Intruder theories only - RDI theories not allowed! *READ FIRST POST* #2

[THE BUNK]

And the other MATERIAL object I would be pleased if RDI could explain it - new batteries in the old FL. How could it been replaced without trace of old batteries discharged in the trash , packages of the other new batteries left minus 2 taken, no finger prints on it? Steve Thomas had big problem with those batteries, he tried to put this FL in the hand of policeman, did not he?

Probably back with the fresh batteries. If the Ramsey's worked with computer and tech companies, proper disposal of batteries is a common practice. The batteries may have been put back in their original package with the idea of recycling or disposing. Or it could be done out of laziness.

Or they could be in one of the Ramsey's pockets and they forgot in the commotion. This may not be deception may just be laziness.

Another idea is that it wasnt a fresh package. The batteries may have been swapped from another device. Perhaps, from a toy or portable tape player or radio. Or hell maybe Patsy's electric dildo (or John;s...sorry I couldn't resist )

 

[tovarisch]

Probably back with the fresh batteries. If the Ramsey's worked with computer and tech companies, proper disposal of batteries is a common practice. The batteries may have been put back in their original package with the idea of recycling or disposing. Or it could be done out of laziness.

Or they could be in one of the Ramsey's pockets and they forgot in the commotion. This may not be deception may just be laziness.

Another idea is that it wasnt a fresh package. The batteries may have been swapped from another device. Perhaps, from a toy or portable tape player or radio. Or hell maybe Patsy's electric dildo (or John;s...sorry I couldn't resist )

No, as I remember correctly, the investigators spent some time looking for the origin of those batteries, all trash checked, all other possible places of origin , they tried very hard to find the origin, they could not. Then tried to put FL in the hands of a policeman, then report came that no one policeman on the scene left FL. To this day this is one of the big unanswered puzzles.

 

[reedus23]

I’m familiar with WM3, but most of what I know comes from the documentaries (3), and from J. Douglas’ “Law & Disorder.”
The acandyrose website and I suppose the smoking gun website are probably the closest that you’ll find to what you’re looking for, but I think you’ve already seen the downside of that.

As far as I know, none of the document analysis done by what I call the “credible expert’s” – the four you mention - has ever been released; but the Carnes Decision gives us pretty good idea as to what these experts concluded; and the Epstein depo (and, Hunter’s via Epstein), and the Smit depo, and even the Thomas depo all give pretty good indications as to what these experts concluded.

There’s a chance that someone will pop up now and say something negative about the Carnes Decision; but, the truth is that the Carnes Decision was sound, as it was based on the evidence that was presented before it.

The absence of the sort or reports and documents you’d like to see is one of the reasons that I am, still, after all these years, sometimes shocked with the degree of certainty so many posters seem to possess. I’m pretty set as an IDI, but that is a provisional position, things could change; but I need evidence. It’s always, always, always about the evidence.
.
I’m wondering about your opinion on questions asked by interrogators during the interviews as opposed to the depositions. It’s been my opinion that information gleaned from questions/statements/claims made by interrogators during the depositions are more indicative of “the truth” than that gleaned from questions/statements/claims made by interrogators during the interviews. As I understand it, interrogators (my term, because I don’t know any better) can – ah, misrepresent – during the interviews, but cannot legally/ethically do the same during the depositions.

If this is true – and, I’m hoping you have some insight on this: if its “true” – than, the questions asked during the depositions can be as informative, and possibly less misleading, than the answers given. Or, so it seems...
...

AK

LE doing interrogations certainly have more leeway to bend or skirt the truth when questioning someone. They can play tricks on witnesses and it's all fair game. For instance, say you take a poly and pass with flying colors, there's nothing to stop the detective from coming in and saying "Reedus23, I just got your polygraph results and I gotta shoot it straight to you. There are some things that really give me concern. Now do you want to tell me the truth about A, B, C." and then grill me for another 6 hours. Now, their ability to do that is minimized if represented by counsel. In general, lawyers do have additional guidelines or rules they have to work within and those very from state to state and state to federal.

