GingBreade
Member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2008
- Messages
- 209
- Reaction score
- 0
The crown of the liar is going to...CINDY! Or, Patsy!! Geez, this is hard.
How about the Chilli Peppers!?
Patsy Ramsey
- Thread starter ginzy
- Start date
The crown of the liar is going to...CINDY! Or, Patsy!! Geez, this is hard.
How about the Chilli Peppers!?That I think sums it up.
Actually, the crossover between the two cases is hard for me to ignore, inasmuch as there IS a crossover. Here's what I mean. I've often wondered how many murdering parents sort of "took a cue" from the Ramsey case, thinking along the lines of "well, they got away with it, so can I."
Difference is, Casey's finding out the hard way that Boulder DA's are from Venus, FL DA's are from Mars!
Casey is a true sociopath. Completely distanced from the crime; able to act as if her daughter simply stopped existing. Had Caylee never been found, Casey (and her parents, I am afraid), would have gone on telling the world that Caylee had been kidnapped by someone she knew and simply was not returned.
PR distanced herself, too, but in a different way. She was a different mom from Casey. Casey could kill her baby, put her in a plastic bag to rot, and walked away, living the rest of her life as if her daughter never existed.
With Casey, she likely killed her daughter because she wanted to be free of having to take care of her, free to have relationships without the encumbrances of a child. Why she couldn't have just asked her parents to assume custody we'll never know, but as a sociopath, she just was able to eliminate her without hesitation.
With PR, though her actions also reprehensible, was not really a sociopath. She distanced herself from the CRIME, which is different. Whether JBR was killed accidentally or in a rage (in either case the death covered up and staged), PR was never deluded enough to act as if this had never happened. This was purely a case of "lets save our a$$es- we can't bring her back, so lets not ruin the rest of our lives".
PR distanced herself, too, but in a different way. She was a different mom from Casey. Casey could kill her baby, put her in a plastic bag to rot, and walked away, living the rest of her life as if her daughter never existed.
With Casey, she likely killed her daughter because she wanted to be free of having to take care of her, free to have relationships without the encumbrances of a child. Why she couldn't have just asked her parents to assume custody we'll never know, but as a sociopath, she just was able to eliminate her without hesitation.
With PR, though her actions also reprehensible, was not really a sociopath. She distanced herself from the CRIME, which is different. Whether JBR was killed accidentally or in a rage (in either case the death covered up and staged), PR was never deluded enough to act as if this had never happened. This was purely a case of "lets save our a$$es- we can't bring her back, so lets not ruin the rest of our lives".
She's a victim of something, in my view. And that's partly why I can say that I hope you're right, Roy.
But just remember: Casey has a lot less evidence against her than Patsy did.
Merry Christmas, everybody.
RiverRat
Patsy Ramsey to the Left
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2003
- Messages
- 2,909
- Reaction score
- 44
And Hence.....the very reason why I started and stayed on this case.
Merry Christmas from a heart that's still heavy -
RR
Dave,
I really don't think that is a true statement. I have read the evidence against both and Casey and Patsy. There is a major reason why Casey will go to trial and Patsy did not.
You should really reanalyze that comment. Seriously.
Happy holiday's Super Dave!!!!!
Belated Merry Christmas to you, too, SuperDave.
Methinks when you make a statement such as the one that I bolded above, that you drank a wee bit too much eggnog to celebrate the day! Ha ha - you CAN'T be serious!
KoldKase
New Member
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Messages
- 996
- Reaction score
- 26
Good luck with that.
Roy.
I know you don't think that, Roy. But I'll be more than happy to make a list for you. Not like I haven't done it in the past.
So have I, Roy. From both sides of the aisle. Yours, and this one. I have a, shall we say, unique perspective.
You're darn right. Actually, two major reasons. One is prosecutorial misconduct, the other is that Casey doesn't have a spouse who could be equally culpable. And those reasons are NOT just my opinion, Roy. A LOT of people, including people who used to be friends with DA Lacy have said the same thing.
I assure you, I am quite serious. As for reanalyzing, I could make a few suggestions.
And to you, too.
I hear you Dave. I must ask this so here goes: If the new DA hands this case over to police and they determine that exonerating the Ramsey's was the right call, do you change your opinion here? Certainly they have more information at hand than yourself and all of us.
And to you and your loved ones.
Eleven, and I'm not trying to start anything with anybody here, but if you ask around this forum about me, I think (think, mind you) that you'll get a pretty good idea of me as a guy who is not prone to rdiculous flights of fancy.
I am quite serious, and I'd be happy to show you why.
Very good. You and I may be on opposite sides of the fence, but good fences make good neighbors, and you're a pretty good guy, from what I know of you.
Roy, feel free to ask me questions any time.
Wow. Roy, that's a tough one. As ol' Yogi says, making predictions is hard, especially about the future. I guess it would depend on how they reached their conclusions.
