Are the Ramseys involved or not?

[andreww]

First, Andreww, I have never, not once in my 15 years of posting ever said that “LE failed to consider any other suspects than the Ramsey's.” that is a complete fabrication on your part. You should retract this falsehood. Seriously.

Sorry if i got that wrong. I assumed that because you are such a big Ramsey supporter that you also agreed with their sentiment that LE only focussed on them and ignored other possible suspects.

Another thing that I have never said is that the commingled DNA IS salivaou’re putting words in my mouth for some bizarre reason. What I have said is that the commingled samle is PROBABLY (more likely than not) saliva.

I do recall you saying that the perp may have used saliva as a lubricant to insert a finger or the paint brush.

 

[Mama2JML]

Andreww, Kolar offered some tidbits of information about witnesses' perceptions of the Ramsey family dynamics. For example, when asked about the testimony of friends and family, with regard to parenting, Kolar simply described John and Patsy as "loving and doting" parents.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[OliviaG1996]

Andreww, Kolar offered some tidbits of information about witnesses' perceptions of the Ramsey family dynamics. For example, when asked about the testimony of friends and family, with regard to parenting, Kolar simply described John and Patsy as "loving and doting" parents.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, to be fair, those friends/family didn't live with the Ramseys. No one really knows what their family dynamic was like. JR and PR might have very well been "loving and doting", but that doesn't mean the only other confirmed person in that house the night of the murder was.

 

[icedtea4me]

Andreww, Kolar offered some tidbits of information about witnesses' perceptions of the Ramsey family dynamics. For example, when asked about the testimony of friends and family, with regard to parenting, Kolar simply described John and Patsy as "loving and doting" parents.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do you think it would have been impossible for John and/or Patsy to have had a shadow side?

 

[Anti-K]

"might be saliva" = "might not be saliva"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, “might not be” is sort of what I’m saying: probably is.

However, Kolar isn’t exactly precise with his terminology (or, logic!). He does tell us that the sample flashed blue which is a god indicator that the sample was saliva. Other “theories” are that it was sweat, or from a sneeze. All wet sources as opposed to dry skin cells. Which is contrary to what you’ve been arguing.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Tell me what I'm making up?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I said SEEM to be. Example: you’ve seen reports disagreeing that the DNA was from saliva.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Again you miss the point. Your assertion was that because they discarded and destroyed forensic evidence, it didn't make sense that they would then create more forensic evidence.

My point is they destroyed evidence of the actual murder. The note is part of the coverup.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, I haven’t missed anything here.

The Ramseys (if RDI) in addition to unnecessarily creating self-incriminating evidence in the form of the ransom note they unnecessarily created self-incriminating evidence in the form of the garrote; specifically, by breaking and using the paint brush handle – one piece in the paint tote and one piece tied to the cord which – if RDI - they disposed of. Like I said, contradictory.

Even if you were right (I just proved you wrong), the ransom note is still evidence of involvement in the murder. It would still be unnecessarily created self-incriminating evidence
...

AK

 

[Tawny]

They didn't understand/know it was self-incriminating evidence in doing those things. They believed they were staging a scene that convinced other people they were not involved, that it was clearly an intruder. They failed.

 

[Anti-K]

I’m not sure how you know what they believed, but disposing of potentially incriminating evidence shows forensic concern. Can this be traced back to me? When you’re thinking about, and getting rid of, things that can be traced back to you, you don’t turn around and create other things that can be traced back to you.

2 ½ pages of forensic material written on your notepad and your pen in your home. How stupid could they be to think that this couldn’t be traced back to them?

They got rid of the cord. Why? So the murder weapon (garrote) couldn’t be traced back to them.

They break a paintbrush and tie one piece to the garrote, and put one piece in the tote. Now, the murder weapon can be traced back to them.
They just got rid of the cord so that it wouldn’t be...

Sorry, but it just doesn’t make sense. Disposing of the cord, etc shows that they would have known/understood that they were creating self-incriminating evidence.
.