Just an initial observation as I'm reading through these. The first interviews done 4/30/97 were very rigid and you can see them playing games to a certain extent. I could be completely wrong, but there were a group of questions in both PR and JR's interviews that were almost identical and felt like something that would have been written out by the FBI to try to trip them up. They either read those questions or rehearsed them very well. The interviews done on 6/23/98 were done in a completely different style. A much more natural approach.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Scenario: Patsy goes to the store and comes home with a lot of brown paper bags containing groceries. Threaded through the foodstuff is toiletries and other non food items that belong in places like bathrooms and bedrooms in the upper floors. There are several items, so Patsy piles them all in one bag so she can make one trip upstairs. She drops off something in JBs room, placing the bag on the bed (largest flattest most convenient surface) and then moves on to bathrooms and maybe even Burke's room.

This isn't hard stuff.

By the way, why is the "kit" only the tool of the intruder? Why couldn't either John or Patsy also keep a "kit" in a brown paper bag?

I don't know anyone who takes brown paper bags upstairs. You empty them downstairs and then bring up the stuff you need. Did their housekeeper shop for them?

 

[Linda7NJ]

I `ve been absent on the thread due to our old dog`s sickness for 3 weeks now. I’m` depressed to the lowest point, because despite ton of money spent on 2 veterinarians, I realized, our dog is in the end of her 15.5 years life journey.

Thank you for your response. My view on your scenario- I`m sorry, I cannot get it as a realistic scenario.

The bag`s particle were on the body, and on the JB`s bed. Undeniably, the brown paper bag was in the JB`s bedroom AFTER she was put to bed and BEFORE she was taken to the basement on the night of killing, it creates exact time frame for the bag in JB`s bedroom -----AFTER JB was put to bed and BEFORE she was taken to basement. The killing took place late in the night/ early in the morning. Patsy`s carrying toiletry around at this time of the night - unbelievable scenario. Ramseys entering JB`s bedroom with killer`s kit in brown bag-unbelievable premeditated killing `s scenario.

Fact that RDI yet to explain – brown paper bag was in the JB~s bed room IN the MOMENT of killing. And then it was put to the adjacent room with the ROPE inside it.

And the other MATERIAL object I would be pleased if RDI could explain it - new batteries in the old FL. How could it been replaced without trace of old batteries discharged in the trash , packages of the other new batteries left minus 2 taken, no finger prints on it? Steve Thomas had big problem with those batteries, he tried to put this FL in the hand of policeman, did not he?

I'm so sorry to hear your dog is so ill. Just wanted to say enjoy every moment with her. (((((((Hugs))))))))

 

[Anti-K]

LE doing interrogations certainly have more leeway to bend or skirt the truth when questioning someone. They can play tricks on witnesses and it's all fair game. For instance, say you take a poly and pass with flying colors, there's nothing to stop the detective from coming in and saying "Reedus23, I just got your polygraph results and I gotta shoot it straight to you. There are some things that really give me concern. Now do you want to tell me the truth about A, B, C." and then grill me for another 6 hours. Now, their ability to do that is minimized if represented by counsel. In general, lawyers do have additional guidelines or rules they have to work within and those very from state to state and state to federal.

Just an initial observation as I'm reading through these. The first interviews done 4/30/97 were very rigid and you can see them playing games to a certain extent. I could be completely wrong, but there were a group of questions in both PR and JR's interviews that were almost identical and felt like something that would have been written out by the FBI to try to trip them up. They either read those questions or rehearsed them very well. The interviews done on 6/23/98 were done in a completely different style. A much more natural approach.

Yes, I agree about the difference between interviews.

I’m not sure about the FBI, but I know that Dale Yeager of Seraph (you’ll have to google that!) prepared, or at least advised on questions for BPD that were “designed” to elicit a “reaction” form the Ramseys.

I’m always wary of information based on what was said by the interviewers during the interviews, but feel a little more confident about things that are said in the depositions.
...

AK

 

[2 percent]

I don't know anyone who takes brown paper bags upstairs. You empty them downstairs and then bring up the stuff you need. Did their housekeeper shop for them?

As has been mentioned here before, personal experience isn't necessarily relevant to every argument. Someone will always have a separate experience from yours and without knowing details we don't know which is a true situation. As I said, it was a scenario....not a theory.

Housekeeper or Patsy or John or JB herself carrying the bag - doesn't negate the scenario.

 

[Tawny]

I don't know anyone who takes brown paper bags upstairs. You empty them downstairs and then bring up the stuff you need. Did their housekeeper shop for them?

Plenty of people do just that.

