THIS article says what I believe about the motive for the murder and who the perp was

[cynic]

Heyya Sabot.

Yes the internet is grand.
And yes, a good primer can cover a lot of damage.

I had tried to find a specific article re the Ramseys,
it was, iirc, a memorial piece about PR and her 'blue suit';
describing some of PR's little idiosyncracies.
The article included an anecdote describing how PR had her painters, contracters paint the same room numerous times until the right shade was acheived.
iirc the shade was mauve?

About the time the Ramseys wed, John started Microsouth, a software distributor, which he ran from the basement of their suburban Atlanta home. (Patsy answered the phone.) He soon launched a second company, which marketed computer accessories, including printers, but the venture faltered. "Patsy had her father come down and basically save the company," Marino says of Don Paugh. The two companies ultimately merged into Access Graphics, where Paugh is now vice president of operations. As business took off in the 1980s, Patsy immersed herself in volunteer work for the local garden club, a tree festival and a children's hospital, among other charities—and in perfecting their home. Ex-neighbor and longtime friend Vesta Taylor, 75, recalls that in the span of a week Patsy had her living room painted five times, in five varying shades. "She'd call me over at different times of the day, when the sun was coming in in a particular way," Taylor says, "and say, 'Vesta, what do you think?' "
http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20123391,00.html

I wouldn't be surprised if there were 4 or 5 drafts of the ransom note as well.

 

[Tadpole12]

cynic, you are a dear!

tytyty.

Okay, well mauve was not specified.

Sabot, I had thought that perhaps PR favoured mauve, that perhaps her choice in christmas decor was not a part of a spiratual premonition, but rather a preference for purple tones?

 

[Sabot]

cynic, you are a dear!

tytyty.

Okay, well mauve was not specified.

Sabot, I had thought that perhaps PR favoured mauve, that perhaps her choice in christmas decor was not a part of a spiratual premonition, but rather a preference for purple tones?

I never have been keen on Spiritual Premonitions, but anyone can convince themselves of anything if they want to.
However, I am giving some thought to a Purple Christmas Tree for next year as it will be cheaper than painting an entire room. The Salpetre stains will have to wait. Everyone who owns an old, stone house around here has got them, so it is almost a badge of honour, or so I tell myself.

I don't know if Patsy Ramsey killed that poor child. On balance, probably not. But there are some very odd facets to this case which do tend to raise suspicions, although that wouldn't be Patsey Ramsey's fault if Some Other Dude Done It.

I have wondered about The Letter and the $118.00, both of which appear to be pertinent to the family, and who would hang around for long enough to write a three page tome with a dead body in situ?
But then there is the strange DNA, although I expect that this could be explained in a number of ways. No one will know, unless they find out who it belongs to.

 

[mtwentz]

I never have been keen on Spiritual Premonitions, but anyone can convince themselves of anything if they want to.
However, I am giving some thought to a Purple Christmas Tree for next year as it will be cheaper than painting an entire room. The Salpetre stains will have to wait. Everyone who owns an old, stone house around here has got them, so it is almost a badge of honour, or so I tell myself.

I don't know if Patsy Ramsey killed that poor child. On balance, probably not. But there are some very odd facets to this case which do tend to raise suspicions, although that wouldn't be Patsey Ramsey's fault if Some Other Dude Done It.

I have wondered about The Letter and the $118.00, both of which appear to be pertinent to the family, and who would hang around for long enough to write a three page tome with a dead body in situ?
But then there is the strange DNA, although I expect that this could be explained in a number of ways. No one will know, unless they find out who it belongs to.

The DNA is not necessarily "strange". We all walk around with touch DNA on us from other people, all the time. According to Dawna Kaufman, Henry Lee, cynic and others, this could easily be some skin cells from someone completely unrelated to the crime. It might even be from someone who arrived at the crime scene or conducted the autopsy. The underwear DNA could come from the factory worker in China who packed the underwear.

We can't assume that this DNA is significant just because former DA Mary Lacy said so. Because she is the only one who has said so, but she has said many other things that have turned out not to be true.

 

[Sabot]

The DNA is not necessarily "strange". We all walk around with touch DNA on us from other people, all the time. According to Dawna Kaufman, Henry Lee, cynic and others, this could easily be some skin cells from someone completely unrelated to the crime. It might even be from someone who arrived at the crime scene or conducted the autopsy. The underwear DNA could come from the factory worker in China who packed the underwear.

We can't assume that this DNA is significant just because former DA Mary Lacy said so. Because she is the only one who has said so, but she has said many other things that have turned out not to be true.

