I guess that all depends on how you look at it. TO me, without the RN, all you have is a dead girl in her own home with sexual injuries and two parents with no alibi. There's no obvious explanation for why JB is dead and who did it.
No, this isn't true. You have a dead girl, sexual injuries, strangulation by garrote still there, headbash with unknown blunt instrument, foreign cord, foreign tape, and foreign DNA. The very obvious explanation is that JBR was kidnapped then sexually assaulted, strangled, and headbashed by an intruder. This is the most obvious, and all other explanations circumvent this prima facie explanation.
All correct, except your last 2 sentences. There is nothing that prevents any of these things from being done by a family member. BUT- one thing is false- she wasn't kidnapped. She was still home. HER home. HER HOME with her parents and brother STILL there. As they had been all along.
While the explanation may look obvious to you, it was after all, MEANT to look that way. It is when you begin to look a little deeper that you see this had all the red flags that appear when a child is found dead by a parent after being reported "missing".
And when the most obvious is ultimately found to be true? That the cord, tape, DNA, blunt instrument, motive, handwriting, linguistics, and brutal violence in both word and deed are all found to not belong to anyone who lived there? This is possible you know. Hasn't been ruled out.
The skin cells sort of rule it in, actually.
No, this isn't true.
You have a dead girl, sexual injuries, strangulation by garrote still there, headbash with unknown blunt instrument, foreign cord, foreign tape, and foreign DNA.
The very obvious explanation is that JBR was kidnapped then sexually assaulted, strangled, and headbashed by an intruder.
This is the most obvious, and all other explanations circumvent this prima facie explanation.
All correct, except your last 2 sentences. There is nothing that prevents any of these things from being done by a family member.
BUT- one thing is false- she wasn't kidnapped. She was still home. HER home. HER HOME with her parents and brother STILL there. As they had been all along.
While the explanation may look obvious to you, it was after all, MEANT to look that way. It is when you begin to look a little deeper that you see this had all the red flags that appear when a child is found dead by a parent after being reported "missing".
Oh, no? I'm pretty sure Ron Walker would agree with me.
I don't think you understand what I'm trying to say, HOTYH. It's easy for you to say that NOW. What Steely and I are trying to do is see it from their perspective as it was happening.
If she had been found somewhere ELSE, it would be! We can't forget the whole "found IN the house" bit, now can we?
You're kidding, right?
The context of the conversation was whether or not the ransom note was needed to steer police away from the family. The crime scene evidence is/was doing a fine job of that.
A guilty JR and PR would know ahead of time that 1500 handwritten letters claiming to be foreign while using good English composition would be studied by the FBI and would become the biggest threat of linking them to the crime.
RDI needs to justify the ransom note in PR/JR's eyes, but it cant be done.
Sure it can. The parents needed the RN if they were going to claim she was kidnapped. Nothing says "kidnapped" like a ransom note. Of course, the added benefit was that the ransom note could threaten her death if it was not obeyed. So because they knew she was ALREADY dead- all they had to do was disobey the note. And they did. In spades.
The context of the conversation was whether or not the ransom note was needed to steer police away from the family.
The crime scene evidence is/was doing a fine job of that.
A guilty JR and PR would know ahead of time that 1500 handwritten letters claiming to be foreign while using good English composition would be studied by the FBI and would become the biggest threat of linking them to the crime.
RDI needs to justify the ransom note in PR/JR's eyes, but it cant be done.
Sure it can. The parents needed the RN if they were going to claim she was kidnapped. Nothing says "kidnapped" like a ransom note. Of course, the added benefit was that the ransom note could threaten her death if it was not obeyed. So because they knew she was ALREADY dead- all they had to do was disobey the note. And they did. In spades.
But you're obviously glossing over a side-effect of having the handwriting studied and linked. In PR/JR's eyes there would be nothing more linkable between the murder and the murderer than their own personal handwriting.
RDI has been arguing for years something that you yourself would NEVER do: live and the scene of a murder and put pen to paper for 350 criminal words in your own personal handwriting.
I'd like to hear you claim that you could!
Anyone could.
You say that very confidently, HOTYH. I'm interested in knowing just HOW they would "know" that "ahead of time." I'm deadly serious: please enlighten me as to how two socialites who are not master criminals and had only a tertiary interest in true crime (at BEST) are suddenly supposed to have become instant experts in law enforcement proceedures, methods and tactics. THEN, explain to me how those same socialites were supposed to be thinking that far ahead under the circumstances.
Even an idiot knows you don't go around handwriting notes and leaving them at a child murder scene, when you live there.
It's not my fault if you dont believe this.
THAT's your argument? You're going to have to do better than that, brother. If nothing else, I know only too well that smart people will do some pretty stupid things if they get backed into a corner and looking for a way out.
No, it isn't your fault I don't believe it. If it makes you feel any better, my not believing it has nothing to do with you.
This assumes that writing a ransom note provides an obvious advantage.
This provision has not been established.
Backed into a corner doesn't equate to adding personal handwriting to the evidence pool, even to an idiot.
Put another way, RDI can't show a causal relationship between the circumstances and a perceived advantage of a household member adding unnecessary personal handwriting to the evidence pool.
What was allegedly going on would not cause someone who lived there to believe they needed to handwrite a long note. Quite the opposite is true.
Maybe they THOUGHT it would. Indeed, I can see how it would. Several of us here, including myself have made some pretty good arguments about that. I honestly don't know why you won't consider any of them. At one time, I thought it was due to my not expounding it well, but I'm starting to feel like it's not my fault.
Well just for the tally book, HOTYH, the only thing that needs to be established is that the writer THOUGHT it would.
And I suppose you'd know this from personal experience? Look, I've been a good sport up to now, but so far, you've provided no rationale at all for statements such as these. And I'm not about to let it go at that.
Well, let's establish a few things before we explore that:
1) What exactly is your definition of a "causal" relationship?
2) What, as you it, were the circumstances?
I'm afraid you're going to have to explain those two points. Why WOULDN'T it cause that, for one.
Basically, you're claiming a trigger existed to handwrite a long long long long long ransom note.
You're using the wildcard that PR irrationally perceived a trigger while us rational folk would not perceive a trigger.
That would be the last thing I would do ESPECIALLY if I lived there!
I'm claiming no trigger exists. There is nothing that would cause someone who is in company with a child murder or accident victim to pick up a pen and start writing.
It is because of a preconceived notion of RDI and the existence of a ransom note that the trigger is assumed to have existed. Typical but tragic circular reasoning.