Staging a scene showing the involvement of other people means staging, even if only verbally (lying), an entry/exit. Generally, it’s the first thing that comes to mind. They anticipated an encounter with the police (they called them!) and they considered that the police would seize evidence and had concocted a kidnapping story for them. In this context, it is not reasonable to believe that they would not have considered providing a kidnapping exit/entry.
...

AK

 

[andreww]

As for the paintbrush, it was part of the staging as well, sort of. It was the murder weapon, but it was likely used to cover marks on her neck or simply they couldn't stomach strangling her with their bare hands. So the garrote is their, why would they dispose of the other part of the brush?

As to the point of entry, the suitcase was under that window, where it shouldn't have been and John made a point of saying that he went down and locked that window without telling investigators. Why? Because he was establishing a point of entry.

Sure it would have been easy to unlock a door, but why would it be unlocked? The Ramsey's would have had to have left it unlocked on the very night intruders were coming to kidnap their daughter. To coincidental, they needed forced entry.

The note was simply a tool that bought them time to establish themselves as victims prior to the body being found and to cast doubt in another direction. Think about it. Let's just hypothesize that the Ramsey's did do this. Without the ransom note, how would that morning have gone down? Probably the house would have been searched far more thoroughly as the assumption wouldn't have been that she was abducted, and the body would have been found far more quickly. The Ramsey's would then be the prime suspects and would certainly have been taken immediately in for questioning.

The note did exactly what it was meant to do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[chlban]

They didn't understand/know it was self-incriminating evidence in doing those things. They believed they were staging a scene that convinced other people they were not involved, that it was clearly an intruder. They failed.

Did they? They were never arrested or prosecuted. I think they did a pretty decent job of creating confusion in the beginning. As absurd as the Ransom Note, as dramatic as the staging was, they managed to confuse and misdirect a Police Dept. not real accustomed to dealing with this type of crime.

 

[andreww]

Did they? They were never arrested or prosecuted. I think they did a pretty decent job of creating confusion in the beginning. As absurd as the Ransom Note, as dramatic as the staging was, they managed to confuse and misdirect a Police Dept. not real accustomed to dealing with this type of crime.

Not sure if the Ramsey's are master criminals or that they are any sort of genius's. I think it was a perfect storm of bad police work and timing with a whole lot of confusion thrown in by the Ramseys. LE should have seen this for what it probably was right from the beginning. The Ramseys should have been confined to one room and no guests should have been allowed access. Dogs should have been brought in early and the Ramseys should have been taken in for questioning the moment the body was found. The biggest problem was that the cops bought in to that convoluted ransom note despite being advised by the FBI that it was likely fake. If they had treated the scene as a possible kidnapping/possible foul play scene from the beginning, John and Patsy would probably still be locked up in a jail somewhere.

 

[chlban]

Not sure if the Ramsey's are master criminals or that they are any sort of genius's. I think it was a perfect storm of bad police work and timing with a whole lot of confusion thrown in by the Ramseys. LE should have seen this for what it probably was right from the beginning. The Ramseys should have been confined to one room and no guests should have been allowed access. Dogs should have been brought in early and the Ramseys should have been taken in for questioning the moment the body was found. The biggest problem was that the cops bought in to that convoluted ransom note despite being advised by the FBI that it was likely fake. If they had treated the scene as a possible kidnapping/possible foul play scene from the beginning, John and Patsy would probably still be locked up in a jail somewhere.

Oh I agree with you on the Perfect Storm. It's just that what was done did succeed, as unlikely as it is. Since it is my personal belief that the staging was most likely done by Patsy alone, I find it even more ironic that even with that ridiculous, over the top Ransom Note, she managed to create so much confusion.

Then add their wealth and the fact that Alex Hunter was such a pathetic loser, and you have someone that literally got away with murder. Pretty damn sad.

