I wonder if that was the worst part because PR bungled the note so badly.
I think we have to take into account who was questioning JR. Seems to account for his "that explains that then" BS. But from PR's interview:
1998:
17 PATSY RAMSEY: Right, from Priscilla.
18 That's another one of those legal pads.
19 TOM HANEY: Right.
20 PATSY RAMSEY: Is that a (inaudible)
21 picture?
22 TOM HANEY: No.
23 PATSY RAMSEY: No.
24 TOM HANEY: But this photo was not taken
25 after, this was on, it's a --
0527
1 PATSY RAMSEY: Right, right.
2 TRIP DeMUTH: -- similar photo to this one
3 here, but we're minus that.
4 PATSY RAMSEY: Right.
5 TOM HANEY: And probably minus the cleaning
6 fluid and we have some bags here.
7 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-huh (yes).
8 TOM HANEY: And that's photo 52 that we're
9 comparing it to.
10 PATSY RAMSEY: Is that cleaning stuff over
11 there?
12 TOM HANEY: Hard to see. It could be the
13 same, but I'm not sure. Okay.
14 That photo 52 was taken by the police.
15 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah.
16 TOM HANEY: Well, this photo 12OTET8 was on
17 your roll of file in your camera. And on the
18 same roll is the next photo, a Christmas morning
19 photo of the kids.
20 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-huh (yes). Oh, God.
21 TOM HANEY: Before we, before we talk too
22 much about the next photo, if you can --
23 TRIP DeMUTH: You want to just take that
24 out for a minute?
25 TOM HANEY: Let's talk still about the
0528
1 120TET.
Like I say, this was on your role of
2 film and it's not exactly the same photograph
3 that was taken by the police.
4 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-huh (yes).
5 TOM HANEY: But it's, it's, it shows --
6 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah.
7 TOM HANEY: -- pretty much, I guess, or can
8 you tell me when that would have been taken?
9 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't have a clue why
10 anybody would take a picture like that. I don't
11 know (inaudible). Who took the picture?
12 TOM HANEY: Well, it's on your roll --
13 PATSY RAMSEY: It's on my --
14 TOM HANEY: -- of film on your camera.
15 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't know.
16 TOM HANEY: And this legal pad that you --
17 PATSY RAMSEY: Right.
18 TOM HANEY: -- identified --
19 PATSY RAMSEY: Right.
20 TOM HANEY: -- do you know when that would
21 have been in that position?
22 PATSY RAMSEY: No. So this, this was taken
23 before photo one was?
24 TOM HANEY: Before the police photos.
25 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah, okay. I don't know
0529
1 when this was taken, or why it was taken. I
2 mean, it's nothing.
3 TRIP DeMUTH: Do you recognize that pad, I
4 know it's (inaudible) photo?
5 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah, but we had a lot of
6 those around. There was a picture in another
7 one. I think.
8 TRIP DeMUTH: Uh-huh (yes)
9 PATSY RAMSEY: I bought like those Office
10 Depot's or Office Max or whatever they are and I
11 usually kept a bunch of them, you know, kept
12 them over here, right around here in the
13 kitchen.
14 TRIP DeMUTH: By the telephone?
15 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah, but, you know, they
16 float all over.
17 TRIP DeMUTH: So it wouldn't have been
18 unusual to be where it is?
19 PATSY RAMSEY: No. No. Gosh.
TH clearly says that the picture in question is on the roll before the Christmas morning pictures, and later asks why the pad would be in that position. Whether pages were laid out like KK said or not, obviously the pad of paper was located somewhere that made LE suspicious.
PR's reaction, "Oh God!" shows she knows it's incriminating in some way. She later states that they "float all over" in hopes of offering some reasonable explanation.
Both PR & JR are vague, unsure, blah blah blah. There was some reason they were uncomfortable with what this picture showed.
I thought it was something that was on their photo (120tet), allegedly taken by JR that same morning (finishing off the roll of film), but when the police photographed that same area later on (photo 52) that object(s)(scarf? bag? windex??)was missing all of a sudden?
I read PR;s "Oh, God" response was from seeing the photo of JB and BR on Christmas morning.
I think we have to take into account who was questioning JR. Seems to account for his "that explains that then" BS. But from PR's interview:
1998:
17 PATSY RAMSEY: Right, from Priscilla.
18 That's another one of those legal pads.
19 TOM HANEY: Right.
20 PATSY RAMSEY: Is that a (inaudible)
21 picture?
22 TOM HANEY: No.
23 PATSY RAMSEY: No.
24 TOM HANEY: But this photo was not taken
25 after, this was on, it's a --
0527
1 PATSY RAMSEY: Right, right.
2 TRIP DeMUTH: -- similar photo to this one
3 here, but we're minus that.
4 PATSY RAMSEY: Right.
5 TOM HANEY: And probably minus the cleaning
6 fluid and we have some bags here.
7 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-huh (yes).
8 TOM HANEY: And that's photo 52 that we're
9 comparing it to.
10 PATSY RAMSEY: Is that cleaning stuff over
11 there?
12 TOM HANEY: Hard to see. It could be the
13 same, but I'm not sure. Okay.