Agreed about the DNA, unless it pointed to someone whose DNA shouldn't be there But we don't know who that is.

But what evidence is available other than circumstantial? I am truly on the fence, if you can call it that.

The thing that always worries me is the immediate jump to The Parents, and what follows often convolutes the whole thing. To such an extent that no one knows what is true anymore.

But if there is any serious evidence then I would be interested to hear it.

 

[Squishified]

Agreed about the DNA, unless it pointed to someone whose DNA shouldn't be there But we don't know who that is.

But what evidence is available other than circumstantial? I am truly on the fence, if you can call it that.

The thing that always worries me is the immediate jump to The Parents, and what follows often convolutes the whole thing. To such an extent that no one knows what is true anymore.

But if there is any serious evidence then I would be interested to hear it.

To me, the best evidence for RDI is that pretty much all the evidence comes from the Ramsey house ie: the Sharpie, the pad of paper, the blanket, etc.
I don't want to push you off the fence in either direction. I was RDI, then IDI and then back to RDI.
Hope this post makes some sense as I have had too much caffeine this morning! :crazy:

 

[BBB167893]

Yes, if his wife could do such a horrendous crime, he'd throw her to the dogs. It would mean she was crazy, and I don't see him living with a lunatic...especially with Burke.

That's easy to say, Maikai. But I don't remember Andrea Yates' husband throwing her to the dogs, either. I can think of a few reasons why JR would stick by her.

There's never been a parent that garrotted her child...the method of the killing and other acts are not the acts of doting, loving parents with no history of child abuse whatsover.

I'm sure that's what they said the first time a parent DECAPITATED their child, too! Like I said, that means nothing to me. I think Whaleshark fielded it well.

On the other hand, there's plenty of crazies out there that have done worse acts---losers of society

And it's a lot easier to believe that one of them did it, isn't it? See, that's what I'm saying: we'd rather believe that than the alternative. Because that way, good is good and bad is bad, with no messy soul-searching to get in the way.

I said it before, and I'll say it again:

It's been my experience that most IDIs either CAN'T imagine such a thing, or just don't WANT to. And speaking from personal experience, I can sympathize with that, to a degree. Nobody WANTS to think that a parent, or even another HUMAN could do such a thing. It opens up too many doors that we want to keep locked, namely that if it could happen to someone like the Rs, it could happen to ANY ONE OF US! A lot of people don't want to face that. But what separates the men from the boys (for lack of a better term) in this thing we call life is the ability to face some pretty unpleasant facts, because only by facing them can we DO something about them. But we'll never do anything about them by pretending they don't exist.

But while I can have sympathy for the average person not wanting to believe that, when a jury or a prosecutor clings to those naive notions in the face of evidence, my sympathy goes right out the window! And in this case, that naive notion infected the "prosecutor's" office WITH A VENGEANCE! And please, don't take my word for it! Just read what "Trip" DeMuth, Pete Hofstrom, and most notably Mary Lacy have said!

And I say a RDI is ludicrous when there's exculportory evidence. So there!

And I'd be the first to agree with you, if there WERE any! That's what I'm trying to say here! I forget who it was, but somebody once said that exculpatory evidence in this case exists only in the minds of the believers. The "nail marks" and "stun gun" you mentioned are some damn good examples! Throwing a tantrum isn't going to help.

 

[BBB167893]

Re: the JRDI scenario, the term 'situational molester' has been referenced.

Now we're getting somewheres!

 

[BBB167893]

The DNA is not necessarily "strange". We all walk around with touch DNA on us from other people, all the time. According to Dawna Kaufman, Henry Lee, cynic and others, this could easily be some skin cells from someone completely unrelated to the crime. It might even be from someone who arrived at the crime scene or conducted the autopsy. The underwear DNA could come from the factory worker in China who packed the underwear.

We can't assume that this DNA is significant just because former DA Mary Lacy said so. Because she is the only one who has said so, but she has said many other things that have turned out not to be true.

That's the key, isn't it? Henry Lee once said that, in all the cases where DNA is found, in HALF of them, it's irrelevant. And bear in mind, that was in the days when you actually needed a good-sized sample to do analysis on. Criminologists have warned us that as DNA testing methods get more sensitive, the more DNA they'll find that is irrelevant. Now, figure a DNA testing methods that can detect a single CELL, and add it to the deference that the average juror has toward DNA thanks to sloppy media reporting and shows like CSI, and it's a pretty terrifying proposition!

 

[BBB167893]

But what evidence is available other than circumstantial? I am truly on the fence, if you can call it that.