 

[THE BUNK]

Why would the intruder feel a flashlight would not be necessary leaving the crime scene? If the Ramsey's neighborhood is like how I think it is, it is probably pitch dark at night. How the hell did the intruder find his mini-van or car without the benefit of a flashlight. It's not like he is parked right out front. Presumably he is parked a few miles off the Ramsey property (especially if he broke in during the day).

 

[Mama2JML]

Why would the intruder feel a flashlight would not be necessary leaving the crime scene? If the Ramsey's neighborhood is like how I think it is, it is probably pitch dark at night. How the hell did the intruder find his mini-van or car without the benefit of a flashlight. It's not like he is parked right out front. Presumably he is parked a few miles off the Ramsey property (especially if he broke in during the day).

What makes you think it would have been "pitch dark"? Aside from artificial light, the moon may have illuminated the night sky. (Full moon on the 24th.)

FWIW, I'd think a flashlight could draw unwanted attention & we don't know the perp's mode of transportation.

 

[Mama2JML]

Alie's case was solved 18 years after her murder:

"It's been a long 18 years," said Richard Berrelez, grandfather of Alie Berrelez, who was killed in Englewood, Colo., 1993. "But Alie's not a victim, I don't want people to think of her as a victim. She's a hero, and she's been a hero for the past 18 years."

Englewood police said today what they had long suspected: the DNA of neighbor Nick Stofer, 41, was found on the girl's underwear when they recovered her body. Stofer, however, will not face charges. He died of natural causes in 2001, never having stood trial for the crime.

Alie Berrelez was kidnapped from her apartment complex where she was sitting eating pizza with other children in the parking lot, in Englewood on May 18, 1993. Following a massive search by police and fire workers and volunteers, and the use of scent-tracking dogs, the little girl was found four days later in a canvas bag near a creek 14 miles away from her home.

Cold Case Killing of Little Girl Solved 18 Years Later

Stofer had been the primary suspect in the crime since it occurred, but police did not mount a case against him because of a lack of evidence, according to Englewood Police Chief John Collins.

Police said that the only evidence they had against Stofer was circumstantial, including the testimony of Berrelez's 3-year-old brother who may have witnessed the kidnapping .

According to ABC News affiliate ABC7, Alie's young brother told police "the old man" took Alie. The boy then walked to the door of apartment where Stofer had lived (he had just moved out) and indicated it was the apartment of the "old man."

Detectives traveled to Redlands, Calif., to take blood samples and hair samples from Stofer. However, DNA testing did not exist at that time.

An autopsy revealed no obvious cause of death and showed no indication of sexual assault or significant trauma, according to ABC7.

The scent tracking dogs that helped lead police to Berrelez's body then followed the scent back to the apartment complex where she lived, which police said pointed to a neighbor being the culprit, according to the report.

"We wanted to put the cuffs on (Stofer) so bad, but we couldn't because the evidence was not there," Collins said today.

"So over time, the pain, the anguish of not being able to do that kept the fire alive and it was terribly frustrating. That's why we're here today. It may be therapy for us to be able to say it's over. All of the work the police and the family and everyone put into it finally came to a conclusion," Collins said.

Collins said that advancements in DNA technology had finally allowed authorities to confirm the match.

"Over time, DNA analysis has advanced," said Katie Featherston, forensic scientist at the Colorado Bureau of Investigation. "In 1993 it was not available at the CBI lab, but over time we have been able to deal with samples that are smaller and smaller, and/or less pristine. Those advances allowed us to do the DNA analysis on this case."

Collins could not speculate on a motive for the crime, saying only that Stofer was known to have a problem with alcohol and drugs. He had a criminal record including alcohol and minor drug charges, but no history of sex offenses, Collins said.

Richard Berrelez said he wished Stofer was alive so he could confront him and ask him those questions, as well as see him stand trial.

"There are a lot of questions that we have as a family that we will never have the answer to," Richard Berrelez said. "All we can do is guess at why and how and what time everything happened during the different days."

Source: http://abcnews.go.com/US/cold-case-year-murdered-1993-solved-dna/story?id=14510785

 

[Mama2JML]

Location of DNA evidence linked to suspect:

"Today, they said they had resubmitted evidence in the case for additional testing, using new technology. As a result of that, a Colorado Bureau of Investigation forensic scientist developed a DNA profile from an area of Alie's underwear that matched Stofer.

In addition, a second partial genetic profile was discovered on the waistband of Alie's underwear that matched Stofer."​

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_18884599

 

[Mama2JML]

Advancements in DNA technology & DNA from saliva?

