Questions you'd like answers to...

[DrollForeignFaction]

I recall an old Peter Boyles interview (on Youtube, re: grand jury indictments) where he mentioned that particular mini-doc you posted was aired on some public broadcasting station in Boulder. Anyone who hasn't watched the whole thing really should, it's quite damning. Just imagine all their neighbors tuning in and seeing John and Patsy smugly and unconvincingly deny Patsy's handwriting is a match while expert opinion after expert opinion saying it does flashes on the screen. Darnay Hoffman did a lot of damage with that Chris Wolf lawsuit but I will give him credit for putting this together. It's a gem.

I also like the part in there where John rationalizes away why Patsy can't be excluded as the author: everybody's handwriting is similar to some extent because we're all taught to write the same. Oh really? And where were you taught to write, John? On Mars? Because you admitted YOU were excluded...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kanzz]

Sorry, icedtea, but that is just so completely wrong I have to say something. Anyone touched by cancer can tell you that after being diagnosed with cancer, a person is a survivor for the rest of his or her life. Just as the survivor of a plane crash will always remain a survivor of that plane crash and not lose the status of “survivor” after a set number of years.

The simple definition of the word “survivor” contradicts your interpretation:

A survivor is a person who continues to live, despite nearly dying.
​

From Wikipedia:

A cancer survivor is a person with cancer of any type who is still living.
​

National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship:

The phrase “cancer survivorship” was created to describe this broad experience on the cancer continuum — living with, through, and beyond a cancer diagnosis.
​

National Cancer Institute (part of the National Institutes of Health):

One who remains alive and continues to function during and after overcoming a serious hardship or life-threatening disease. In cancer, a person is considered to be a survivor from the time of diagnosis until the end of life.
​

As counter-intuitive as it might be, Patsy was a cancer survivor even after her recurrence. It wasn’t until it took her life that she was no longer a survivor.

Preach it, otg!

I am a survivor of Ovarian Cancer. Diagnosed 04/19/1990 when I had my total hysterectomy - and I refused chemotherapy (long story).

I've called myself a survivor ever since, though I don't tell everyone and don't make a big deal of it. I don't even attend the annual Relay for Life anymore as I got the survivor T-shirt a couple of times and people kept saying, "I didn't know you were a survivor.".. As if they doubted me. Seriously? Just because I didn't use deadly chemicals and didn't broadcast it? Um-kay. Buh-bye. I know who I am. I don't need anyone to pat my little head. I'm good.

 

[Ambitioned]

John looks at these items and says, with a deadpan face "Nope, I don't know who wrote those". :laughing:


Scroll along the video to 19.45and you will see what I mean.

And....doesn't JR look smug? Hiding behind his lawyers - truly sickening.

The couple couldn't look, and sound, less like grieving parents if they tried.

Thank you so much for posting that vid! No, he acts the opposite of a father trying to find his daughter's killer.

This is the video with PR I was talking about. You can see she's grasping at straws trying to find the differences. "Well one's thicker...blah blah." Starts at about 28:00

[video=youtube;tCN2uQIUkHM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCN2uQIUkHM[/video]

 

[observation]

Yes, come to think of it all the heinous child murdering psychos that I've known tend to do things like that.

This one though, must have also had OCD (Obsessional Cleaning Syndrome)because he bothered to open the flashlight in order to wipe the batteries clean, even though the flashlight belonged to JR and would naturally have had JR'sfingerprints on them.

Desperate times call for desperate measures. right?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ambitioned]

Preach it, otg!

I am a survivor of Ovarian Cancer. Diagnosed 04/19/1990 when I had my total hysterectomy - and I refused chemotherapy (long story).

I've called myself a survivor ever since, though I don't tell everyone and don't make a big deal of it. I don't even attend the annual Relay for Life anymore as I got the survivor T-shirt a couple of times and people kept saying, "I didn't know you were a survivor.".. As if they doubted me. Seriously? Just because I didn't use deadly chemicals and didn't broadcast it? Um-kay. Buh-bye. I know who I am. I don't need anyone to pat my little head. I'm good.

Have a friend who refused chemicals as well and she is okay. She tells me to take megadoses of Vitamin C. So I take about 2000 a day. Emergen-C Immune support + is my favorite.

Some tell me I'm just peeing money away. Whatever. It seems to work and I very rarely get sick. I haven't had a flu shot in years.

Glad you kicked it in the balls!!

 

[Miz Adventure]

I just want to say good luck to anyone who has been diagnosed with cancer. I wish you all the best for a long and healthy future.


Re: The handwriting. Has anyone noticed the way all three R's have described the 'kidnapper's' writing? They all use the word 'sloppy, even BR in his Dr. Phil interview says it couldn't be his mother's writing because she always pulled him up on his own writing because she hated 'sloppy' handwriting. (or words to that effect).

It's like a family mantra that they've all rehearsed.

Yet there it is, in black and white, on those greeting cards, for everyone to see......Patsy's sloppy handwriting.

 

[Ambitioned]

Yup, "sloppy" to draw attention away from the similarities.

