Patsy Ramsey

[Anti-K]

Once again you are making stuff up. All LHP said was that she had cleaned that basement many times, never noticing the WC. This was an answer to a question about how obscure that room actually was. The question was not "did you know about the WC?".

So why do you insist on criticizing her credibility? What has she ever said that you consider to be untrue?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

From PMPT; p. 202
“I didn't even know THAT ROOM was there. How could a stranger know to go there?” - Linda Hoffman Pugh

As to why her credibility should be up for debate: LHP was named a suspect by Mrs Ramsey and LHP was subsequently investigated and harassed by media and such. Her life was detrimentally affected and it could be said that she was hurt and felt turned upon. To this day there are people theorizing about her involvement in this crime.

Note that I did not say that she was not credible, only that he credibility is questionable. IOWS, open to scrutiny and debate.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

You make a good point here AK. How about because that is their daughter lying there and they didn't want to look at her like that? I don't see why they couldn't make mistakes like that simply because it was too painful for them to do otherwise

If they committed the sexual aspect of the crime to cover up something, or to make it look like a certain type of crime than it just doesn’t make sense for them to turn around and cover it up, not even if they felt some remorse because this - the assault – would have been a planned act with an intended purpose.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

No offence AK but that sort of response is why I get frustrated with IDIs.

Why, by removing the note, does so much else change? Take away the cord (not only a significator of kidnapping but just restraint in general, but let's get rid of it); get rid of the tape (again it could have been used just to silence her during the assault not necessarily indicative of a kidnapping, but throw it away); move the victim from the basement (even though it is probably not the original crime scene so a good place for the body to be, but get rid of it too because it only helps to invoke kidnapping, not somewhere away from the rest of the house where you could assault someone quietly); and for some reason we no longer need the paintbrush for the assault and "garrote".

Like I said earlier, I don't think the staged scene was about faking a kidnapping, it was staging a sexual assault and a murder. The only thing that says specifically kidnapping is the note and the actual role of the note was to distract from the people in the house.

I know there are arguments about what was meant by the comments made about the damage to the hymen and I don't really want to go into that, but if it was noted then surely that means that there was something unusual about it and if you only had the child with a massive head blow injury and an autopsy is performed then it is going to be noted then too right?

But let's pretend that it is just the child with massive head blow injury (that is not visible on the outside), are you going to tell me there would have been no investigation done whatsoever? The authorities are just going to take their word that it was a horrible accident? I doubt it. And whatever really happened is more likely to be discovered. Too late to point fingers at someone else then.

I’ve taken this – removing the ransom note – over to the Somethings been bugging me thread. Here: http://tinyurl.com/opqusav And here: http://tinyurl.com/qfjbkb8

Would there still have been an investigation if they stopped at the head blow and reported an accident? Sure. Why not? If RDI, with a ransom note and a dead body hidden in the basement they surely weren’t hoping to avoid an investigation!!!

Anyway, the point isn’t whether or not they would get away with it, the point is that this is what people do when they have a dead body on their hands that they can’t get rid of – they fake an accident or a break in. They do not, have not, and will not faker a kidnapping and keep the body. Look it up. You won’t find something like this occurring anywhere but you will find staged accidents and break-ins.

Now, consider the investigation for a minute. Kidnapping/sexual assault/asphyxiation vs fall down stairs. Consider the evidence created (and, disposed of) for the kidnapping/sexual assault/asphyxiation vs fall down stairs (none).
...

AK

 

[mochii]

The Ramsey family is a very special case, though, AK. Just because it's never been reported before doesn't mean it doesn't happen. The FBI also reported that in every kidnapping case they've dealt with -- never has the body been recovered (dead) on the premises.

I believe, in their mind, it's the most likely scenario they thought of to cover their tracks. I reiterate on saying that if they did stage JUST a simple break in (with a dead body -- no RN or kidnapping), and as I read in another comment somewhere, you don't think the police wouldn't pursue an inside investigation? I believe that'd be standard protocol for LE, or the Ramsey family may have thought it'd paint them guilty. Yet, you stage a kidnapping and RN you have evidence that points to the outside, rather than somebody inside the home. Does that make it any more clear, where you can see where us RDI theorist come from?