But if there is any serious evidence then I would be interested to hear it.

Circumstantial evidence IS serious evidence, Sabot. Sadly, a lot of people have forgotten that, including the DA's office in this case.

 

[melissasmom]

Circumstantial evidence IS serious evidence, Sabot. Sadly, a lot of people have forgotten that, including the DA's office in this case.

Indeed it is. Almost ALL evidence is circumstantial. About the only thing that would be DIRECT evidence would be an eyewitness or a videotape of the crime occuring.

It is too bad that a lot of people don't seem to understand the concept of circumstantial evidence:
Fingerprints-circumstantial
DNA-circumstantial
Blood-circumstantial
Fibers-circumstantial
Etc., etc. etc.

Most criminals are convicted on circumstantial evidence. A collection of circumstantial evidence forms the basis for what can be considered corroborating evidence. (I stole that from Wiki )

Just thought I would put in my 2 cents on that. And I never want to have to type the word circumstantial that much again. lol

 

[Whaleshark]

That's easy to say, Maikai. But I don't remember Andrea Yates' husband throwing her to the dogs, either. I can think of a few reasons why JR would stick by her.

spot on.

I'm sure that's what they said the first time a parent DECAPITATED their child, too! Like I said, that means nothing to me. I think Whaleshark fielded it well.

exactly.

See, that's what I'm saying: we'd rather believe that than the alternative. Because that way, good is good and bad is bad, with no messy soul-searching to get in the way.

there it is. and that's what the ramseys were banking on anyway, right?
..and lou smit as well:

"We think we are a normal American family that loves and values their children..."

"We are a normal family. We love our children dearly."


..well, who can argue with that, right?

 

[learnin]

The important thing about Shapiro, and this letter, is that Shapiro was able to take the stage as this tragedy was being acted out. Because of this, he was able to witness the main players, up close, at a critical time. There is no substitute for being able to witness behavior.

In this letter, Shapiro confirms the veracity of his quotes which are contained in Schiller's PMPT. There is a wealth of information, there. Those quotes and conversations, recorded in PMPT, need to be read again.

I think Shapiro is right on about the religious references in this crime. The point is not why the religious references are there; the point is that they are there and one of the main suspects was a fundamentally religious person so much so that she pleaded for Jesus to raise her daughter.

If PR was responsible for her daughter's death, I believe it might have been triggered by her discovering the fact that her daughter had been abused and maybe this is why JR did not blow the whistle......he, or one of his sons, could have been involved.

At any rate, the religious overtones permeate this whole tragedy...body cleaned, dressed in white, buried in white etc.etc.etc.

There are two things that come to my mind in this regard. One is when police overheard JR, the night the body was found, saying: "I'm sorry....I'm so sorry..."

Secondly. In a LKL interview with ST, PR and JR, ST states that there will be no forgiveness for the perp unless the perp confesses. JR, immediately, replies that this is false because one does not have to confess..... Sounds, to me, that JR had given some thought to this.

 

[Sabot]

To me, the best evidence for RDI is that pretty much all the evidence comes from the Ramsey house ie: the Sharpie, the pad of paper, the blanket, etc.
I don't want to push you off the fence in either direction. I was RDI, then IDI and then back to RDI.
Hope this post makes some sense as I have had too much caffeine this morning! :crazy:

Thanks. Yes, it makes sense, especially The Pad, and the time it took to write the letter. I mean, wouldn't you get out as fast as possible? Especially since the ransom demand was pointless as the body was bound to be found in the house eventually. So the letter would only have muddied the water for the family. It wouldn't have helped a stranger at all.
I guess I just can't bring myself to believe that Patsy Ramsey would do such a thing.

 

[Sabot]

Circumstantial evidence IS serious evidence, Sabot. Sadly, a lot of people have forgotten that, including the DA's office in this case.

I meant actual evidence, although don't ask me what. In a Case like this I guess Circumstantial is all you are going to get. Obviously, The Ramsey's DNA won't count, seeing as how it was their house.
I can only suppose that The DA didn't feel that he could prove anything.

But I do agree that DNA is not a lot of use, except perhaps, in cases of the perpetrator's blood or sperm. But even those could be debatable.

I have been watching 48 Hours on Project Free on Line, and there have been a couple of very dodgy convictions on that show. But then there have been a couple of Cases that I thought they had enough to convict but didn't pursue.

So Lawyer Up and keep your mouth shut is the order of the present day. But people do have a right to do this.

