Patsy Ramsey

[BoldBear]

There is also no (or nearly no) evidence of an intruder. Explain that.

Actually, there's no evidence of an intruder in the basement. There was too much evidence of people in the house on the 1st floor and possibly on the 2nd floor because of the bathrooms. They had a party. Go to a church that's just had a party of 30 or so people and look for evidence of an intruder. You'll have fingerprints and touch evidence everywhere. One of the Ramsey's first floor bathrooms is on the way to the basement so you've got a forensic mess. I think I even remember that JBR wanted to show Santa Claus every part of the house including the basement, but I don't remember what Christmas that was.

Sorry, I'm not trying to promote the IDI argument. If the Ramsey's kept to themselves and hardly had anyone in their home, the forensic investigation would have been easier.

 

[Detective Pinkie]

Actually, there's no evidence of an intruder in the basement. There was too much evidence of people in the house on the 1st floor and possibly on the 2nd floor because of the bathrooms. They had a party. Go to a church that's just had a party of 30 or so people and look for evidence of an intruder. You'll have fingerprints and touch evidence everywhere. One of the Ramsey's first floor bathrooms is on the way to the basement so you've got a forensic mess. I think I even remember that JBR wanted to show Santa Claus every part of the house including the basement, but I don't remember what Christmas that was.

Sorry, I'm not trying to promote the IDI argument. If the Ramsey's kept to themselves and hardly had anyone in their home, the forensic investigation would have been easier.

I get what you are saying. IDI will use the DNA as evidence of an intruder so that is why I say almost none.

 

[Anti-K]

BBM

Once again AK you have posited a contradiction to your argument. You argue that there is no evidence of a botched kidnapping and then describe a botched kidnapping: The kidnapper could not leave with the body so they left it behind. If they didn't mean to kill her and/or leave her behind then that IS a botched kidnapping.

Did they plan to kill her and leave her behind the whole time? Then that is not a kidnapping, let alone a botched one. That is just a murder with a ransom note as a redherring. If your intruder can leave a note as a redherring why can't the Ramseys?



No one is saying that they didn't leave self incriminating evidence. What I don't understand is why you think they wouldn't if RDI? Are they super, amazing, wonder criminals that know all police procedure so know every step to circumvent it? Yes I believe they were trying to mislead the police, but I still think they were capable of making mistakes and/or not realising all the ways they could leave evidence for the police.




Arrgghhh! You do not know that. Even staging an accident makes some sort of scene that can, and most definitely will, be investigated. There is just as much chance that they would leave evidence (or a suspicious lack of) if they staged this any other way. Oh and BTW they DID get behind those lawyers pretty darn quick.




And no one ever gets caught by staging an accident or break in (sarcasm). It happens all the time, look it up. This is factual.

They never had a ransom note and a body before, period. So why does it make it more likely to be an intruder? Family members had never done it before and intruders had never done it before. Why does this point more toward an intruder than a family member?




I already covered this, but why would they believe it was harder for police to trace the wrapping paper or cards from their own house than a generic notepad and Sharpie pen?

Why wouldn't an intruder use a paintbrush from the house?




BBM
Not more than a dead daughter and no evidence of anyone else being involved in her death. Or no evidence of some horrible event that no parent could ever do to their child.

Once again you’re seeing a contradiction where there is none.

I am not describing a botched kidnapping. There is no evidence for a botched kidnapping, real, fake or imagined.
If the kidnapper intended to hide his victim in the house, then it is not botched.

Yes, of course the Ramseys could have left the note as a red herring. People do exactly this sort of thing, but they only do it when the body has been disposed of, they don’t do it when they need to explain the body in the house.
.

It isn’t about leaving self-incriminating evidence. It is the unnecessary creation of self-incriminating evidence. Inadvertently leaving evidence and unnecessarily – intentionally – creating evidence are two different things.
Of course people get found out when they stage things. Once again, I am not saying that they wouldn’t get caught, only that this is what people do when faced with such circumstances – they fake accidents or break-ins.
.

