OTG,
(From the blogger who doesn't blog too much
...I'm following this 'case' since the day one, from the first TV report...was probably the first buyer of PMPT and ST books
..., watched every R's interviews, read every WEB blog/forum...For the last couple weeks, your posts got my attention and I was following your analysis very carefully, waiting for conclusion. By the way, IMO, your analytical ability, written structural 'presentation' and communication skills/ethics are absolutely excellent! Now, regarding your 'conclusion'. Some has asked you very good question: why 10 yo male child would play the 'sexual' game using such a complicated 'adult' horror setting described in your analysis (instead of playing 'nice doctors' game)? This is a valid question which probably can be answered by analyzing what kind of information about 'restraining people by cord' was available to BR in 1996. What about the computer games BR likes to play at that time? If we can find at least one game who has such a 'restraining people by cord' scenario (not necessarily for the sexual needs) available in 1996 - maybe it COULD be the answer. Otherwise, why use such a complicated by cord manipulation: tide the hands, go over some supportive pipe (by the way, IMO, the fact that her hands were in high-up position is the weakest point in theory that she was killed laying on her back or stomach), place some kind of loop on her neck (reminds me of the choker to restrain the dogs)...all of these are such a complicated 'mechanism' build by the sickening-adult-driven imagination....but, if this 'mechanism' was introduced to the child as the 'norm' in some kind of computer game then your analysis has foundation. You see, I believe that this case will be solved (if ever!) by unlocking the 'individual psycho' which plays the major role in JBR murder. JMO. Of course, I do believe in scientific evidence...however, the human 'psycho' is the key for me. Therefore, RN is one of the best 'treasures' in this case. Again, IMO
...
I must say, its nice to see an
OpenMind4U. We need more of that. And thank you for the compliments.
As to the
why you and others might ask, Im afraid I have no answers. I look at the evidence first, and see if there is a scenario that fits. If we cant logically conclude from the evidence alone a definite answer, we have to theorize. Thats all my conclusion is -- a theory, and based on that theory, I tried to fit the
who into the theory. The
who could be John, Patsy, Burke, or yes, even an intruder. Since we dont have a confession (other than :laugh:John Karrs) that gives us a provable answer, we can only theorize. I am certainly open any other theory based on what I feel is solid evidence. In fact, I will even say, I
hope there is a better theory because I dont really
want to believe mine. But wanting is not enough in my mind to exclude the possibility of someone based only on his/her age, and then letting the evidence speak to the nature of what happened.
Why would Burke act out this way? Had he heard something from an older friend that would cause his curiosity about such things? Did he see something in a movie, a video game, or read it in one of his parents crime novels? You might just as well ask (which I have) why that particular paintbrush was chosen. There are certainly nicer looking brushes in Patsys tote. I cant see any others in the pictures we have available that are as old looking with the finish coming off. Was it just a random choice? Was it somewhere else other than in the tote when it was selected? Again, we just dont know the answers to so many questions.
Yes, I agree that the RN is important, but since we know that we cant take it at face value (kidnapping), we have to look at it as staging. Who wrote it? What was its purpose (since we know it was not really a ransom note)? That has all been debated since it was first leaked to the public, and is still being debated to this day. Just look at some of the threads right here on this forum on that very subject. Handwriting analysts normally look at writing samples to verify if someone actually wrote something that might have been forged by someone else. IOW, they are usually trying to see if something presented as the writing of an individual has been faked by another individual to copy their handwriting (
e.g., a forged will, forged checks, a forged signature on a contract). On the other hand, in trying to analyze writing that has been written with the purpose of disguising the handwriting, the task becomes much more difficult. The
best that can be done there is to say that a certain individual cannot be excluded as the author, which is of course, what CBI did with Patsy.
If handwriting alone is not enough to determine an author, then you have to go to the language, the phrases used, misspelled words, and even more nuanced clues to try and determine the author. Even then, your conclusion will not be enough to prove authorship in a court of law -- only the court of public opinion. And even then, if you determine the author with any amount of confidence, all you have done is proven the authorship; and the author might not be the person responsible for the death (and IMO, that is the case here.). Also IMO, we know with a certain degree of confidence who wrote the RN, so then we have to ask
why.
.