 

[Sabot]

Indeed it is. Almost ALL evidence is circumstantial. About the only thing that would be DIRECT evidence would be an eyewitness or a videotape of the crime occuring.

It is too bad that a lot of people don't seem to understand the concept of circumstantial evidence:
Fingerprints-circumstantial
DNA-circumstantial
Blood-circumstantial
Fibers-circumstantial
Etc., etc. etc.

Most criminals are convicted on circumstantial evidence. A collection of circumstantial evidence forms the basis for what can be considered corroborating evidence. (I stole that from Wiki )

Just thought I would put in my 2 cents on that. And I never want to have to type the word circumstantial that much again. lol

I never thought I would learn as much about Cadaver Dogs as I have, although I can't say that I would believe them alone.

And as for Chloroform, I have Googled that one many more times than the one time that Casey Anthony did.

Ultimately, it is The Letter that bothers me. Is there any chance of a copy of that, please?

 

[madeleine]

There are two things that come to my mind in this regard. One is when police overheard JR, the night the body was found, saying: "I'm sorry....I'm so sorry..."

Secondly. In a LKL interview with ST, PR and JR, ST states that there will be no forgiveness for the perp unless the perp confesses. JR, immediately, replies that this is false because one does not have to confess..... Sounds, to me, that JR had given some thought to this.

yep,to me that sounded like "it's not you ordinary people who have the right to judge us,only God is allowed,it's between us and God and God doesn't tell us to confess anything,only you want us to"... = with "I am getting away with it" cause religion is a delicate thing but you can so easily spin around it,see above

I always said that I don't like how they use religion in their favor...they use it like an excuse for everything they do or don't....and maybe it's even a way to lie to themselves and live in denial....."God will punish and judge us after we'll die...enough time till that happens so I got a break for now...."

re the LKL interview I see it like a slip on JR's part,he's saying something like "no,we don't have to confess to anything,don't you tell me what I have to do",he lost it and it's one of those very few times when he's the one losing it

IMO they used religion not only to convince others (L.SMit?) but also to convince themselves that what happened is not that bad!she's in a better place??she's safe now??denial,excuses.

 

[smurf86]

I mean, wouldn't you get out as fast as possible? Especially since the ransom demand was pointless as the body was bound to be found in the house eventually.

Sabot,
I agree with you when you say you would get out as fast as possible but if this was a genuine kidnap for ransom it's possible they would have high tailed it out of there but took the body with them. They would have got there money and could have dumped her on the front porch because the deviated form instuction do you follow?

 

[DeeDee249]

I most cases where a child is found murdered IN THEIR OWN HOME BY A PARENT- one of the parents is responsible. EVERYTHING about this case points to the parents. The DNA is found ONLY on the clothing, Not on the body and NOWHERE else at the crime scene. Not on the window latch (as if...) not on the chair that JR claimed had been pulled THROUGH A CLOSED DOOR in front of the train room, not on the suitcase allegedly used to climb on, not on the white blanket, not anywhere in JB's room. Absolutely NO where else but on two articles of clothing that were put on her that night, one of which (the panties) never belonged to her in the first place.
Since the DNA is from skin cells (touch DNA) it could very well have been on the fingers of whoever put the clothing on her, and the Rs were at a party that day. PLENTY of unrelated male guests there. The parents could have picked up that touch DNA there. BUT- JR's fibers INSIDE her panty crotch and Patsy's fibers ENTWINED in the knot of the garrote as well as on the INSIDE of the tape that had been on JB's mouth place BOTH parents at the crime scene.
Patsy wasn't fooling anyone when she threw herself on her daughter's body. That tape never left the basement- Patsy admitted to police she never wore that sweater in the basement, so how did her fibers get there? JB's body was covered with am afghan when she Patsy saw her, so there was NO way for her fibers to get entwined in the knot, which was at the back of her neck against the floor.

It is truly unfortunate that some people simple cannot believe that a parent can kill a child, even unintentionally (and cover it up).
That is how these killers will get acquitted again and again- irresponsible jurors and an inexplicable naivety of the mind.

 

[Sabot]

Sabot,
I agree with you when you say you would get out as fast as possible but if this was a genuine kidnap for ransom it's possible they would have high tailed it out of there but took the body with them. They would have got there money and could have dumped her on the front porch because the deviated form instuction do you follow?

Yes, I understand what you mean, but they didn't take the body with them.
And I would have thought it would have made more sense to take the note with them rather than hang around the house writing it.

Elisa Baker tried this. Wrote a ransom note on the back of her own utility bill. I would laugh at that, if it was funny.