What's eating you alive re this case?

[Trvl4Lyfe]

The fact that LE still doesn't have a clue!

 

[Nom de plume]

Originally Posted by lonetraveler
But! She didn't confess. I'm curious as to WHY NOT.

How do we know she didn't leave a letter? JR and/or BR or an atty could have destroyed it if she did. I'm not saying she did or she didn't but ya just never know with this family....

 

[questfortrue]

she was married to one of the most arrogant,calculated,manipulative men I've ever seen,that's why,IMO

they BOTH seem to have done it,that's what's WEIRD!they both seem very detached,they wanna distance themselves from her (not necessarily the crime,but her)..."THAT child"..."NO,we don't know that she was assaulted",etc,etc,etc,long list...

This post suggesting “calculation” resonated with me. Faster than the govt. can spend a buck, JR moves to retain lawyers. Thanks to Kolar, and a brief mention is in ST’s book as well, we know about lawyers for JR immediately trying to reach FW after JB’s body is found. But this was before JB’s body was even autopsied. What raised my hinky meter in terms of calculation were: Lawyers for the ex and all children, a lawyer retained by the Atlanta pastor, a move to Atlanta with a family whose son was a bff of BR (in the event BR spilled something to his bff? I’ve an additional theory about that move to Atlanta which is simpler than the BC theory.) JR even admitted to once trying to find his ex-mistress, faulted for ruining JR’s first marriage. All these calculated actions on the part of JR made me consider that JR did not want LE digging around too deep in his past. moo

 

[chlban]

lonetraveler;10215249]Let me see, name of thread is "What is eating me alive regarding this case". Well, I fully expected to hear Patsy Ramsey confess prior to her death and I was very disappointed when she didn't.

Actually, we don't know whether she confessed or not. Or if she discussed her involvement in covering up for Burke or John. We have no idea what she discussed in the days prior to her death.

Unless one believes that her family is so honest that they would publicly disclose whatever she might have said. Personally, I think lies were so ingrained in that family, both immediate and extended family, that I don't expect we will ever know the truth from that group.

 

[chlban]

sorry, double post

 

[Venom]

How do we know she didn't leave a letter? JR and/or BR or an atty could have destroyed it if she did. I'm not saying she did or she didn't but ya just never know with this family....

IMO, if (and that's a pretty big if) she did leave a letter the family would not want it out there that she confessed.
And, I think that the family and possibly the lawyers know who did what that night.
Again, jmo.

 

[SapphireSteel]

I just wanted to note something that is deeply satisfying in the middle of the frustration -

PR at least has got her karmic reward.

 

[Anyhoo]

I just wanted to note something that is deeply satisfying in the middle of the frustration -

PR at least has got her karmic reward.

Not good enough. I am convinced that at least one if not both of the two surviving Ramsey's know what happened. Whether he committed the murder or not, I live to see JR exposed as a liar and deceiver. He is a big rat.

 

[Chelly]

Not good enough. I am convinced that at least one if not both of the two surviving Ramsey's know what happened. Whether he committed the murder or not, I live to see JR exposed as a liar and deceiver. He is a big rat.

I sincerely hope that exposure happens during JR's lifetime (and mine!).

 

[Anti-K]

BBM

Just wanted to join in, and say that I agree- the holy grail would be to find one conclusive theory, that fits everything! But, maybe the problem is that everyone's scratching their heads, trying to find a logical explanation for all the bizarre aspects that seem to contradict each other, because we're all looking at it rationally, from a distance? And maybe sometimes in real life, things happen or people act/react in ways that aren't sensible/rational/logical at the time? I don't know, just my thoughts...?
<snip>

But, what is “everything?”

This is the problem. We don’t agree on which elements are actually relevant to the crime. Some elements, the pineapple for example, may not be related at all, but some people insist that an explanation must incorporate it! And, we don’t agree on what evidence is fact; for example, Mr Ramsey’s shirt fibers, prior abuse, the victim’s panties being changed, stun gun use, etc....

Perhaps, what we need is an explanation that describes the broader more widely accepted aspects of the case, one that doesn’t necessarily incorporate every little thing that comes to mind or seems questionable.