Someone here mentioned how naturally, one's natural handwriting is going to be different when switching hands or wearing gloves.

 

[AB1]

Miz Adventure: "OCD (Obsessional Cleaning Syndrome)"

DrollForeignFaction: "ransom novel"

Thanks. Made me smile. :laughing:

 

[icedtea4me]

Sorry, icedtea, but that is just so completely wrong I have to say something. Anyone touched by cancer can tell you that after being diagnosed with cancer, a person is a survivor for the rest of his or her life. Just as the survivor of a plane crash will always remain a survivor of that plane crash and not lose the status of “survivor” after a set number of years.

The simple definition of the word “survivor” contradicts your interpretation:

A survivor is a person who continues to live, despite nearly dying.
​

From Wikipedia:

A cancer survivor is a person with cancer of any type who is still living.
​

National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship:

The phrase “cancer survivorship” was created to describe this broad experience on the cancer continuum — living with, through, and beyond a cancer diagnosis.
​

National Cancer Institute (part of the National Institutes of Health):

One who remains alive and continues to function during and after overcoming a serious hardship or life-threatening disease. In cancer, a person is considered to be a survivor from the time of diagnosis until the end of life.
​

As counter-intuitive as it might be, Patsy was a cancer survivor even after her recurrence. It wasn’t until it took her life that she was no longer a survivor.

Please note: Patsy still had to be scanned and if any [cancer cells] were found, she may have had a fear that she could die.

 

[AB1]

Please note: Patsy still had to be scanned and if any [cancer cells] were found, she may have had a fear that she could die.

And it would be natural to live with that constant fear in the back of the mind. Fear does strange things to the mind.

My Mother is a retired Psychiatric Sister - which sounds like song if not a band - and firmly entered the PR did it camp (even if others helped cover up), based on one thing. She has never looked at all the evidence, read books or blogs etc.
Her conviction came from that moment when PR said at least JBR would never have to suffer cancer.
My Mother was stunned by that. Considered it an appropriation/self identification that bordered on the delusional. Mum has never budged from that position, and when Mum speaks I do listen, honest!

It is possible to take the "cancer" throwaway line and add it to:

RN - Saved By The Cross
911 call - "I'm the Mother", no name for the missing child, "blonde" (because I - the mother - dye it)
I can't remember - what her children ate Christmas day, when they last bathed, who they were...

and get four. 1 murdered child, 1 mentally ill murderess, 1 man overwhelmed by guilt when having to acknowledge his inadequacies as a husband/father, and 1 child who should have been removed to give him a chance of establishing healthy relationships.

The subsequent events can be viewed as collective obsessional behaviour. PR's delusions established herself as the aggrieved, diverting the focus from JBR, to the point JR and BR felt sorry for PR. She became the victim in their psychodrama.

Perhaps BR is finally getting the chance to "come up for air" and one day he may well tell what he knows.

The cancer - the fear source - may be psychologically central to this case.
Or PR is simply a "Patsy" for the crimes of other/s?

 

[Miz Adventure]

I also thought PR's comments were inappropriate when she said (I'm going from memory) that at least now the JBR is dead she will never have to suffer cancer, or the loss of a child. How crazy is that?!

I think it sounds as though PR was wanting us to know how terribly she herself has suffered (and I don't doubt that she had). She's telling us that her own suffering is all that matters and nothing could be as bad as what she herself has gone through. "Look at me, me, me. I'm the one who deserves the sympathy".

 

[Tortoise]

New question.

Say John had managed to get away on his plane to Atlanta, with wife and son, what additional protection would it have afforded him? He could lawyer up wherever he was.

 

[kanzz]

New question.

Say John had managed to get away on his plane to Atlanta, with wife and son, what additional protection would it have afforded him? He could lawyer up wherever he was.

IIRC, there was some mention about being out of state (most likely permanently) affording them the protection of Colorado having to pursue extradition. I'm foggy on this and don't remember where I might have read it, though.

 

[Tortoise]

IIRC, there was some mention about being out of state (most likely permanently) affording them the protection of Colorado having to pursue extradition. I'm foggy on this and don't remember where I might have read it, though.

Thank you. I wonder how easy that would be, say if the police hadn't been able to question them. I'm presuming that an extradition request would have to be backed up with evidence of involvement, or an indictment, rather than just being suspected of involvement.

 

[kanzz]

Thank you. I wonder how easy that would be, say if the police hadn't been able to question them. I'm presuming that an extradition request would have to be backed up with evidence of involvement, or an indictment, rather than just being suspected of involvement.

Right. And that's just somebody else's speculation I vaguely remember reading.

 

[Miz Adventure]

All JR was probably thinking at that time was the get PR and BR out of there. They would be away from the police and have some thinking time on the plane.

I think JR knew that PR would crack under the slightest pressure, she was already rambling, and BR might spill the beans.


If they were innocent they would have wanted to stay in Boulder and help the police as much as possible.

 

[AB1]

New question.