 

[Tawny]

I’m not sure how you know what they believed, but disposing of potentially incriminating evidence shows forensic concern. Can this be traced back to me? When you’re thinking about, and getting rid of, things that can be traced back to you, you don’t turn around and create other things that can be traced back to you.

2 ½ pages of forensic material written on your notepad and your pen in your home. How stupid could they be to think that this couldn’t be traced back to them?

They got rid of the cord. Why? So the murder weapon (garrote) couldn’t be traced back to them.

They break a paintbrush and tie one piece to the garrote, and put one piece in the tote. Now, the murder weapon can be traced back to them.
They just got rid of the cord so that it wouldn’t be...

Sorry, but it just doesn’t make sense. Disposing of the cord, etc shows that they would have known/understood that they were creating self-incriminating evidence.
.

Staging a scene showing the involvement of other people means staging, even if only verbally (lying), an entry/exit. Generally, it’s the first thing that comes to mind. They anticipated an encounter with the police (they called them!) and they considered that the police would seize evidence and had concocted a kidnapping story for them. In this context, it is not reasonable to believe that they would not have considered providing a kidnapping exit/entry.
...

AK

It's WAY more reasonable to believe the R's forgot to consider that one detail over believing an intruder actually perpetrated this crime, without leaving a single trace upon entry/exit.

DNA blah blah aside, how did he get into the home?

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

It's WAY more reasonable to believe the R's forgot to consider that one detail over believing an intruder actually perpetrated this crime, without leaving a single trace upon entry/exit.

DNA blah blah aside, how did he get into the home?

DNA can not be aside. It is a part of the crime. And getting into a home is not a hard feat. Especially if no one is home. The basement window was broken. People keep forgetting that that would have easily been a way in and out.

 

[Tawny]

DNA can not be aside. It is a part of the crime. And getting into a home is not a hard feat. Especially if no one is home. The basement window was broken. People keep forgetting that that would have easily been a way in and out.

People keep forgetting the spider webs and debris and glass was undisturbed. Next theory?

 

[andreww]

People keep forgetting the spider webs and debris and glass was undisturbed. Next theory?

Lou Smit was eager to prove that he could get in that window easily but he neglected to show how he would get out. I doubt he could have, not without a major effort anyway. The question is, even if an intruder came in that window, why not leave through a door?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[chlban]

Lou Smit was eager to prove that he could get in that window easily but he neglected to show how he would get out. I doubt he could have, not without a major effort anyway. The question is, even if an intruder came in that window, why not leave through a door?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And don't forget it was Christmas. So, how, exactly, does the master criminal know when it's safe to break in the basement and hang out for hours? Christmas is not like any other day of the year. Sure you could observe schedules and maybe take a shot at breaking in on any other day, but not the biggest Holiday of the year. Plus that's the day that your own family and friends would most notice your absence.

I have always felt that the fact that this happened when it did it yet another point in why it had to be someone inside the house. Certainly not evidence that would hold up in court but just one more bread crumb leading right back to the Ramseys.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

People keep forgetting the spider webs and debris and glass was undisturbed. Next theory?

I don't buy the spider web. Because my husband has knocked down a huge web and then it is back in hours. They are adept at making them. That spider thing is the weakest argument for me. Because that happens to be a perfect way for someone to get in, and now there is an impenetrable web. If the front door was open then it would be something wrong with that entrance/exit.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

And don't forget it was Christmas. So, how, exactly, does the master criminal know when it's safe to break in the basement and hang out for hours? Christmas is not like any other day of the year. Sure you could observe schedules and maybe take a shot at breaking in on any other day, but not the biggest Holiday of the year. Plus that's the day that your own family and friends would most notice your absence.

I have always felt that the fact that this happened when it did it yet another point in why it had to be someone inside the house. Certainly not evidence that would hold up in court but just one more bread crumb leading right back to the Ramseys.

Mane many break ins happen at Christmas. Places are cased and families are watched. It is not hard when people are running around all over visiting to find a window to break in.