You, the jury

[BBB167893]

No. That is not what you said. Not at all.

Excuse me, but I'm a big boy. I know what I said and what I meant.

You said you acknowledge it quite extensively. When I asked for examples, then you change the topic and say there is a difference between acknowledging it and letting it prejudice you. So, spend at least several pages acknowledging it extensively, please. Go into detail, splurge, have a ball.

What's the point, man? You obviously wouldn't believe me.

Supe, are you capable of comprehending the not so subtle differences? Answer this the best you can.

See, just in case this hasn't occurred to you, I will spell it out. Follow this carefully, okay?

Watch it.

Although just about every "killer parent" "uses that dodge," it does not mean that parents who make that statement are lying. Right? So, just because the Rs said they didn't do it, (and just because they appear to most of us with some common sense and to those who knew them well) that they were wonderfully good parents, doesn't necessarily make them child killers. Okay? With me, so far?

Yeah, I'm with you. I never said that it did mean that. Don't change the subject.

Do you understand the importance of this? You cannot condemn them for being good parents!

I don't!

You cannot reach a logical, sane opinion-based on their good parenting-that they were automatically guilty of killing their daughter.

You're assuming an awful lot, aren't you?

Here is what we have learned from this little lesson. 1.) We, you, me, all, cannot make a sound argument that they killed their daughter just because they said they didn't.

True. But as Ronald Reagan said, "trust but verify." It's no basis to establish their innocence, is my point.

2.) Just because they were loving, warm, caring parents does not necessarily make them child killers. Comprehend?

What's that got to do with anything?

Let's work on these two points, okay?

They NEED work.

 

[WHITEFANG]

They NEED work.

You said you acknowledge it quite extensively. When I asked for examples, then you change the topic and say there is a difference between acknowledging it and letting it prejudice you. So, spend at least several pages acknowledging it extensively, please. Go into detail, splurge, have a ball.

What's the point, man? You obviously wouldn't believe me.

When you are challenged to back up your statements, why not give it a shot? You can back them up?

 

[WHITEFANG]

Excuse me, but I'm a big boy. I know what I said and what I meant.

I don't think you do.

 

[WHITEFANG]

Let's work on these two points, okay?

They NEED work.

I'll take that as a yes.

 

[WHITEFANG]

Every other post of yours is all about the saintly Ramseys, how they weren't the "type" to commit a crime, how no parent could ever do this to a beloved child, how the big bad cops wanted them to hang, how ordinary Americans vented their class anger against them. Don't think I haven't noticed.

Where are these "every other posts?"

I didn't say that. You're twisting my words again. My POINT is that just about EVERY killer parent uses that dodge, because people believe it.

And you mean what?


And so you said this?

They want to believe it, nonsense or not. Being a loving parent doesn't make you incapable of killing. And it's not PROOF, either.

Which means?

 

[WHITEFANG]

SuperDave;5338162

From a law enforcement perspective, yes. I'm not a fool; I understand that such a thing will bring up some very strong emotions. It certainly does here. But we have to move PAST them.

That is not the point. Not at all.

 

[WHITEFANG]

SuperDave;5338115]
Your attempts to play on our emotions

Let me try again. For example?

 

[BBB167893]

When you are challenged to back up your statements, why not give it a shot? You can back them up?

I could ask the same.

Very well. I was saving this as a last resort. This is an excerpt from the epilogue of my YTBP book:

This case was a tragedy right across the board. Let me be clear on one thing: even if I had good reason, I don't hate Patsy Ramsey. At one time, I may have, but hate's not worth wasting your life on, so I gave it up. And I have never doubted that Patsy Ramsey loved her daughter with everything in her being. I have never doubted that. Patsy Ramsey was a loving mother and an amazing wife and a great friend to everyone who knew her. She was a gorgeous, smart, dynamic lady. In my heart I know she didn't mean for any of this to happen.

I don't think you do.

I'm sure you don't. That seems to be part of the problem.

I'll take that as a yes.

It is.

 

[WHITEFANG]

YOU keep bringing that up, not me. I only even mentioned it because there seems to be this notion that because I don't automatically roll over for sob stories about parental love, I'm a heartless b*****d.

Not remotely close.

 

[WHITEFANG]

FANG- Logical conclusion? "No report exists," is your statement of fact, and it is preposterous.

PROVE it! THAT is what I think of it!

Okay. Here goes. Can you prove no report exists? No, you cannot. It is preposterous to say that no report exists.

 

[BBB167893]

Where are these "every other posts?"

I didn't know you wanted me to catalog them.

Well, just off the top of my head, there are your posts about what a governing factor love is and how they were such good parents.

And you mean what?