14 That photo 52 was taken by the police.
15 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah.
16 TOM HANEY: Well, this photo 12OTET8 was on
17 your roll of file in your camera. And on the
18 same roll is the next photo, a Christmas morning
19 photo of the kids.
20 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-huh (yes). Oh, God.
21 TOM HANEY: Before we, before we talk too
22 much about the next photo, if you can --
23 TRIP DeMUTH: You want to just take that
24 out for a minute?
25 TOM HANEY: Let's talk still about the
0528
1 120TET.
Like I say, this was on your role of
2 film and it's not exactly the same photograph
3 that was taken by the police.
4 PATSY RAMSEY: Uh-huh (yes).
5 TOM HANEY: But it's, it's, it shows --
6 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah.
7 TOM HANEY: -- pretty much, I guess, or can
8 you tell me when that would have been taken?
9 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't have a clue why
10 anybody would take a picture like that. I don't
11 know (inaudible). Who took the picture?
12 TOM HANEY: Well, it's on your roll --
13 PATSY RAMSEY: It's on my --
14 TOM HANEY: -- of film on your camera.
15 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't know.
16 TOM HANEY: And this legal pad that you --
17 PATSY RAMSEY: Right.
18 TOM HANEY: -- identified --
19 PATSY RAMSEY: Right.
20 TOM HANEY: -- do you know when that would
21 have been in that position?
22 PATSY RAMSEY: No. So this, this was taken
23 before photo one was?
24 TOM HANEY: Before the police photos.
25 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah, okay. I don't know
0529
1 when this was taken, or why it was taken. I
2 mean, it's nothing.
3 TRIP DeMUTH: Do you recognize that pad, I
4 know it's (inaudible) photo?
5 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah, but we had a lot of
6 those around. There was a picture in another
7 one. I think.
8 TRIP DeMUTH: Uh-huh (yes)
9 PATSY RAMSEY: I bought like those Office
10 Depot's or Office Max or whatever they are and I
11 usually kept a bunch of them, you know, kept
12 them over here, right around here in the
13 kitchen.
14 TRIP DeMUTH: By the telephone?
15 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah, but, you know, they
16 float all over.
17 TRIP DeMUTH: So it wouldn't have been
18 unusual to be where it is?
19 PATSY RAMSEY: No. No. Gosh.
TH clearly says that the picture in question is on the roll before the Christmas morning pictures, and later asks why the pad would be in that position. Whether pages were laid out like KK said or not, obviously the pad of paper was located somewhere that made LE suspicious.
PR's reaction, "Oh God!" shows she knows it's incriminating in some way. She later states that they "float all over" in hopes of offering some reasonable explanation.
Both PR & JR are vague, unsure, blah blah blah. There was some reason they were uncomfortable with what this picture showed.
I thought it was something that was on their photo (120tet), allegedly taken by JR that same morning (finishing off the roll of film), but when the police photographed that same area later on (photo 52) that object(s)(scarf? bag? windex??)was missing all of a sudden?
I read PR;s "Oh, God" response was from seeing the photo of JB and BR on Christmas morning.
I guess it depends on which interview you're talking about.
JR's interview with LS makes it look like that, thanks to JR, and LS letting him direct the interview in that direction.
However, it's plainly clear in PR's interview that Tom Haney says, point blank, This picture was on your roll of film BEFORE the Christmas morning photos of the kids. I don't see why there's confusion about what he's saying. It seems perfectly clear to me. Like "Hey Patsy, explain this photo and WHY it was on the roll BEFORE the crime."
16 TOM HANEY: Well, this photo 12OTET8 was on
17 your roll of file in your camera. And on the
18 same roll is the next photo, a Christmas morning
19 photo of the kids.
I'm not claiming to know what was depicted in the photo in question, but simply pointing out that whatever it was, it was taken before the Christmas morning photos, and that LE thought it was suspicious enough to question them about it.
I guess it depends on which interview you're talking about.
JR's interview with LS makes it look like that, thanks to JR, and LS letting him direct the interview in that direction.
However, it's plainly clear in PR's interview that Tom Haney says, point blank, This picture was on your roll of film BEFORE the Christmas morning photos of the kids. I don't see why there's confusion about what he's saying. It seems perfectly clear to me. Like "Hey Patsy, explain this photo and WHY it was on the roll BEFORE the crime."
16 TOM HANEY: Well, this photo 12OTET8 was on
17 your roll of file in your camera. And on the
18 same roll is the next photo, a Christmas morning
19 photo of the kids.
I'm not claiming to know what was depicted in the photo in question, but simply pointing out that whatever it was, it was taken before the Christmas morning photos, and that LE thought it was suspicious enough to question them about it.
Anyhoo, I think any evidence of preplanning would change a lot of RDI theories.
I'm wondering what most members here believe, that the murder was planned or not? I don't think it was planned. If it was planned, it seems poorly executed. On the other hand, it was the perfect murder in that no one has been punished for this crime.