While I can understand that to posit an unknown suspect with an unknown motive isn’t very satisfying for many, I also think that many of the perceived bizarre aspects and oddities become vanishingly small when we consider the possibility that the Ramseys were not involved and simply had no idea as to what happened.
...

AK

 

[Anyhoo]

BBM


But, what is “everything?”

This is the problem. We don’t agree on which elements are actually relevant to the crime. Some elements, the pineapple for example, may not be related at all, but some people insist that an explanation must incorporate it! And, we don’t agree on what evidence is fact; for example, Mr Ramsey’s shirt fibers, prior abuse, the victim’s panties being changed, stun gun use, etc....

Perhaps, what we need is an explanation that describes the broader more widely accepted aspects of the case, one that doesn’t necessarily incorporate every little thing that comes to mind or seems questionable.

While I can understand that to posit an unknown suspect with an unknown motive isn’t very satisfying for many, I also think that many of the perceived bizarre aspects and oddities become vanishingly small when we consider the possibility that the Ramseys were not involved and simply had no idea as to what happened.
...

AK

The only thing that prevents you from seeing Ramsey knowledge of the murder is your own mind, AK. Your last paragraph demonstrates why it would be futile to try to include IDI into any kind of unified theory and it angers me to see that one could be so blind. But you have a point about which evidence to include, since people tend to accept evidence that supports their own theory about what happened and reject evidence contrary to it. Maybe two unified theories, one for RDI and one for IDI. It would be much more difficult to unite RDI under a single theory than to unite IDI IMO.

 

[Meara]

BBM


But, what is “everything?”

This is the problem. We don’t agree on which elements are actually relevant to the crime. Some elements, the pineapple for example, may not be related at all, but some people insist that an explanation must incorporate it! And, we don’t agree on what evidence is fact; for example, Mr Ramsey’s shirt fibers, prior abuse, the victim’s panties being changed, stun gun use, etc....

Perhaps, what we need is an explanation that describes the broader more widely accepted aspects of the case, one that doesn’t necessarily incorporate every little thing that comes to mind or seems questionable.

While I can understand that to posit an unknown suspect with an unknown motive isn’t very satisfying for many, I also think that many of the perceived bizarre aspects and oddities become vanishingly small when we consider the possibility that the Ramseys were not involved and simply had no idea as to what happened.
...

AK

The Grand Jury had to consider the possibility that the Ramseys were not involved, and it doesn't look like the eccentricities of the case became vanishingly small to them...

 

[madeleine]

This post suggesting “calculation” resonated with me. Faster than the govt. can spend a buck, JR moves to retain lawyers. Thanks to Kolar, and a brief mention is in ST’s book as well, we know about lawyers for JR immediately trying to reach FW after JB’s body is found. But this was before JB’s body was even autopsied. What raised my hinky meter in terms of calculation were: Lawyers for the ex and all children, a lawyer retained by the Atlanta pastor, a move to Atlanta with a family whose son was a bff of BR (in the event BR spilled something to his bff? I’ve an additional theory about that move to Atlanta which is simpler than the BC theory.) JR even admitted to once trying to find his ex-mistress, faulted for ruining JR’s first marriage. All these calculated actions on the part of JR made me consider that JR did not want LE digging around too deep in his past. moo

lawyering up

he always wants to make it sound like it was no big deal,just a concerned friend (MB) trying to help them out in such a desperate situation...I don't buy it...ITA that they didn't want the cops digging around in his past.everything was strategy.not just an accident /nice friends helping out.big things needed to stay HIDDEN.

 

[Anti-K]

The only thing that prevents you from seeing Ramsey knowledge of the murder is your own mind, AK. Your last paragraph demonstrates why it would be futile to try to include IDI into any kind of unified theory and it angers me to see that one could be so blind. But you have a point about which evidence to include, since people tend to accept evidence that supports their own theory about what happened and reject evidence contrary to it. Maybe two unified theories, one for RDI and one for IDI. It would be much more difficult to unite RDI under a single theory than to unite IDI IMO.

No, the only thing that keeps me from seeing Ramsey knowledge of the crimes is the evidence. But, I completely agree that there can be no unified theory. How could there be? I also think that you are right that it would be difficult to unite RDI under a single theory, but I’m not sure how much easier it would be for IDI to do the same.

