CO - Jessica Ridgeway, 10, Westminster, 5 Oct 2012 - #11

[Hatfield]

Is anyone familiar with other serial predators that attempted to hide the victim identities?

Concealing identification to me does not seem like a random serial. Why would it matter to the suspect if the victim was easily identified?

The only reason I could think of would be to delay the investigation. But then you would expect the victim to be better hidden and not just unidentifiable.

IMO
This is why I think some of us believe the perp(s) is either young or young-minded or immature or has some sort of mental deficiency.

I think the perp has watched a lot of CSI type shows and just decided to act like a career criminal, but then made simple amatuer mistakes like dumping part of the remains beside a road.

Some parts of what he did makes him seem like an expert, but then other parts were totally stupid and dumb.

I think that is why some of us feel like this person is going to either be young or young-minded or have mental defects.

 

[SapphireSteel]

They certainly don't do it in all cases, I agree. And for a routine death it's always a family member or someone close to the family. I also didn't mean to sound like it wasn't still the primary, which was careless phrasing on my part.

I was mainly referring to criminal cases where there's a lot of damage to the body.

They wouldn't ask the family to ID a torso, if that's all they have in this case. Really badly damaged/decomposed remains would have to be ID'd by forensics, you are correct.

It must be so horrific for Jessica's loved ones to know what condition she was found in, and not have the other remains.

I simply cannot imagine what they are going through.

:cow:

 

[winterrose]

I'm waiting for the composite of the suspect at Memorial Park yesterday, is there one out there?

 

[follower]

I'm sorry to say, I saw the picture before the sheet, before the picture was removed out of respect for the family. That's why I'm pretty sure I understand LE's meaning of not intact.

What is your understanding of the term as LE used it in this case?

I think that would help my thoughts move either in favor of a perp known to Jessica or a random perp.

 

[SmoothOperator]

I'm glad you brought that up because I've only just recently started reading about this case and have been reading older threads and articles trying to figure out the sequence of events. These two quotes have me confused.

There is only a very short space where Jessica would be "out of sight" to someone standing in front of Jessica's home before she reached the park as the street curves to the left slightly.

Thanks for posting both those accounts. I thought I was going crazy. But, now I am really confused. Which was it??? I think it is important to know what really happened. Not casting doubt on mom, but need to know which way it was because they are drastically different. jmo

Regarding mom and her last seeing Jessica just as enzeder posted there are contradictory reportings of when exactly mom last saw her daughter.. I, too at one point was concerned, confused, and wanting confirmation and clarity on exactly which version was accurate..

I'm the one that did the extremely quick turnaround transcript of the family's first(and only) public interview.. With especially mom's statements of interest to me personally to see if we could receive the confirmation and clarity of when/where Sarah Ridgeway(mom) was last to ever see her precious, young daughter, Jessica.

Imo that interview cleared up any confusion and gave me directly from mom's mouth when exactly it was that she last saw Jessica..imo mom clarified and therefor debunked as false the reportings that stated that mom had actually watched Jessica as she walked atleast some portion of the distance to the park some 450yds away from the home.. Moo is as is sadly the "norm" for many MSM reports(especially initial, early on reporting of a case as its beginning to break and unfold)...MSM gets it wrong, inaccurate, and false just as we saw here in Jessica's case when mom made clear that she DID NOT WATCH OR VIEW JESSICA WALKING TO THE PARK, but rather her last sight of her daughter was of Jessica exiting the home that morning and the door to the home was shut as Jess set off for her short walk alone to the park where friends would meet and walk to school together.

I believe sadly that this is the accurate last sight that mom will ever have now permanently engrained in her mind of seeing her daughter alive..it hurts my heart for this mom..

HTH

 

[K.jill]

Is it possible that this perp dismembered her body and disposed parts in different locations because he/she wants to frighten the public as much as possible? As opposed to doing it to try and delay identity?

Perhaps this person wants to taunt and scare the public.

 

[marazul]

I know I said this before but my last shared thought on "not intact"

MO is that LE could, and would, have said "due to being left in the elements and scavenger activity, the body is no longer intact" if it was due to animal activity, because they wouldn't want to leave that open to sensational interpretation if it was so. I feel confident assuming that the perp caused her remains to be "not intact". Of all the things LE routinely keeps guarded, they have consistently been up front in disclosing when remains have suffered consequences of a natural environment.

 

[tezi]

You are wrong, sorry.

Visual identification remains the number one. Often a non-family member will be asked to do the job, often the families NEED to see the body for closure.

Visual identification is free and quick. Forensic identification (while probably still carried out as confirmation in certain crimes) is time consuming and expensive.

Respectfully, I disagree. Both my BIL's when they died were forensically identified, even though they were visually identified by a family member. Both died from drowning, and unfortunately I have experience in this area. LE said they had to make sure that they were who we said they were.


JMO, IMO, :moo:, and all disclaimers.

 

[SapphireSteel]

yes sleuth theories. We're stuck on two issues; intact and pillowpet. The answer about the pillowpet is downstairs. If it's not the right answer, no new info has been released for us to conclude otherwise. So then we're making stuff up.

I guess some can argue the same for the 'intact' versus 'dismembered'. So what can we do?

You can view it as "making stuff up" but for someone like me, the guessing is part of the sleuthing.

Personally, I make up my mind on a theory (not just in this case, many others) and work with that until a fact comes along that causes me to think differently.

It doesn't (or shouldn't) stop the conversation in any way. You can agree to disagree on details and opinion.