I don’t think the ransom note points towards the Ramseys, RDI thinks it points towards the family.

Note/body in house is a unique situation. Why would this be suggestive of one scenario but not another. It comes down to motivation/intent. If RDI, the intent is to explain body in house – despite any protestation RDI may muster, if RDI, this is what the Ramseys would have needed to do – explain the body in the house. The note contradicts that. An intruder’s motive/intent is unknown, so...
.

A unique, loose scrap pf paper/board, etc should have been easy to find. How do you trace something like that to the house? You might be able to say that it COULD have come from the house, but you wouldn’t be able to say that it DID come from the house. Compare this to the notepad, which the Ramseys actually handed over to the police – look at this!

And, it wasn’t a generic notepad. It was a Ramsey notepad, self-identified as such and it had Ramsey writing in it, and a so-called practice note. Hey, officer, take this, here’s some evidence that you can use against me.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

But there is nothing "special" about this intruder? Just a run-of-the-mill, crazy, child-assaulting murderer that broke into a house, but left no evidence of that. Spent some amount of time in the house, fed pineapple to the victim, planted tonnes of evidence against the family, changed the victim's clothing and disappeared without a trace. They managed to leave DNA though. Yep, happens everyday. Not overly complicated at all.



Until this not-very-unusual intruder did it.

In fear of sounding like a broken record, the note is not meant to explain the body, it is meant to explain that the parents didn't do it. It gives the parents breathing room and it worked. For all of IDI's protesting that it makes no sense, it certainly did what RDI claims it was intended to do. The police came into that house looking for a kidnapper not looking for signs that someone in the family murdered a little girl. By the time they changed their minds it was too late. Just about everything was compromised and the water was severely muddied.

If IDI, we don’t know if there was anything special about this intruder. Maybe there was, maybe there wasn’t.

I addressed the pineapple/clothes changing here: http://tinyurl.com/pnk8r7x

You know, we do understand what is being said about the note and what is being said is fine and believable in a situation in which the body had been disposed of. But, that isn’t the case here. The body in the house changes everything.

The note could only work as you claim until the body was found and/or it was discovered that the note was written in the house. After which it becomes evidence against them. If the body had been discovered immediately, as it should have been, then the note would have served no purpose at all.

The note did not delay the discovery of the body. BPD’s incompetence delayed discovery of the body.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Nope you call the police first or you look guilty.

Maybe they wanted those people in the house, but maybe that wasn't the reason to ring all those people. Maybe it was for drama and sympathy and "look at me". They didn't need the extra people there to muck up the crime scene, but they helped. Maybe they were as surprised as anyone that the police let the other people stay in the house. They did need someone to take Burke away.

If you want friends, etc to muddy the scene or act as a buffer you must call them first or risk the police not allowing them to enter, which defeats the purpose of calling them.

BUT, you still make a good point. Sort of. It seems that calling friends, etc made them look guilty to some regardless of who was called first.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

How didn't it point away from the Ramseys? When the police showed up they were looking for a kidnapper. The parents were seen as victims and treated as such. It worked.

After the body was found it looked worse for them but by that stage it had done its job. Also I have explained before (and you keep ignoring the point, which is frustrating) I don't think they thought that they could be tied to the note through the note pad and pen. I think they were surprised that the police traced it to them.

I’m not ignoring anything, but you’ve really gone into overdrive with all your posts to me, so I hope you understand if I miss something here or there. However, I actually have addressed your point – somewhere - that the Ramseys didn’t think that the note could be tied to them.

Supposedly, there was an earlier draft removed from the notepad and disposed of. If true, this shows that they had considered that the note could be connected to the notepad; and, disposing of any item(s) shows that they were concerned about things being traced back to them or the home.

Is it possible that, despite this, they didn’t consider that the note could be connected to the notepad? Sure. Is it likely? IMO, based on the supposed disposal of other items, no, it is not likely. But, maybe you’re right. Who knows? Either way, it still seems at least strange that they would hand over that specific pad.