 

[BBB167893]

First, on the issue of a fake kidnapping. I actually do think that this is what virtually ALL RDI (RDI investigators incl.) believe – that the Ramseys staged a fake kidnapping. Yes, some think there was more to it than that, a psycho killer, a sexual predator, etc; but, still, a kidnapper. That’s what a ransom note means – a kidnapping, and that’s what was reported – a kidnapping.

A botched kidnapping, to be precise.

The note, indeed, nothing in the crime appears to be the work of someone who was panicked, or confused, frazzled, etc. The note, etc appears to be the work of someone with a plan, someone who took their time and performed deliberate actions. There’s just no panic or rush involved here.

Even IF that's right, and we're talking a large IF, that still doesn't mean they were thinking clearly. IMO, they sucked it up and went for it.

If they were thinking that they needed to do certain things to point away from themselves then they must have been thinking about what those things could be (notepad, pen, cord, tape, paint brush, wiping cloth...). So, I don’t think it follows that we can say that they didn’t think of this, or they didn’t think of that, because the many deliberate acts taken to create this scene show that they must have been thinking about this, or that; or, at least, they would have if RDI is true.

Oh, but we CAN say that. As I often say, one has to appreciate the difference between knowledge and wisdom. Even if they did think of something, it doesn't follow they'd get it right.

Look, when this case broke, I didn't know 1/4 about forensics as I do now. Would the Rs have known that much? Highly unlikely, beyond some half-remembered movies and TV shows.

This idea that the note was written to point suspicion away from the family. How was that supposed to work once the body was found?

One possibility: by playing on fears of popular bogeymen.

As it is they got more time out of it than anyone could have expected, but once the body was found it became, if RDI, self-incriminating evidence; right? I mean. that’s what all RDI believe – that they wrote it. Because no kidnapper would leave both note and victim; because no kidnapper would forget to bring his own ransom note; because no kidnapper would stay in the house as long as it would have taken to write a note that long; because no kidnapper would know where to find pad and pen, and, no kidnapper would know how to copy Mrs Ramsey’s handwriting and no kidnapper would have known all that inside information to put in the note, etc.

Hey, you understand the evidence better than I thought! Which is why I can't figure your position.

(A lot of those points are exactly what the FBI told the cops, BTW)

Moreover, it's easy for you to say all that now. I wonder how well any of us would do under that kind of pressure.

You see there’s all this evidence from the note alone that points to the Ramseys, so how is it that we are supposed to believe that they created it to point away from themselves?

Because, in theory, the note benefits them by creating a killer who could be anyone, anywhere. "A killer out there," as a certain person said.

 

[BBB167893]

If they committed the sexual aspect of the crime to cover up something, or to make it look like a certain type of crime than it just doesn’t make sense for them to turn around and cover it up, not even if they felt some remorse because this - the assault – would have been a planned act with an intended purpose.
...

AK

That doesn't mean Detective Pinkie's wrong, Anti-K. Indeed, intent or not, just the way it was done lends credence to her (and my) reasoning.

 

[BBB167893]

The Ramsey family is a very special case, though, AK. Just because it's never been reported before doesn't mean it doesn't happen. The FBI also reported that in every kidnapping case they've dealt with -- never has the body been recovered (dead) on the premises.

I believe, in their mind, it's the most likely scenario they thought of to cover their tracks. I reiterate on saying that if they did stage JUST a simple break in (with a dead body -- no RN or kidnapping), and as I read in another comment somewhere, you don't think the police wouldn't pursue an inside investigation? I believe that'd be standard protocol for LE, or the Ramsey family may have thought it'd paint them guilty. Yet, you stage a kidnapping and RN you have evidence that points to the outside, rather than somebody inside the home. Does that make it any more clear, where you can see where us RDI theorist come from?

I sure hope it does, mochii.