Which means?

Isn't it obvious? just because someone says they didn't do it doesn't mean they're innocent.

That is not the point. Not at all.

Then what IS the point, Fang? Never mind all of this linguistic ballet.

 

[BBB167893]

Not remotely close.

Glad to hear it.

Okay. Here goes. Can you prove no report exists? No, you cannot. It is preposterous to say that no report exists.

So that's your game, is it? I insist you prove it; you counter by saying that I can't prove a negative. Like the Guinness commercial says, "brilliant!"

 

[WHITEFANG]

Remember, you are arguing with someone who will not acknowledge "love" as a viable component in this debacle. It is a non-factor.

That's not it. I acknolwedge it quite extensively. I simply don't let it prejudice my thinking. This is, or should be, an intellectual issue, not an emotional one.

Your attempts to play on our emotions are part of a tried-and-true strategy that the Rs & CO have been using since Day One. "Oh, we're such loving parents. How could you think we could do this?"

They're not the first to ply that tack, and they won't be the last.

So I have hardened myself against such things and do my best to stick to things like reason. There's a BIG difference between THAT and what you're suggesting.

More like it. BTW, Supe, when you claim to acknowledge something extensively, it must by definition not include comments no one has ever seen.

This case was a tragedy right across the board. Let me be clear on one thing: even if I had good reason, I don't hate Patsy Ramsey. At one time, I may have, but hate's not worth wasting your life on, so I gave it up. And I have never doubted that Patsy Ramsey loved her daughter with everything in her being. I have never doubted that. Patsy Ramsey was a loving mother and an amazing wife and a great friend to everyone who knew her. She was a gorgeous, smart, dynamic lady. In my heart I know she didn't mean for any of this to happen.

That's better. Knew you could it.

Although just about every "killer parent" "uses that dodge," it does not mean that parents who make that statement are lying. Right? So, just because the Rs said they didn't do it, (and just because they appear to most of us with some common sense and to those who knew them well) that they were wonderfully good parents, doesn't necessarily make them child killers. Okay? With me, so far?

Yeah, I'm with you. I never said that it did mean that. Don't change the subject.

You didn't?

Your attempts to play on our emotions are part of a tried-and-true strategy that the Rs & CO have been using since Day One. "Oh, we're such loving parents. How could you think we could do this?"

They're not the first to ply that tack, and they won't be the last.

See, my friend, this is precisely what you were saying. These ............. used b.s. from the start, just like other criminals, to try to fool people into believing they were innocent.

 

[BBB167893]

More like it. BTW, Supe, when you claim to acknowledge something extensively, it must by definition not include comments no one has ever seen.

You haven't been around here long, Fang.

That's better. Knew you could it.

Thank you.

You didn't?

Right.

See, my friend, this is precisely what you were saying. These ............. used b.s. from the start, just like other criminals, to try to fool people into believing they were innocent.

Yes, I said THAT. And I stand by it. I did NOT say, as you seem to suggest, that being a good parent makes you a child-killer automatically.

 

[MurriFlower]

Members of the jury

I ask you to consider the evidence of the tape found on the mouth of the deceased.

This has been described as duct tape. This tape, apparently identified by FBI - (citation required) is of the type containing a cloth base and a rubber adhesive. The tape has been described as 'wide, black'. It has been asserted that the reverse or sticky side of this particular tape is grey or silver (citation required).

The tape has not been described in evidence by the prosecution. It appears it was not electrical tape but was 'wide' tape, the type used to secure items and in common use in commercial and domestic applications.

The particular piece of tape that was apparently adhered to the mouth of the deceased was removed by her father when she was discovered and 'discarded'. At that time, it was described as 'wide, black tape' 'not electrical tape' 'not duct tape'.

This discarded tape was, according to the prosecution, the tape that adhered to the white blanket on evidence picture 149 http://www.acandyrose.com/149blanket-x.gif However, you will see this tape is clearly grey or silver in colour. This could be because the tape is apparently silver/grey on the sticky side, and the tape is not actually adhered but merely atop the blanket.

In addition, the deceased's father maintains that there were additional strips of tape on 'the legs' of the deceased. These strips have not been submitted into evidence. It appears that there is no trace of these additional pieces of 'black tape'.

Now, to the tape itself. It appears from the evidence at hand, that both ends of the tape that was removed from the deceased's mouth had been torn rather than cut. This would indicate that the perpetrator of the crime tore a length sufficient to attach to the deceased's mouth directly from a roll of tape that he had on his person. There has been some attempt to suggest that the tape was 'second hand' and that it had been removed from an object within the house, but there is no forensic evidence to suggest that this may have happened. Had the tape been previously used, there would have been some residue of it's previous use in evidence, and none has been submitted. No source of the tape was found in the house, either previously used or on a roll.