I go on about the so-called practice note in some detail in the theory of intent that I linked to you earlier. Here is that portion of the theory: http://tinyurl.com/lvgzfx5
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

That is not evidence that they did or did not not do it. It is evidence of prior behaviour that was seen by people from the outside. That is ALL the evidence tells us. If you rationalise that they couldn't have done it because no one else had seen them do anything like that before, that is up to you. Also, there is a first time for everything.

There is also no (or nearly no) evidence of an intruder. Explain that.

I’ll quote myself, from the very post that you quoted/replied to: they might have anyway [used such force and brutality], but the evidence is not for it.

They might have anyway – see, this is me agreeing with you

but the evidence is not for it. – speaks for itself.
.

I addressed your question regarding no intruder evidence here: http://tinyurl.com/kcpgnnn

Yes, I did notice “or nearly no” evidence. So, does this mean you are acknowledging the existence of some intruder evidence? It is the intellectually honest thing to do.

See, what I always wonder is, if IDI, how much evidence should we expect to find?

I wonder, if you were mindful about leaving behind evidence that could come back to haunt you, might you not bring with you to the crime scene only those items that you could not do without, leave little behind, utilize items found at the scene and take care to minimize your footprint (sign of entry/exit; etc)? Why not?
...

AK

 

[InstantProof]

But this wouldn't explain why John had time to have a shower and Patsy had time to get dressed back into the night before's clothes and put make up on. Why aren't they still in PJs and chasing the guy down the street?

I was reading Patsy's interrogation about that morning, and I thought one of the things I would do is run outside to see if they had just left with her. It's unlikely you would catch someone, or a car speeding away or whatever but I thought that would be the instinct most people would have. Another thing I thought I would do is ask all the neighbors that I called/ asked over if they saw/ heard anything.

 

[UKGuy]

I’ll quote myself, from the very post that you quoted/replied to: they might have anyway [used such force and brutality], but the evidence is not for it.

They might have anyway – see, this is me agreeing with you

but the evidence is not for it. – speaks for itself.
.

I addressed your question regarding no intruder evidence here: http://tinyurl.com/kcpgnnn

Yes, I did notice “or nearly no” evidence. So, does this mean you are acknowledging the existence of some intruder evidence? It is the intellectually honest thing to do.

See, what I always wonder is, if IDI, how much evidence should we expect to find?

I wonder, if you were mindful about leaving behind evidence that could come back to haunt you, might you not bring with you to the crime scene only those items that you could not do without, leave little behind, utilize items found at the scene and take care to minimize your footprint (sign of entry/exit; etc)? Why not?
...

AK

Anti-K,

Yes, I did notice “or nearly no” evidence. So, does this mean you are acknowledging the existence of some intruder evidence? It is the intellectually honest thing to do.

There is no forensic evidence linking to anyone outside of the Ramsey household. Its that simple!

See, what I always wonder is, if IDI, how much evidence should we expect to find?

The same amount as there is RDI forensic evidence, but guess what there is zero, zilch available suggesting there was no Intruder(s).

.

 

[Detective Pinkie]

I’m not ignoring anything, but you’ve really gone into overdrive with all your posts to me, so I hope you understand if I miss something here or there. However, I actually have addressed your point – somewhere - that the Ramseys didn’t think that the note could be tied to them.

Supposedly, there was an earlier draft removed from the notepad and disposed of. If true, this shows that they had considered that the note could be connected to the notepad; and, disposing of any item(s) shows that they were concerned about things being traced back to them or the home.

Is it possible that, despite this, they didn’t consider that the note could be connected to the notepad? Sure. Is it likely? IMO, based on the supposed disposal of other items, no, it is not likely. But, maybe you’re right. Who knows? Either way, it still seems at least strange that they would hand over that specific pad.

I go on about the so-called practice note in some detail in the theory of intent that I linked to you earlier. Here is that portion of the theory: http://tinyurl.com/lvgzfx5
...