 

[BBB167893]

Would there still have been an investigation if they stopped at the head blow and reported an accident? Sure. Why not? If RDI, with a ransom note and a dead body hidden in the basement they surely weren’t hoping to avoid an investigation!!!

I don't think they WERE hoping to avoid an investigation.

 

[andreww]

HI, Detective Pinkie, sorry to hear about your troubles; no worries about falling behind, etc. I’m sure we’ll all be discussing this for a long time to come (15+ years for me, so far!).

First, on the issue of a fake kidnapping. I actually do think that this is what virtually ALL RDI (RDI investigators incl.) believe – that the Ramseys staged a fake kidnapping. Yes, some think there was more to it than that, a psycho killer, a sexual predator, etc; but, still, a kidnapper. That’s what a ransom note means – a kidnapping, and that’s what was reported – a kidnapping.

The note, indeed, nothing in the crime appears to be the work of someone who was panicked, or confused, frazzled, etc. The note, etc appears to be the work of someone with a plan, someone who took their time and performed deliberate actions. There’s just no panic or rush involved here.

In the note there is a time frame provided (expect call between 8 and 10), so the Ramseys could have taken advantage of that. They didn’t. Are we to believe that they put that in there without consideration?

If they were thinking that they needed to do certain things to point away from themselves then they must have been thinking about what those things could be (notepad, pen, cord, tape, paint brush, wiping cloth...). So, I don’t think it follows that we can say that they didn’t think of this, or they didn’t think of that, because the many deliberate acts taken to create this scene show that they must have been thinking about this, or that; or, at least, they would have if RDI is true.
.

This idea that the note was written to point suspicion away from the family. How was that supposed to work once the body was found?

As it is they got more time out of it than anyone could have expected, but once the body was found it became, if RDI, self-incriminating evidence; right? I mean. that’s what all RDI believe – that they wrote it. Because no kidnapper would leave both note and victim; because no kidnapper would forget to bring his own ransom note; because no kidnapper would stay in the house as long as it would have taken to write a note that long; because no kidnapper would know where to find pad and pen, and, no kidnapper would know how to copy Mrs Ramsey’s handwriting and no kidnapper would have known all that inside information to put in the note, etc.

You see there’s all this evidence from the note alone that points to the Ramseys, so how is it that we are supposed to believe that they created it to point away from themselves?
...

AK

Sorry, I don't get how IDIs like yourself can't grasp a basic concept. This was not a fake kidnapping. This is and has always been a fake kidnapping gone wrong. There is no need for the Ramsey's to have to explain the body in the basement because the intent was always to make people believe that kidnappers removed her from her bed and killed her, maybe accidentally, before they were able to remove her from the house. How hard is that to understand???

It obviously isn't a perfect plan, but a SD has said in the past, at the end of the day all they needed to do was put enough doubt in the mind of one of twelve jurors. You my friend are proof that they likely would have succeeded.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

I don't think they WERE hoping to avoid an investigation.

Of course not. At that point they were trying to avoid going to jail.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Anti-K]

The Ramsey family is a very special case, though, AK. Just because it's never been reported before doesn't mean it doesn't happen. The FBI also reported that in every kidnapping case they've dealt with -- never has the body been recovered (dead) on the premises.

I believe, in their mind, it's the most likely scenario they thought of to cover their tracks. I reiterate on saying that if they did stage JUST a simple break in (with a dead body -- no RN or kidnapping), and as I read in another comment somewhere, you don't think the police wouldn't pursue an inside investigation? I believe that'd be standard protocol for LE, or the Ramsey family may have thought it'd paint them guilty. Yet, you stage a kidnapping and RN you have evidence that points to the outside, rather than somebody inside the home. Does that make it any more clear, where you can see where us RDI theorist come from?

Sorry, but there is nothing special about the Ramseys.

An investigation into an accident vs investigation into kidnapping/sexual assault/asphyxiation; the former with no evidence and the latter with self-incriminating evidence. The choice is obvious.
Once again, where is the evidence that points outside? RDI are quite fond of saying that no such evidence exists; so, where is it?
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

A botched kidnapping, to be precise.