"Over time, DNA analysis has advanced. Back in 1993, DNA analysis was not available at the CBI laboratory and over time we have been able to deal with samples that are smaller and/or less pristine. And it was those advances that allowed us to do the DNA analysis on this particular case," CBI Forensic Scientist Gentry Roth told reporters at the press conference. According to a press release, Roth is the forensic scientist who found the DNA linking Stofer to Alie.

Englewood Police Chief John Collins discussed the DNA testing results at the press conference:

All I can tell you is, and I would imagine that one of the CBI folks would tell you the same. It was DNA that was either saliva--it could have been saliva, it could have been something else but it was very rich in DNA and that's what was found in there. What was it, I'm not sure we can totally explain what it was...All we know is that it was unequivocally his DNA in her underwear, and it had no business being there."​

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/958985

 

[kjpaw]

I feel this is respectful and appropriate to post here because even though I'm not IDI I'm also on the fence and still personally sleuthing. I'll say upfront I find it hard to believe a random intruder committed this crime and lean towards it being the R's or someone they knew but I'm still very open minded. I posted this in the RDI thread and really want feedback to close these gaps:
I've recently become very interested in this case. I spent the summer of 2005 (as well as many other weeks in 2004-05) in boulder and the Ramsey house was on my regular running route and also the route we took to chataqua park from my then boyfriend's (now husband) frat house (sigma nu). Its a very unassuming house from the road and honestly it went by without notice unless I was specifically thinking about it...even though I knew of the case and I was a true crime reader back then this case didn't interest me much til recently. All that said, (tmi maybe , I'm posting here because even though I'm not sure who committed this horrendous act I have a hard time believing it was someone outside the family or intimate friends. Like a lot of people the ransom note sticks with me and makes me think it's one of the r's but for the life of me I can't determine who did it.

So finally after reading all the books on this and watching all the documentaries I can find I decided to post.

A. Goodness you guys are good. This is why I love WS because there is such a thorough analysis! Sorry I'm late to this case! But thank you all for keeping this case alive.

B. I don't think br's responses in interviews should be over analyzed. I lost my mom at 10 and got up and went to the park to play the next morning. Children that age are in an in between stage of understanding death (and may not fully grasp it) so b saying he was moving on or whatever he said in that respect doesn't surprise me. That doesn't absolve him definitely but I did want to throw that out there. No offense to anyone's who has drawn conclusions over his statements. I just believe at that age any interview answers have to be carefully considered.

C. After the ransom note the thing that bothers me the most about this case and makes me the most suspicious of the r's is that after discovering that one child had been kidnapped why wouldn't you grab the other child out of bed and keep him close to you for safety if nothing else?

D. If you don't have that reaction (grabbing the other child out of bed to keep them close and safe) wouldn't you be tearing through the house, including a sibling's room, looking for the missing child, thus waking up the sleeping non-kidnapped child in the process? Or at least waking the sleeping child to say did you hear anything, do you know where JB is?

Sorry for the long post, I've spent the summer getting caught up with the details and those are my essential questions I've come up with. Curious to hear your thoughts. Again, I'm not decided as of yet and while I'm not full RDI I'm definitely more sure it wasn't some random intruder.

Edited for this thread but I'm on the fence and just want feedback to help me get the full picture.

 

[Mama2JML]

I feel this is respectful and appropriate to post here because even though I'm not IDI I'm also on the fence and still personally sleuthing. I'll say upfront I find it hard to believe a random intruder committed this crime and lean towards it being the R's or someone they knew but I'm still very open minded. I posted this in the RDI thread and really want feedback to close these gaps:
I've recently become very interested in this case. I spent the summer of 2005 (as well as many other weeks in 2004-05) in boulder and the Ramsey house was on my regular running route and also the route we took to chataqua park from my then boyfriend's (now husband) frat house (sigma nu). Its a very unassuming house from the road and honestly it went by without notice unless I was specifically thinking about it...even though I knew of the case and I was a true crime reader back then this case didn't interest me much til recently. All that said, (tmi maybe , I'm posting here because even though I'm not sure who committed this horrendous act I have a hard time believing it was someone outside the family or intimate friends. Like a lot of people the ransom note sticks with me and makes me think it's one of the r's but for the life of me I can't determine who did it.