AK

I apologise if I have been badgering you. You and I started a discussion a few weeks ago and I fell behind on my end. I had a chance to catch up so I took it. Feel free to take your time to answer or ignore any you can't be bothered with.

When I say I feel you are ignoring my point on the notepad it is because you keep saying that it is a contradiction to write a note to point away from the house and then use items from the house that can be identified to you and I have responded to that several times and you still keep using that argument.
Now that you have elaborated on that I see our stumbling block. When I say generic note pad, I mean not letterhead or any other specific stationery. It is (as far as I am aware) a plain notepad that can be bought anywhere and could be found in thousands of households. Just because the Ramseys had one, they could have assumed that so did a whole lot of people. The same with the sharpie.

While I agree that you do make a point with the "practice note", some of that is diminished by the fact that it was later claimed to be the start of an invitation that someone was writing. Why try to give it legitimacy if you didn't write it?

 

[BBB167893]

Pardon my butting in.

See, what I always wonder is, if IDI, how much evidence should we expect to find?

Frankly, A LOT. If for no other reason, than the extensive amount of time the "intruder" would have to have spent in the house.

I wonder, if you were mindful about leaving behind evidence that could come back to haunt you, might you not bring with you to the crime scene only those items that you could not do without, leave little behind, utilize items found at the scene and take care to minimize your footprint (sign of entry/exit; etc)? Why not?

If I was that mindful, Anti-K, I think I'd go after a child who was easier to get to.

 

[Anti-K]

I apologise if I have been badgering you. You and I started a discussion a few weeks ago and I fell behind on my end. I had a chance to catch up so I took it. Feel free to take your time to answer or ignore any you can't be bothered with.

When I say I feel you are ignoring my point on the notepad it is because you keep saying that it is a contradiction to write a note to point away from the house and then use items from the house that can be identified to you and I have responded to that several times and you still keep using that argument.
Now that you have elaborated on that I see our stumbling block. When I say generic note pad, I mean not letterhead or any other specific stationery. It is (as far as I am aware) a plain notepad that can be bought anywhere and could be found in thousands of households. Just because the Ramseys had one, they could have assumed that so did a whole lot of people. The same with the sharpie.

While I agree that you do make a point with the "practice note", some of that is diminished by the fact that it was later claimed to be the start of an invitation that someone was writing. Why try to give it legitimacy if you didn't write it?

No, I don’t feel badgered and I don’t mind answering or responding to anything that you want to bring up. But, with so many posts and points I’m bound to miss something.
.

Actually, the note was written in a legal pad which, I think, is a bit different from what we might find in almost any household. I don’t know if that distinction makes any difference to you. It doesn’t make a big difference to me because there is a context within which I think things like this need to be viewed, and that is the context of forensic awareness. If the Ramseys did all the things that we are to believe they did, then they were demonstrating some degree of forensic awareness.
An autopsy might reveal this, an investigator might find that; something else could be traced back to us. So, they took preventative measures.

People with such awareness don’t create 2 ½ pages of their own handwriting, regardless of what it is written on. People with such awareness don’t use materials that can be easily traced back to them, and then hand those materials over to the police.

This just seems an unlikely error considering the context.

I don’t think inexperience, panic or what-have-you sufficiently explains this error because of the other actions taken (perhaps disposing of an earlier draft, putting the pen and pad back where they belong; etc).

Usually the only people who are at ease with using their own handwriting in such situations are those who do not believe that they will ever be looked at. BTK, or the Zodiac for example. Do a google image search using “extortion” and “handwriting,” and you’ll see what I mean.
.

Yes, I remember someone saying that the so-called practice note was the beginning of an invitation or something and therefore not related to the ransom note. I’m not sure if anyone believes this, and persons associated with the investigation seem to have disregarded it.
I think if we say that there is no so-called practice note then we have to say that there was probably no earlier draft. I could go on about this for hours and have probably written thousands of pages on it; the so-called practice note and the paint brush handle have long been the two pieces of evidence which have intrigued me the most.