Say John had managed to get away on his plane to Atlanta, with wife and son, what additional protection would it have afforded him? He could lawyer up wherever he was.

Good question.

I was going to examine options if they had fled and refused to co-operate with BPD... then realised - didn't they basically do that anyway?


Guidance on the law below, quoted from the web site of
David J. Shestokas, lawyer and expert on the US Constitution.


"Every State of the United States has legal authority regarding people present within its boundaries. A State does not have authority over a person present in another State. For example: If a person is wanted for a crime committed in Illinois is found in Florida, an arrest can only legally be made by Florida law enforcement personnel.
To legally arrest a person wanted for criminal activity who is found in a state other than where the crime was committed and return that individual to the state charging the crime, there must be cooperation between the two states. There is a two-step legal process for this to happen. The first step is the issuance of an interstate arrest warrant. The second step is extradition.
The Arrest Warrant Issued
A judge commanding law enforcement officials to bring a wanted person before the court to answer to criminal charges issues the arrest warrant.
The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution commands the following conditions exist for an arrest warrant to issue:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons … against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the … the person … to be seized.”
If the crime is serious enough and the prosecuting authority is interested in finding the person and willing to bear the expenses of extradition, then an interstate warrant will be in effect nationally.
International Extradition Compared to Interstate “Rendition”
Technically the term extradition applies to a process of returning a fugitive from one country to another. This process is governed by treaty agreements between the two countries. The process between two states is one of rendering the fugitive by one state to another, or “interstate rendition”. The rendition process is governed by the US Constitution, federal statute and state statues. International extradition procedure differs significantly from interstate rendition. Despite the differences, the procedure between the states is commonly referred to as “extradition”.
The Extradition Clause of the United States Constitution
Extradition is the official process by which a state asks for and acquires from another state the custody of a suspected or convicted criminal. The manner in which extradition takes place among the states is governed by the United States Constitution, Federal statute and state law.
Each state of the United States is considered to be sovereign over its territory and when the Constitution was written there was concern about criminals being able to safely flee from one state to another to avoid prosecution. In response to this concern, Article IV, Section II, Clause 2 was included. This is known as the Extradition Clause and reads as follows:
“A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.”
The Supreme Court of the United States has held that the Extradition Clause applies to felonies, misdemeanors and even to petty offenses. It has further held that in the event a state chooses not to surrender a wanted individual, a federal court may order such surrender to the demanding state, pursuant to the Extradition Clause.[SUP]1[/SUP]
The Uniform Criminal Extradition Act
The UCEA[SUP]2[/SUP] has been adopted by 48 of the 50 states, the only exceptions being South Carolina and Missouri. The Act sets forth the process by which a state may request surrender of a wanted individual and the manner in which that individual is surrendered. While there are some variances among the Act as adopted by the states, the principal requirements for extradition are as follows:
· A valid arrest warrant issued by the demanding state
· A request from the Executive Authority of the demanding state (typically the Governor)
· A judicial hearing in the state having custody of the wanted person
· A waiver of extradition by the wanted person or a judicial finding that the Governor’s request follows all legal requirements if extradition is not waived
· Custody taken by the demanding state of the wanted person within 30 days
· If the demanding state does not take custody within 30 days, the prisoner may be discharged."

 

[Tortoise]

Thank you AB1

 

[BBB167893]

C'mon Miz Adventure, OBVIOUSLY the mystery intruder had some time after writing the ransom novel to put together and caption a nice family photo album for the Ramseys. As heinous child-murdering psychos who break into your home without leaving a trace tend to do!

Yes, come to think of it all the heinous child murdering psychos that I've known tend to do things like that.

This one though, must have also had OCD (Obsessional Cleaning Syndrome) because he bothered to open the flashlight in order to wipe the batteries clean, even though the flashlight belonged to JR and would naturally have had JR's fingerprints on them.

I'm surprised this one didn't leave a mint on JB's pillow!

 

[BBB167893]

I recall an old Peter Boyles interview (on Youtube, re: grand jury indictments) where he mentioned that particular mini-doc you posted was aired on some public broadcasting station in Boulder. Anyone who hasn't watched the whole thing really should, it's quite damning. Just imagine all their neighbors tuning in and seeing John and Patsy smugly and unconvincingly deny Patsy's handwriting is a match while expert opinion after expert opinion saying it does flashes on the screen. Darnay Hoffman did a lot of damage with that Chris Wolf lawsuit but I will give him credit for putting this together. It's a gem.

It's easy to see why Evan Altman (among others) was so upset that those comparison charts never made it into evidence. It could so easily have gone the other way.

I also like the part in there where John rationalizes away why Patsy can't be excluded as the author: everybody's handwriting is similar to some extent because we're all taught to write the same. Oh really? And where were you taught to write, John? On Mars? Because you admitted YOU were excluded...

No kidding. There used to be a guy around here (WS) who wondered how much it would mean if, say, one out of every ten people in America wrote similarly enough to Patsy to get the same "rating" as she did. I said it didn't matter to me, because the ODDS of it being someone else were astronomical. To put it another way, who was it more likely to be?