Even IF that's right, and we're talking a large IF, that still doesn't mean they were thinking clearly. IMO, they sucked it up and went for it.



Oh, but we CAN say that. As I often say, one has to appreciate the difference between knowledge and wisdom. Even if they did think of something, it doesn't follow they'd get it right.

Look, when this case broke, I didn't know 1/4 about forensics as I do now. Would the Rs have known that much? Highly unlikely, beyond some half-remembered movies and TV shows.



One possibility: by playing on fears of popular bogeymen.



Hey, you understand the evidence better than I thought! Which is why I can't figure your position.

(A lot of those points are exactly what the FBI told the cops, BTW)

Moreover, it's easy for you to say all that now. I wonder how well any of us would do under that kind of pressure.



Because, in theory, the note benefits them by creating a killer who could be anyone, anywhere. "A killer out there," as a certain person said.

I think I missed a few of your posts from the other day; somewhere above Det. Pinkie. Sorry. I’m sure this stuff will come back around again, so I’ll just carry on from here.

There is no evidence to support the claim of a botched kidnapping. Not a staged one and not a real one.
I understand the evidence quite well, and I use the evidence as a starting point and view the crime and events through that prism. I see amongst this evidence much that is inconsistent with RDI (behavioral history; family dynamics; etc), much that is contradictory to RDI (creating self-incriminating evidence; note/body in house; etc); and I see evidence that is ambiguous (trace; etc) as well as exculpatory (trace; etc).

This tells me that the case for RDI, to say the least, is far from certain.

Some of the explanations given for various inconsistencies and contradictions often come across more as rationalization then explanation. And, some of them just add further complications, or are contradictions themselves.

For example, the Ramseys are said to have done this and to have done that and all because they anticipated an investigation and feared that it might reveal something else. They feared an autopsy would reveal prior abuse, so they sexually assaulted her (at or near point of death!) to cover that up, and then they covered up the sexual assault because they felt bad about it.

Committing the sexual assault to cover up prior abuse IS an explanation; but covering up the sexual abuse (at or near point of death) is a rationalization. It must be a rationalization (or, false) if the explanation (to cover up prior abuse) is true.

As an aside: this is the sort of problem that completely vanishes with IDI, whether one accepts IDI or not. IDI can still be false, but it negates the cover-up of a cover-up contradiction without resorting to rationalization. In IDI, the prior abuse is not known to the killer, and it is not connected to the crime (there is NO evidence that suggest otherwise). The killer performs the sexual assault and he covers it up because he felt some shame, or remorse about the sexual aspect of his crime. In IDI there simply is no cover-up of a cover-up. There’s just a sexual assault committed because this was one of those guys that Kenneth Lanning (of the FBI) described as a “killer who happens to molest.”

Hmmm, getting too long. Sorry
Carry on...
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

I don't think they WERE hoping to avoid an investigation.

If RDI, they were anticipating and investigation.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Sorry, I don't get how IDIs like yourself can't grasp a basic concept. This was not a fake kidnapping. This is and has always been a fake kidnapping gone wrong. There is no need for the Ramsey's to have to explain the body in the basement because the intent was always to make people believe that kidnappers removed her from her bed and killed her, maybe accidentally, before they were able to remove her from the house. How hard is that to understand???

It obviously isn't a perfect plan, but a SD has said in the past, at the end of the day all they needed to do was put enough doubt in the mind of one of twelve jurors. You my friend are proof that they likely would have succeeded.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sorry, but as I said in a post to SD above, there is no evidence to support the claim of a botched kidnapping.
...

AK

 

[blefuscu]

The biggest problem with the IDI theory is that there is not one singular piece of evidence that there was ever an intruder.

 

[andreww]

Sorry, but as I said in a post to SD above, there is no evidence to support the claim of a botched kidnapping.
...