Well, I think I’m going to have to find a way to reply with shorter posts. Even I get tired of me.
Badger away if you like. I don’t mind and, so far, have found this to be an enjoyable discussion.
...

AK

 

[InstantProof]

Wasn't the practice note started "Mr. & Mrs l" ? If that was in fact a practice note- from an intruder or the R's, someone made the decision to leave the "Mrs" out, and she is never mentioned in the actual ransom letter.

 

[Anti-K]

Don't forget: they DID bypass the police, call their lawyers and try to get out of Dodge.



Explaining the body wasn't the purpose. Saying "THIS person did it" was the purpose.



Oh, God, don't even waste my time with THAT bulls**t! I don't care how loving someone is; ANYONE is capable of ANYTHING. That's a hard lesson for a hard world, and we all had damn well better learn it.

Villainy wears many masks, and the mask of virtue is the most dangerous one.

SD: I don't care how loving someone is; ANYONE is capable of ANYTHING.

AK: To say so is not evidence against the Ramseys. The family history, behavioral, etc aspect of the evidence supports the position that they were not that kind of people. Sure, you can say that they might be anyway but that doesn’t change the fact that the evidence does not support it. All you can say is that despite the evidence...

Of course, being capable of anything and doing anything are two completely different things. The proof of this is the many people who have given their lives, been subjected to torture, have rejected all manner of reward (sometimes money can be as enticing as death) rather them commit certain acts.

RDI has these people INTENTIONALLY and with FORETHOUGHT sexually assaulting and asphyxiating to death a critically injured child that they loved and doted upon. This isn’t something that ANYONE would do.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Pardon my butting in.



Frankly, A LOT. If for no other reason, than the extensive amount of time the "intruder" would have to have spent in the house.



If I was that mindful, Anti-K, I think I'd go after a child who was easier to get to.

I think your expectation are not realistic.

Many crime scenes provide investigators with little to almost no trace evidence. Maybe a partial print of some kind, a hair, a fiber, etc; so, there’s nothing that unusual here as far as trace evidence goes – we have some hair, some fiber, some DNA.

BTW, I have done several timed experiments (with assistance) and I think that if we exclude the time taken to write the ransom note and if we assume that the acts committed were planned in advance that this crime could have taken place in about 15 minutes – so, add another 15 for the note and we’re looking at half an hour. Yes, I can provide this by request, although I think I already posted a version of it here, somewhere.

Many crime scenes provide investigators with little to almost no trace evidence. Maybe a partial print of some kind, a hair, a fiber, etc; so, there’s nothing that unusual here as far as trace evidence goes – we have some hair, some fiber, some DNA.
.

You might go after a child that was easier to get but that only tells us something about you and not much about whoever went after this child. Or, you might say that ANYONE would go after a child that was easier to get but that only tells us about ANYONE and not much about whoever went after this child.
...

AK

 

[icedtea4me]

Wasn't the practice note started "Mr. & Mrs l" ? If that was in fact a practice note- from an intruder or the R's, someone made the decision to leave the "Mrs" out, and she is never mentioned in the actual ransom letter.

She isn't mentioned directly, but she is alluded to.

 

[BBB167893]

SD: I don't care how loving someone is; ANYONE is capable of ANYTHING.

AK: To say so is not evidence against the Ramseys. The family history, behavioral, etc aspect of the evidence supports the position that they were not that kind of people. Sure, you can say that they might be anyway but that doesn’t change the fact that the evidence does not support it. All you can say is that despite the evidence...

It's NOT evidence, Anti-K. I can't count how many "pillars of the community" have turned out to be wolves in sheep's clothing.

Of course, being capable of anything and doing anything are two completely different things. The proof of this is the many people who have given their lives, been subjected to torture, have rejected all manner of reward (sometimes money can be as enticing as death) rather them commit certain acts.