So finally after reading all the books on this and watching all the documentaries I can find I decided to post.

A. Goodness you guys are good. This is why I love WS because there is such a thorough analysis! Sorry I'm late to this case! But thank you all for keeping this case alive.

B. I don't think br's responses in interviews should be over analyzed. I lost my mom at 10 and got up and went to the park to play the next morning. Children that age are in an in between stage of understanding death (and may not fully grasp it) so b saying he was moving on or whatever he said in that respect doesn't surprise me. That doesn't absolve him definitely but I did want to throw that out there. No offense to anyone's who has drawn conclusions over his statements. I just believe at that age any interview answers have to be carefully considered.

C. After the ransom note the thing that bothers me the most about this case and makes me the most suspicious of the r's is that after discovering that one child had been kidnapped why wouldn't you grab the other child out of bed and keep him close to you for safety if nothing else?

D. If you don't have that reaction (grabbing the other child out of bed to keep them close and safe) wouldn't you be tearing through the house, including a sibling's room, looking for the missing child, thus waking up the sleeping non-kidnapped child in the process? Or at least waking the sleeping child to say did you hear anything, do you know where JB is?

Sorry for the long post, I've spent the summer getting caught up with the details and those are my essential questions I've come up with. Curious to hear your thoughts. Again, I'm not decided as of yet and while I'm not full RDI I'm definitely more sure it wasn't some random intruder.

Edited for this thread but I'm on the fence and just want feedback to help me get the full picture.

What was running through the Ramseys' minds? JonBenét was gone, a ransom note was left behind, and Burke was safe in his bed. I don't know what I'd be thinking, nor how I would react, but I do know instinct would kick in and logic would likely go out the window.

 

[Mama2JML]

While it's possible, it seems improbable this crime was perpetrated by a "random" intruder. The perp may have "known" the Ramseys, and the Ramseys (or a Ramsey) may have been acquainted with him. Alie Berrelez was murdered by a neighbor, Nick Stofer. He moved away shortly after the crime, but he left minute evidence behind. In 2011, Alie's case was closed (18 years after her death) due to advancements in DNA technology. Stofer's DNA was matched to genetic material (possibly saliva) found in, & on the waistband, of the victim's underwear. He had no prior sex crime convictions.

 

[Anti-K]

I feel this is respectful and appropriate to post here because even though I'm not IDI I'm also on the fence and still personally sleuthing. I'll say upfront I find it hard to believe a random intruder committed this crime and lean towards it being the R's or someone they knew but I'm still very open minded. I posted this in the RDI thread and really want feedback to close these gaps:
I've recently become very interested in this case. I spent the summer of 2005 (as well as many other weeks in 2004-05) in boulder and the Ramsey house was on my regular running route and also the route we took to chataqua park from my then boyfriend's (now husband) frat house (sigma nu). Its a very unassuming house from the road and honestly it went by without notice unless I was specifically thinking about it...even though I knew of the case and I was a true crime reader back then this case didn't interest me much til recently. All that said, (tmi maybe , I'm posting here because even though I'm not sure who committed this horrendous act I have a hard time believing it was someone outside the family or intimate friends. Like a lot of people the ransom note sticks with me and makes me think it's one of the r's but for the life of me I can't determine who did it.

So finally after reading all the books on this and watching all the documentaries I can find I decided to post.

A. Goodness you guys are good. This is why I love WS because there is such a thorough analysis! Sorry I'm late to this case! But thank you all for keeping this case alive.

B. I don't think br's responses in interviews should be over analyzed. I lost my mom at 10 and got up and went to the park to play the next morning. Children that age are in an in between stage of understanding death (and may not fully grasp it) so b saying he was moving on or whatever he said in that respect doesn't surprise me. That doesn't absolve him definitely but I did want to throw that out there. No offense to anyone's who has drawn conclusions over his statements. I just believe at that age any interview answers have to be carefully considered.

C. After the ransom note the thing that bothers me the most about this case and makes me the most suspicious of the r's is that after discovering that one child had been kidnapped why wouldn't you grab the other child out of bed and keep him close to you for safety if nothing else?

D. If you don't have that reaction (grabbing the other child out of bed to keep them close and safe) wouldn't you be tearing through the house, including a sibling's room, looking for the missing child, thus waking up the sleeping non-kidnapped child in the process? Or at least waking the sleeping child to say did you hear anything, do you know where JB is?