AK

That's because there was no botched kidnapping. The Ramsey's set it up to look like a botched kidnapping.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

There is no evidence to support the claim of a botched kidnapping. Not a staged one and not a real one.
I understand the evidence quite well, and I use the evidence as a starting point and view the crime and events through that prism. I see amongst this evidence much that is inconsistent with RDI (behavioral history; family dynamics; etc), much that is contradictory to RDI (creating self-incriminating evidence; note/body in house; etc); and I see evidence that is ambiguous (trace; etc) as well as exculpatory (trace; etc).


AK

Well I beg to differ. A ransom note and a body in the basement is a botched kidnapping, whether RDI or IDI.

As for your views on the Ramseys creating "self incriminating evidence", your argument makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. For argument sake, lets say Patsy cracks JB over the head in the breakfast area. That would be the starting point. Either they call police right then and face the consequences, probably in their minds a murder charge, or they begin a cover up that points to another party. Anything they do beyond calling the police is in one way or another self incriminating. So basically your argument is that they wouldn't cover up the crime because anything they did to achieve that would be creating more self incriminating evidence. They only had what was in the confines of that house to work with and they did the best they could with what they had, but to say they wouldn't have written a note or they wouldn't have staged a strangulation or sexual assault because they didn't want to manufacture any more self incriminating evidence is simply hogwash. They had no other choice.

 

[andreww]

Sorry, but there is nothing special about the Ramseys.

An investigation into an accident vs investigation into kidnapping/sexual assault/asphyxiation; the former with no evidence and the latter with self-incriminating evidence. The choice is obvious.
Once again, where is the evidence that points outside? RDI are quite fond of saying that no such evidence exists; so, where is it?
...

AK

Are you trying to say that the Ramsey's would have been better off to have called police saying that the head blow was an accident? What kind of accident would have caused that kind of injury? Police aren't stupid and they would certainly find out very quickly that that wound was not caused by a fall down the stairs or a slip in the tub. Once they figured that out, one of the three other people in that house would need to be held accountable.

 

[mochii]

Sorry, but there is nothing special about the Ramseys.

An investigation into an accident vs investigation into kidnapping/sexual assault/asphyxiation; the former with no evidence and the latter with self-incriminating evidence. The choice is obvious.
Once again, where is the evidence that points outside? RDI are quite fond of saying that no such evidence exists; so, where is it?
...

AK

The ransom note! That is the evidence that allegedly pointed to somebody from outside the home. Sure, the materials came from inside (which if IDI why wouldn't they bring one already!?), but the message was someone from "the outside". Maybe subconsciously the Ramsey's are trying to tell us something?

Investigation into an accidental death? DeDee hit the nail on the head with that -- if molestation evidence had been found, then someone is getting arrested. If they determined the autopsy report didn't match how she obtained that head blow, what then? Either way, you bring a dead of some injuries in, CPS and LE will launch some sort of investigation.

Fake a kidnapping scenario, you can put a buffer between you and LE. In the form of lawyers, a mess of a crime scene, RN, money, the list goes on and on....

It's the fact everything from the crime points to the inside that screams "Ramsey's did it! Ramsey's did it!" The only thing to make it more obvious would be spotlights and a marquee.

and oh, yes, there is definitely something special about the Ramsey family. Money will get you very, very far in the court of law.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

Are you trying to say that the Ramsey's would have been better off to have called police saying that the head blow was an accident? What kind of accident would have caused that kind of injury? Police aren't stupid and they would certainly find out very quickly that that wound was not caused by a fall down the stairs or a slip in the tub. Once they figured that out, one of the three other people in that house would need to be held accountable.

I do not understand why I see so many people asking why the Ramseys didn't do this. Go to the "Crimes Against Children" forum and see all the parents or their boyfriends and girlfriends who tried that, and see how fast they were arrested. Do they mean that because the Ramseys were rich, they wouldn't have been arrested? That is likely, but everyone who knew them would know that one of them 100% killed their daughter, instead of it being a ~mystery and the possibility that maybe there was an intruder. I can't think of another case where the parents pretty much "presented" their child's body to police and were not arrested. This is why we are seeing parents who are getting rid of the body, and then claiming their child is "missing".

When Patsy died, do we think that she had regrets about how her and John handled the coverup?