I never said that being capable and being willing are the same thing. I WILL say however, that the right pressure point varies from person to person.

RDI has these people INTENTIONALLY and with FORETHOUGHT sexually assaulting and asphyxiating to death a critically injured child that they loved and doted upon. This isn’t something that ANYONE would do.

Much as I'd like to agree, I can't. Also, you left out an important thing: they most likely thought she was DEAD when they did all that.

 

[BBB167893]

I think your expectation are not realistic.

My expectations are based on how criminals like this REALLY act.

Many crime scenes provide investigators with little to almost no trace evidence. Maybe a partial print of some kind, a hair, a fiber, etc; so, there’s nothing that unusual here as far as trace evidence goes – we have some hair, some fiber, some DNA.

Most crimes scenes don't have the perp camping out for hours.

BTW, I have done several timed experiments (with assistance) and I think that if we exclude the time taken to write the ransom note and if we assume that the acts committed were planned in advance that this crime could have taken place in about 15 minutes – so, add another 15 for the note and we’re looking at half an hour. Yes, I can provide this by request, although I think I already posted a version of it here, somewhere.

No dice, Anti-K. You have to figure in about an hour between the head injury and death, at least.

You might go after a child that was easier to get but that only tells us something about you and not much about whoever went after this child. Or, you might say that ANYONE would go after a child that was easier to get but that only tells us about ANYONE and not much about whoever went after this child.

Yes, I would say that at least MOST people would not take such a flat-out stupid approach.

 

[Anti-K]

It's NOT evidence, Anti-K. I can't count how many "pillars of the community" have turned out to be wolves in sheep's clothing.



I never said that being capable and being willing are the same thing. I WILL say however, that the right pressure point varies from person to person.



Much as I'd like to agree, I can't. Also, you left out an important thing: they most likely thought she was DEAD when they did all that.

Sorry, but behavioral, family history, etc is indeed evidence. Absolutely and beyond doubt. And, it can have incriminating or exculpatory value. In this case, it is exculpatory.

Lots of wolves in sheep’s clothing, but investigation usually finds them out. The Ramseys were investigated to death and nothing became of it.

RDI could still be true, they could still be psycho killers, but the behavioral/family history does not support this. So, all you can say is that despite the evidence...
.

I think that in pretty much all cases, even when death is a certainty, the immediate response is denial so I see no reason to assume, if RDI, that the Ramseys would have believed jbr to be dead.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Sorry, but behavioral, family history, etc is indeed evidence. Absolutely and beyond doubt. And, it can have incriminating or exculpatory value. In this case, it is exculpatory.

Lots of wolves in sheep’s clothing, but investigation usually finds them out. The Ramseys were investigated to death and nothing became of it.

RDI could still be true, they could still be psycho killers, but the behavioral/family history does not support this. So, all you can say is that despite the evidence...
.

I think that in pretty much all cases, even when death is a certainty, the immediate response is denial so I see no reason to assume, if RDI, that the Ramseys would have believed jbr to be dead.
...

AK

Your expectation regarding the amount of trace evidence that the killer would have left behind should be based on what is generally found in cases. Do a little investigation and I think you’ll find that it is not unusual for little and to almost no trace evidence to be present, and that that evidence found is often in very small amounts (a partial print, a single hair, a fiber; etc).

I think, in this case, if IDI, we are talking about someone who was forensically aware and who took steps to minimize his forensic footprint. This, of course, should have some impact on our expectations. In such a case, we could expect to find very little; next to nothing.
.

I am presenting a minimum time required.

Could as little as 30 minutes have passed between head blow and asphyxiation? Yes, in fact, some experts think the head blow could have come after the asphyxiation (wecht, iirc and ?? doberson? I forget), although I think they probably meant during. I have seen a 20 minute estimate somewhere.

Sure, there are longer times given by some, but really we don’t know. There isn’t a consensus on this.
So, as I said, I am presenting a minimum time required: 30 minutes.

Yes, it could have been longer. We just don’t know.
...

AK