IDI theories, with no known suspect and no certain motive are understandably all over the map, but If RDI were true, then I think it should be pretty easy to find that common ground, and the fact that RDI is all over the map – Thomas and Kolar are good examples of this – is just one more example of the sort of thing that makes me doubt theories of this sort.
...

AK

 

[chlban]

lawyering up

he always wants to make it sound like it was no big deal,just a concerned friend (MB) trying to help them out in such a desperate situation...I don't buy it...ITA that they didn't want the cops digging around in his past.everything was strategy.not just an accident /nice friends helping out.big things needed to stay HIDDEN.

Your post got me thinking about the ever popular "anyone with any brains would lawyer up" which I have never bought. So I am trying to think of a case in a child abduction and/or murder where the parents lawyered up, set stringent guidelines for their questioning and basically behaved anything like the Ramseys and it was ultimately determined, beyondall doubt, that said parents were innocent?

I cannot think of one. Maybe they are there, I just cannot recall any right now.

But then, I have always believed that the actions of the Ramseys were more damning than all of the other evidence combined.

 

[madeleine]

Your post got me thinking about the ever popular "anyone with any brains would lawyer up" which I have never bought. So I am trying to think of a case in a child abduction and/or murder where the parents lawyered up, set stringent guidelines for their questioning and basically behaved anything like the Ramseys and it was ultimately determined, beyondall doubt, that said parents were innocent?

I cannot think of one. Maybe they are there, I just cannot recall any right now.

But then, I have always believed that the actions of the Ramseys were more damning than all of the other evidence combined.

@bold...huge red flag....I personally have nothing against the lawyering up (in general,it's your right,period)...but for suspects to wanna make the RULES?the fact that they didn't want the questions to be REPEATED?their lawyers comment re "memorizing the answers"?who needs to study and memorize answers if you tell the TRUTH?

 

[Anti-K]

The Grand Jury had to consider the possibility that the Ramseys were not involved, and it doesn't look like the eccentricities of the case became vanishingly small to them...

No, the grand jury did not have to consider the possibility that the Ramseys were not involved, they had to decide if there was probable cause to charge them with a crime. Also, it seems clear that after all their time and consideration the jurors still had no idea who did what or why, and hoped that further investigation might answer these questions (that didn’t happen, either).
...

AK

 

[Venom]

No, the grand jury did not have to consider the possibility that the Ramseys were not involved, they had to decide if there was probable cause to charge them with a crime. Also, it seems clear that after all their time and consideration the jurors still had no idea who did what or why, and hoped that further investigation might answer these questions (that didn&#8217;t happen, either).
...

AK

BBM- They did decide and voted to charge JR and PR with child abuse resulting in death and with accessory to a crime.

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2013/10/us/jonbenet-ramsey-documents/?hpt=hp_t1
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/25/justice/jonbenet-ramsey-documents/

 

[Meara]

No, the grand jury did not have to consider the possibility that the Ramseys were not involved, they had to decide if there was probable cause to charge them with a crime. Also, it seems clear that after all their time and consideration the jurors still had no idea who did what or why, and hoped that further investigation might answer these questions (that didn’t happen, either).
...

AK

Two sides of the same coin, AK, and indictments were issued, eccentricities notwithstanding.

 

[Nom de plume]

Your post got me thinking about the ever popular "anyone with any brains would lawyer up" which I have never bought. So I am trying to think of a case in a child abduction and/or murder where the parents lawyered up, set stringent guidelines for their questioning and basically behaved anything like the Ramseys and it was ultimately determined, beyondall doubt, that said parents were innocent?

I cannot think of one. Maybe they are there, I just cannot recall any right now.

But then, I have always believed that the actions of the Ramseys were more damning than all of the other evidence combined.

Well I can think of one where the parents were questioned briefly on the day the baby disappeared, then "lawyered up" with a very infamous DEATH PENALTY atty that they could never hope to afford (paid for by an "anonymous benefactor"), parents refused to talk to LE again unless they were questioned together (which LE understandably refused), the "mother" took a LDT and "failed miserably". To date the poor child has never been found. Seems they took a page out of the Ramsey play book, improved on it by disposing of the poor girl's body, and so far it's worked for them. SMH