the point where the parents think she is dead?
Then what? How "should" they stage that? Wouldn't a fake kidnap/sex predator scenario be perfect here? They know there's evidence of the molestation. They know there will likely be evidence of the struggle, e.g. possible neck injuries. What to do with that? It can't be ignored. It must be incorporated into the staging. What's the alternative? Call police and risk the obvious fallout?
It's a given that molestation happens in secret. It's a given that an accident or unintentional tragedy can happen to anyone. So combine those elements and then what? Is it so inconceivable or absurd to think some people might decide to stage a fake crime to save their butts? And in doing so, whether they want to or not, they
have to incorporate the vaginal and neck injuries into the staging, or else they can't blame those injuries on the "intruder."
Also, while we are on the rope thing, two important key items of evidence cannot be linked to either parent. Where did the rope come from?
Duct tape and cord... common household items, easily removed from the house in a purse or pocket by the Ramseys, who were not searched. Not a huge mystery here.
What about the masking tape? Why would 2 parents need masking tape for their own child?
It was duct tape and it was applied postmortem = staging.
Secondly, if the blow to her head did kill her, (blunt force trauma) where was all the blood?
First, it didn't have much time to bleed -- the head blow and strangulation occurred at close to the same time. Second, pressure on the vagus nerve would have slowed blood pressure.
Not to mention avoiding the wrath of his/her superiors (and I use that term loosely in Boulder) for leaking info.