But I just might. I've changed my mind before when I thought it was the right thing to do, after believing that I would never switch. So don't write me off just yet.
Didn't I say that once before?
Oh, I didn't mean to imply that you were prone to ridiculous flights of fancy, SuperDave....I know you are a respected poster here (for good reason) and know much about this case--I just think that the evidence on Casey is sooooo much more overwhelming than any evidence on Patsy. My comment about the eggnog was my attempt at being funny---of which I often fail miserably at.
In reference to your offer above, I AM interested in you showing me why the evidence against Patsy is more solid than the evidence against Casey.
You probably did say that before. They might not tell us how they reached those conclusions just like they aren't telling us now. But something needs to be done because of all the mixed feelings and misinformation in this case. I am not writing you off but instead of buying you a beer that we bet if I am wrong, I will buying you a keg. I think many here are holding on to a losing hand. I don't mean it in a bad way at all. I think the humble pie is coming due to developments that none of us are aware of.
I will bow down and beg for forgiveness if I am wrong. Your comparison of Anthony evidence just boggles my mind. It may have more evidence but it certainly does not have more pertinent evidence. Maybe had the Ramsey's waited a month to report their missing daughter, I might feel differently.
I do my best.
I can understand that, for a few reasons. One, these last few years, the media have presented the Ramsey case in such a way that you would never know why the Boulder Police investigated them in the first place. (I could talk about that at length, as well.) Contrast that with Casey, where it seems like every broadcast is another nail in the coffin.
Two, Casey better fits the media stereotype of white trash. She doesn't have a lot of money to afford top-gun lawyers and PR hacks.
Three, the evidence against Casey is much less, but what there is really can't be explained innocently.
If it's any consolation to you, I'm just as bad at making predictions!
Not to seem like I'm copping out here, and I'm not, mind you, but I didn't say the evidence against Patsy was more solid than the evidence against Casey, just that there was more of it.
I think it helps to understand the difference between circumstantial cases and smoking-gun cases and how a good prosecutor knows that you handle the former one way and the latter another way. (I could give a dissertation on that, too.)
But I shall honor your request, in my way.
1) Fibers from her clothes were on the tape and tied into the knot at the back of JB's neck. More were found in the paintbox. We know she wore those clothes that night and her attempt to explain their presence ("I had my whole body on her body) is contradicted by her own husband.
2) Inconsistencies in her story abound, especially concerning the pineapple, heart, Burke and home security. Some of her stories have been characterized as "flat-out magic."
3) The various opinions of handwriting analysts, behavioral experts, and the like.
4) The brush, paper and pen all belonged to her.
5) She was one of only three people who knew where the Swiss Army knife was.
6) Prices on her credit card records match the prices of the cord and tape.
That's the short version of it.
Whereas I can only think of four things against Casey:
1) The death smell.
2) The computer searches
3) The location of the body
4) The lag-time in reporting the disappearance.
Hmm. In hindsight, this might be more appropriate as reasons why I think both are guilty.
Perhaps you and Roy have a point. I guess it comes down to your point of view.
That, and I think I was proceeding from a faulty premise, eleven, being that I don't really know what your take on either case is in and of themselves.
PR MAY be the murderer. Or she may be an accomplice, witness, or involved only in a coverup. Or any combination of the above. She may have been a victim of some things in her life (cancer, abuse, controlling mother) But either way, she is guilty of something. And one thing I am sure of - the R family KNOWS exactly what happened to JBR that night.
We who feel the Rs are responsible will be as happy as you are to have someone else PROVED to be the killer. We take no pleasure in the reality that her parents were involved in her death, and even worse, IMO, the staging of this crime. Her death may have been an accident. The staging? The more horrific of the crimes.
And let's not forget the prior abuse. Adding to the miscarriage of justice was the fact that the coroner caved to political pressure and made no mention of sexual abuse in his rather weak conclusion. Maybe his sloppy and incomplete autopsy procedures had something to do with it.
We will have nothing to repent for, as suspicion is not a sin. We suspect her with good reason, but if we are found to be wrong, we will be happy to know she was innocent. I wonder if the IDIs would be able to say the same if the Rs were PROVED conclusively to be involved with the death and coverup?
Wretched, isn't it?
I'm not that heavy a drinker.
Maybe. But for whom?
I don't ask that.
In hindsight, you may have something there. But I was trying to draw attention to what happens to people who can't afford top-gun lawyers vs. people who can.
That's a matter of opinion, but as far as I go, I can see your point. I would just remind you (and anyone else who cares to listen) that there's a difference between the pursuit of "smoking-gun" cases and circumstantial cases and that difference should be respected. It's the difference between knowledge and wisdom.
I take it you are speaking hypothetically? Because some people have suggested that. But it wasn't really an option for the Ramseys. My brother pointed that one out to me.
You mean having a dead rotting corpse in the basement for a month ? - might raise a few eyebrows around the town
No def not a option for the Ramseys...............