Fair enough. I get that. What caused a lot of confusion for me was reading that Komrik document, which seemed to imply that the picture was of the RN pad and two blank pages laid side by side on the spiral staircase, as if someone was practicing in advance for the murder. Other people said that was just a supposition. If it was, I found it very unhelpful to do that as it caused a lot of confusion for me and others who misinterpreted it. I don't think we need to be making suppositions of this nature. It's a HUGE leap to interpret the transcripts as he did and the only reason he made is because it supports his theory. So I dismiss all of this as having any real relevance to the case unless someone can show otherwise.
Fair enough. I get that. What caused a lot of confusion for me was reading that Komrik document, which seemed to imply that the picture was of the RN pad and two blank pages laid side by side on the spiral staircase, as if someone was practicing in advance for the murder. Other people said that was just a supposition. If it was, I found it very unhelpful to do that as it caused a lot of confusion for me and others who misinterpreted it. I don't think we need to be making suppositions of this nature. It's a HUGE leap to interpret the transcripts as he did and the only reason he made is because it supports his theory. So I dismiss all of this as having any real relevance to the case unless someone can show otherwise.
I know exactly what you're saying! It was confusing to me too. I had to go back and read it several times to determine exactly what KK was saying. True, it is just his assumption, supposition, etc. Not much different than what any of us do in reality. IMO, it's his wording that's so confusing.
I think it could be very relevant to the case. Is it? Who knows? But it was suspicious enough for LE to question both Rs about it. Had the pic just shown a general scene that happened to include the pad, I can't see LE thinking twice about it. They'd already admitted they had many of those pads around the house. It seems there was something suspicious about the placement, or location of the pad. TH specifically asks about the placement/ location, and if it was typical for it to be located where it is in the photo.
Sorry in advance, if this comes out in a jumbled way, and is more confusing than ever! I agree it's very confusing when we can't see the interviews or the photos in question- we may not be able to be sure...
I might be wrong, but I understood it to mean that the police were very suspicious about 2 aspects concerning the photos: firstly, the location of the pads and pages in the Ramsey photo, and secondly, that the Ramsey photo was almost identical to the police photo, but different in a crucial way?
Namely, that the positioning of the blank pad and pages in the Ramsey photo was virtually identical to the positioning of the real Ransom note, which was photographed by the police... But, crucially, the Ramsey photo showed a blank pad and pages, whereas the police photo showed the actual written ransom note? So, basically, that indicated that someone had been possibly practicing how the real ransom note was going to be positioned (in the future, obviously indicating pre planning) and also that the Ramsey's photo therefore could not have been taken at the same or similar time as the police photo (once the police had arrived), as John Ramsey was trying to say, when he described finishing off the roll of film for the police (obviously once they were there!)
Hopefully this stil makes sense to read?!
Just my own thougts, of course.
Maybe they were just trying to trick Patsy.
Sorry in advance, if this comes out in a jumbled way, and is more confusing than ever! I agree it's very confusing when we can't see the interviews or the photos in question- we may not be able to be sure...
I might be wrong, but I understood it to mean that the police were very suspicious about 2 aspects concerning the photos: firstly, the location of the pads and pages in the Ramsey photo, and secondly, that the Ramsey photo was almost identical to the police photo, but different in a crucial way? Yes, I agree.
Namely, that the positioning of the blank pad and pages in the Ramsey photo was virtually identical to the positioning of the real Ransom note, which was photographed by the police... But, crucially, the Ramsey photo showed a blank pad and pages, whereas the police photo showed the actual written ransom note? No, I don't agree here. This is ONLY KK's assumption.So, basically, that indicated that someone had been possibly practicing how the real ransom note was going to be positioned (in the future, obviously indicating pre planning) and also that the Ramsey's photo therefore could not have been taken at the same or similar time as the police photo (once the police had arrived), as John Ramsey was trying to say, when he described finishing off the roll of film for the police (obviously once they were there!) Again, I disagree. It would be silly to "practice" how the note would be laid out by taking a picture. First of all, Tom Haney clearly indicates the picture was on the roll BEFORE the Christmas morning photos. Second, since she was killed Christmas night, there wouldn't be time to develop the film and study it before the murder.
Ok, photo 12OTET8 is being compared to the police photo #52, as shown in posts above. The RN is NOT shown in LE #52 photo. IMO, the 12OTET8 photo probably showed the pad lying on the staircase, no blank pages laid out next to it, but just the pad. This would explain TH's question about the placement of the pad.
I seriously doubt it was an "intentional" photo, or any sort of "practice" for laying out the RN. I think it was just an accident. JR probably did tell the truth when he first said that it was a photo taken when he was testing the camera BEFORE the Christmas morning photos. Then of course later he switched up his story and claimed it was taken AFTER the Christmas morning photos, when LE asked for the film, and that he was just burning up the leftover film. Clearly NOT possible as it was on the roll BEFORE the Christmas morning photos. Hope that makes sense.
Hopefully this stil makes sense to read?!
Just my own thougts, of course.
.....So, basically, that indicated that someone had been possibly practicing how the real ransom note was going to be positioned (in the future, obviously indicating pre planning) and also that the Ramsey's photo therefore could not have been taken at the same or similar time as the police photo (once the police had arrived), as John Ramsey was trying to say, when he described finishing off the roll of film for the police (obviously once they were there!).....