Sorry for the long post, I've spent the summer getting caught up with the details and those are my essential questions I've come up with. Curious to hear your thoughts. Again, I'm not decided as of yet and while I'm not full RDI I'm definitely more sure it wasn't some random intruder.

Edited for this thread but I'm on the fence and just want feedback to help me get the full picture.

Welcome kjpaw,

I don’t think anyone really believes that this was some random intruder.
.

Although it seems that the ransom note was likely written in the house, the ransom note is one of those pieces of evidence that leads some of us to dismiss the Ramseys as reasonable suspects. It is an integral aspect of almost any case for an intruder as killer.
.

I think a few people have the same questions as you express in your points C & D.

The simplest answer is that the parents believed that there was a kidnapping, which means that the danger to those remaining in the house had passed. The kidnappers entered, they took what they wanted and they left.

I understand when people say that they would have done this or that and something else besides, but I don’t understand how this has any relevance to the case. It just tells us something about those people, it tells us nothing about the Ramseys and nothing about what happened that night. I think that I would have been less concerned with what a sleeping child might have heard and how my house was entered than I would have been with how I was going to get my child back and how was she and how was she coping, etc.
...

AK

 

[reedus23]

Yes, I agree about the difference between interviews.

I’m not sure about the FBI, but I know that Dale Yeager of Seraph (you’ll have to google that!) prepared, or at least advised on questions for BPD that were “designed” to elicit a “reaction” form the Ramseys.

I’m always wary of information based on what was said by the interviewers during the interviews, but feel a little more confident about things that are said in the depositions.
...

AK

I'm following you. No, I don't take any information that LE provides during the questioning as fact. The answers from whoever is interviewed are obviously important, but no, LE has way too much leeway to take it as a fact. LE will/can make up facts when questioning anyone, not just trying to trap someone. They could have said "So we found a unicorn at the crime scene. Did you bring that with you or find it in the house." even though no unicorn was found as a matter of weeding out false confessions and so forth.

 

[reedus23]

Welcome kjpaw,

I don’t think anyone really believes that this was some random intruder.
.

Although it seems that the ransom note was likely written in the house, the ransom note is one of those pieces of evidence that leads some of us to dismiss the Ramseys as reasonable suspects. It is an integral aspect of almost any case for an intruder as killer.
.

I think a few people have the same questions as you express in your points C & D.

The simplest answer is that the parents believed that there was a kidnapping, which means that the danger to those remaining in the house had passed. The kidnappers entered, they took what they wanted and they left.

I understand when people say that they would have done this or that and something else besides, but I don’t understand how this has any relevance to the case. It just tells us something about those people, it tells us nothing about the Ramseys and nothing about what happened that night. I think that I would have been less concerned with what a sleeping child might have heard and how my house was entered than I would have been with how I was going to get my child back and how was she and how was she coping, etc.
...

AK

Well said. The issues raised are not a lot different than if someone would get into a vehicle with a stranger with a weapon or would they scream and shout. I suspect that we would all react differently to a certain extent. If there were no note, then I might question it a bit more about why they didn't scour the house in the hopes she was somewhere. But the note took that option off the table for most apparently, including LE.

 

[THE BUNK]

B. I don't think br's responses in interviews should be over analyzed. I lost my mom at 10 and got up and went to the park to play the next morning. Children that age are in an in between stage of understanding death (and may not fully grasp it) so b saying he was moving on or whatever he said in that respect doesn't surprise me. That doesn't absolve him definitely but I did want to throw that out there. No offense to anyone's who has drawn conclusions over his statements. I just believe at that age any interview answers have to be carefully considered.

Unfortunately as history and human nature has proven, kids can kill as well.

Just cause your an old lady, a crippled person, a woman, a mentally handicapped person...or a little boy, doesn't mean you can't commit murder. Burke needs to be treated as a suspect as much as his parents would.

Burke's also not only a suspect, but a witness and potentially a victim. So, no. I think we are right to analyze his statements and any bizarre behavior on his behalf.

C. After the ransom note the thing that bothers me the most about this case and makes me the most suspicious of the r's is that after discovering that one child had been kidnapped why wouldn't you grab the other child out of bed and keep him close to you for safety if nothing else?

Especially since you don't have any evidence that these kidnappers have left the house.
Think about it? Why would the Ramsey's not assume this psychopath is not in their basement waiting for them to search it so he can kill them too?