One of the interesting things about the flashlight- The Rs said they had one JUST like it but THAT one wasn't theirs. However, if it wasn't theirs, where WAS theirs- THEIRS was not found in the house. When shown a photo by LE of the drawer where they kept their flashlight, and the drawer had NO flashlight, PR had to concede that it was possible that the flashlight found in their kitchen was, in fact, theirs.
Were there floor jacks in the Ramsey basement?
- Thread starter CharlieBrown
- Start date
Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
Ames
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,838
- Reaction score
- 57
I know! She said that it looked like theirs, but, that theirs was a little bit darker in color. Then it was explained that the chemicals used when looking for fingerprints, lightened it up a little, and then shown the empty drawer where theirs was kept...then she realized that it WAS theirs afterall. Hmmmm...imagine that.
Sophie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2009
- Messages
- 1,033
- Reaction score
- 106
You may be right, Roy. In truth, I find his demeanour a bit off-putting. I'd expected a scholarly man but he comes across as very abrasive. He was also extremely rude about the BPD, describing them as being like a backward Southern small town police department questioning the credentials of the big city cop.
Sophie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2009
- Messages
- 1,033
- Reaction score
- 106
Thanks, SuperDave. After so many years of reading about this case, theorising and generally cogitating, it gets hard to distinguish where fact ends and fiction begins!
Don't I know it!
Nearly complete now.
Maikai
New Member
Just wondering....what is your book about?
That's a joke, right? It's about this case.
Mendara
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2008
- Messages
- 4,035
- Reaction score
- 303
they do,and I'm guessing you might be thinking of what happened to Vanessa Redgrave's daughter recently? (Natalie Richardson).
this type was different though...experts say she would have lived no more than an hour afterwards.it was immediately devastating,causing unconsciousness at once.
ETA: the fact the was garroted so quickly is significant;the R's weren't willing to risk her waking up,IMtherwise,I believe there would have been some denial, and therefore a delay...as in them thinking,'no,she'll be ok,she'll come out of this'...and then she likely WOULD have died from the head injury,and not the garrote..but they faced the facts very quickly,sized them up and made a decision NOT to call 911 and not to hold out for hope...because they couldn't risk her waking up and saying anything about who hurt her..and no doubt the chronic sexual abuse came into play there,too (IMO).
Wow. That is really evil. So you hit your child so hard you cause a massive head injury and to avoid the chance of her living through the head injury and blaiming you for it you decide to form a garrote and choke her to absolute death faster and from the strangulation - then your sexual abuser of a husband agrees with you and the cover up and the plan is hatched?
Is that the theory most have about the Ramsey's? Both parents were equally evil enough to agree and do this and never turn against one another?
Just curious.
This is absolutely not correct. The effects (as in getting tipsy) of alcohol would be identical to that of a normal person. She would just want to avoid further liver damage by over-indulgence.
Maikai
New Member
No joke..........there's several books about the case....does yours have a certain emphasis? Or something different then what's been written?
Sorry. I thought you knew.
The best way to describe it is the case from the point of view of a regular guy.
I suppose it is, if it happened that way.
I have my doubts, but if it did happen that way, it's a classic motive: self-preservation.
Something like that.
I'll go first: hard to say. I can't say that I agree with it fully. For one thing, I don't believe they knew she was still alive. Far from it.
There was no way they COULD turn against one another, to my way of thinking.
Sounds like you have something to say.
Sure it is.
The Ramseys also were also capable of callously throwing innocent people under the bus as 'suspects'. Really evil too.
As difficult as it is to believe, people CAN do unspeakable evil in certain situations. This was not a premeditated crime, though I know there are some who believe that. It happened, IMHO, accidentally- and snowballed. One thing led to another, and I am sure it seemed like the only way out for them at the time. It worked, didn't it? PR is gone, JR and BR have moved on. They remain uncharged, viewed by many as not only victims of their daughter's horrible murder, but also victims of LE and a public in whose mind their guilt is certain.
I've been reading about JBR case history ..... events of 97 .... Haddon ... http://veracity.univpubs.american.edu/today/vol/11/11/110607_wcl.html
"Haddon and his Denver-based firm were hired three days after the body was found. He had never met the Ramseys."
Very interesting topic ... trying to keep track of the 'bungles' http://www.nytimes.com/1997/12/05/u...Topics/People/R/Ramsey, Jonbenet&pagewanted=3
Anyhow, a question ..... I have a myriad, but to start ...http://www.nytimes.com/1997/09/04/u...in-ramsey-case.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
"Undaunted, Mr. Russell, the publicist, provided help for a 10-page, full-color article that appeared three Sundays later in The News. The article featured sympathetic interviews from Ramsey family members and from friends who knew the Ramseys before they moved here in 1991.
The Ramseys would not permit themselves to be photographed for the article until their employees in Denver read the first edition of the newspaper, available on Saturday morning. The photographs were published on the front page and inside of later editions."
what was the motivation behind this demand? For what purpose, So the employees would not associate the Ramsey's image with the crime? to somehow infer that an employee was involved?
"Haddon and his Denver-based firm were hired three days after the body was found. He had never met the Ramseys."
Very interesting topic ... trying to keep track of the 'bungles' http://www.nytimes.com/1997/12/05/u...Topics/People/R/Ramsey, Jonbenet&pagewanted=3
Anyhow, a question ..... I have a myriad, but to start ...http://www.nytimes.com/1997/09/04/u...in-ramsey-case.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
"Undaunted, Mr. Russell, the publicist, provided help for a 10-page, full-color article that appeared three Sundays later in The News. The article featured sympathetic interviews from Ramsey family members and from friends who knew the Ramseys before they moved here in 1991.
The Ramseys would not permit themselves to be photographed for the article until their employees in Denver read the first edition of the newspaper, available on Saturday morning. The photographs were published on the front page and inside of later editions."
what was the motivation behind this demand? For what purpose, So the employees would not associate the Ramsey's image with the crime? to somehow infer that an employee was involved?
Maikai
New Member
Interesting.....thanks.
Maikai
New Member
I don't know--it doesn't make sense to me what difference putting the photos in would make. The media blitz, as the article points out was unprecedented...I don't think there was a manual on how to handle the media. The article also mentions the OJ case which had just concluded. I think the notoriety and media coverage in that case influenced the perp---remember the 100 % remark by OJ and in the ransom note?
Also interesting, was the mention of the Vanity Fair article--at the time they didn't know Steve Thomas was behind that--and why he was never prosecuted when they found out it was him is beyond me. He was part of the on-going investigation and had no business giving the reporter a copy of the ransom note, and putting his own spin on the investigation.
"The Ramseys' lead lawyer, Hal Haddon, denounced the magazine article as ''glossy tabloid trash, filled with false and misleading defamation.''
''Unidentified police officers traded confidential information and police reports in exchange for an article which flattered them and smeared the Ramseys,'' Mr. Haddon said.
He added that the disclosure of the ''killer's note'' merits ''criminal and disciplinary investigation.'"
THAT I would agree with.
Sure. Every hero needs a good villain, right? This story has TWO villians: the "intruder," and the big, bad police.