The Jonbenet Ramsey threads have been going on for years now, this way.

I cannot tell you some of the wilder theories I have read on here that have made me shake my head at times...but I can't dismiss any of them because no one actually knows.

:dunno:

 

[twall]

You are wrong, sorry.

Visual identification remains the number one. Often a non-family member will be asked to do the job, often the families NEED to see the body for closure.

Visual identification is free and quick. Forensic identification (while probably still carried out as confirmation in certain crimes) is time consuming and expensive.

Not in the USA. Some states may still use it but many have laws that a method other than visual id must be used due to mistaken identity. The state I live in recently passed such law due to this incident. Read this book or about this case of mistaken id, it is heartbreaking and it happened not far from where I live.

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Mistaken-Identity-Families-Survivor-Unwavering/dp/1439153558/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1350426369&sr=8-1&keywords=mistaken+identity"]Mistaken Identity: Two Families,One Survivor,Unwavering Hope: Don & Susie Van Ryn,Newell Colleen & Whitney Cerak,Mark Tabb: 9781439153550: Amazon.com: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51RYdUp2IOL.@@AMEPARAM@@51RYdUp2IOL[/ame]

 

[cindersoot]

From the stretcher photo, you can see where her hand was taken off with a clean cut. Animals don't do that.

 

[tlcya]

I know I said this before but my last shared thought on "not intact"

MO is that LE could, and would, have said "due to being left in the elements and scavenger activity, the body is no longer intact" if it was due to animal activity, because they wouldn't want to leave that open to sensational interpretation if it was so. I feel confident assuming that the perp caused her remains to be "not intact". Of all the things LE routinely keeps guarded, they have consistently been up front in disclosing when remains have suffered cinsequences of a natural environment.

I agree completely. But, as WS is the site for distinguishing between facts/speculation/rumor and allegation, I understand the mods doing everything they can to maintain that stellar reputation WS has earned and will do everything possible to help them along in that regard by peppering my posts with speculate - believe - assume - etc when it applies.

 

[SapphireSteel]

Respectfully, I disagree. Both my BIL's when they died were forensically identified, even though they were visually identified by a family member. Both died from drowning, and unfortunately I have experience in this area. LE said they had to make sure that they were who we said they were.


JMO, IMO, :moo:, and all disclaimers.

with all due respect, a visual identification is unlikely to be used alone in drowning cases, simply because the body is severely affected by being in water.

Further, drowning would be considered an "unexplained death" in most cases and an autopsy would be carried out, with the appropriate forensics.

I'm sorry for your losses.

 

[The Farm]

From the stretcher photo, you can see where her hand was taken off with a clean cut. Animals don't do that.

Now I know I am blind because I can not see any of that.

 

[DylansMom34]

Now I know I am blind because I can not see any of that.

I can't see it either. Is it the white object below the stretcher?

 

[SapphireSteel]

I know I said this before but my last shared thought on "not intact"

MO is that LE could, and would, have said "due to being left in the elements and scavenger activity, the body is no longer intact" if it was due to animal activity, because they wouldn't want to leave that open to sensational interpretation if it was so. I feel confident assuming that the perp caused her remains to be "not intact". Of all the things LE routinely keeps guarded, they have consistently been up front in disclosing when remains have suffered consequences of a natural environment.

If it was animal activity, there would be a skull.

If there was a skull, there would be dental identification. They were unable to identify Jessica except by DNA.

My opinion only of course.

:cow:

 

[marazul]

Respectfully, I disagree. Both my BIL's when they died were forensically identified, even though they were visually identified by a family member. Both died from drowning, and unfortunately I have experience in this area. LE said they had to make sure that they were who we said they were.


JMO, IMO, :moo:, and all disclaimers.

I lost 2 cousins in a violent automobile accident and visually identified. Despite both having IDs on them, they were listed as unidentifieds because LE ASSUMED their IDs were fake, no contact was made at their correct addresses on those IDs, and they were held at the ME until we realized they hadn't been heard from since going out to a club over the weekend and tracked them down. (I will not detour into the racial profiling of Latinos that lead LE to make that assumption..) but yes, the remains were horribly disfigured, but recognizable, and a visual ID was all that was required to release the bodies.

ETA I was given photographs of the faces and upper bodies at the ME office to identify, I did not witness the actual remains.

 

[cindersoot]

I can't see it either. Is it the white object below the stretcher?

I think the white object is her underwear,

 

[follower]

From the stretcher photo, you can see where her hand was taken off with a clean cut. Animals don't do that.

I am going to need a pointer tool or something on this one. I can't make out any of what you are saying.

Can you describe exactly where you see that?

I thought the sheet made viewing the remains impossible while the brown backboard/stretcher thing is viewable. The remains would be in the photo just higher than the board but behind the sheet.

What am I missing?

 

[SapphireSteel]

Not in the USA. Some states may still use it but many have laws that a method other than visual id must be used due to mistaken identity. The state I live in recently passed such law due to this incident. Read this book or about this case of mistaken id, it is heartbreaking and it happened not far from where I live.

Mistaken Identity: Two Families,One Survivor,Unwavering Hope: Don & Susie Van Ryn,Newell Colleen & Whitney Cerak,Mark Tabb: 9781439153550: Amazon.com: Books

Does this law only apply to "unexplained" deaths or does it apply to anyone who passes away?

I would bet my bottom dollar it's reserved for those who are autopsied. People die every day, the back log and cost would be mind blowing if every single death had to be forensically confirmed.

My opinion only of course.