Therefore I believe we can assume that the perpertrator brought the tape and tore off a piece sufficient to place on the deceased's mouth. There would need to have been evidence of how this was torn from the roll. Cloth tape is easily torn with finger and thumb of both hands, so there would have needed to be either fingerprints if bare hands had been used, or fibers if the person had worn gloves.

We are aware that 'brown cotton fibers' were found on the tape. There was also apparently some animal hairs. Found also apparently were four (4) red acrilic fibers similar (or consistent) with fibers from the jacket of the deceased's Mother. There were other unsourced and unidentified fiberes.

I therefore submit to you that there is no likelihood that the parents of the deceased were the ones to tear off and apply the tape to the deceased's mouth, for the following reasons:

1. The tape was not sourced to the house. There was no tape that matched that adhered to the deceased's mouth in the home.
2. The tape was torn not cut. The method of tearing would have left either fingerprints or fibers (if gloved hands were used). If fingerprints were not found then gloves MUST have been worn. These should have been sourced to the house or their origins established.
3. The Swiss Army Knife was not used to cut the tape and therefore had no role and it's doubtful if the knife belonging to the brother of the deceased was used in the commission of this crime.
4. Had the parents of the deceased been her killers, they would have had to have worn gloves during the killing. These gloves would have then needed to be disposed of. There is no evidence of them either purchasing/owning such gloves or having disposed of such items.

I therefore submit to the jury, that neither the tape nor the person who applied it was sourced to the house. The parents were not responsible for the application of the tape to their dead daughter's mouth and therefore were not implicated in any way in her death.

 

[BBB167893]

I call rebuttal.

In addition, the deceased's father maintains that there were additional strips of tape on 'the legs' of the deceased. These strips have not been submitted into evidence. It appears that there is no trace of these additional pieces of 'black tape'.

People maintain that there were not such strips.

There has been some attempt to suggest that the tape was 'second hand' and that it had been removed from an object within the house, but there is no forensic evidence to suggest that this may have happened.

The tape's adhesive quality has been called into question previously.

Had the tape been previously used, there would have been some residue of it's previous use in evidence, and none has been submitted. No source of the tape was found in the house, either previously used or on a roll.

Question: was there not a doll which went missing and a replacement was delivered to John Ramsey's office?

I therefore submit to you that there is no likelihood that the parents of the deceased were the ones to tear off and apply the tape to the deceased's mouth, for the following reasons:

1. The tape was not sourced to the house. There was no tape that matched that adhered to the deceased's mouth in the home.
2. The tape was torn not cut. The method of tearing would have left either fingerprints or fibers (if gloved hands were used). If fingerprints were not found then gloves MUST have been worn. These should have been sourced to the house or their origins established.
3. The Swiss Army Knife was not used to cut the tape and therefore had no role and it's doubtful if the knife belonging to the brother of the deceased was used in the commission of this crime.
4. Had the parents of the deceased been her killers, they would have had to have worn gloves during the killing. These gloves would have then needed to be disposed of. There is no evidence of them either purchasing/owning such gloves or having disposed of such items.

I therefore submit to the jury, that neither the tape nor the person who applied it was sourced to the house. The parents were not responsible for the application of the tape to their dead daughter's mouth and therefore were not implicated in any way in her death.

I counter by reminding the jury that the tape was not applied until after the deceased was already dead.

1. There was a perfect, undistorted set of lip prints on the adhesive side of the tape, which could not have happened if the deceased were trying to resist it.

2. No skin trauma was idenitfied around the mouth of the victim, a further indication of no resistance.

3. The size of the tape applied was fairly small, very impractical for silencing a person, even a small child.

4. The tape had bloody mucous on the adhesive side, which furthers our argument that it was not applied until after death.

Taking these facts into account, it is clear that the duct tape was not practical for silencing the victim. Thus, it could only have been applied after death for purposes of staging, making it look like something it wasn't. We are inevitably left with the question: cui bono? Who would benefit from making it look like an outsider committed this crime? Sadly, we are left with only family as the answer.

 

[Roy23]

Funnily enough, although LHP has a 'big gold star' next to her name, she's not the only possibility. Through her own stupidity and desire for fame, she's the only one we know very much about. She has contradicted herself and lied about various things, so she seems to be more likely than anyone else. Certainly I'd never dismiss her as being too stupid or kind or naive.

BUT the killer is not the person who set this 'sting' up. I call it a 'sting' because I don't believe it was ever intended to be a killing. These simpletons just wanted to extort some money from the rich folks, by taking their precious baby and hiding her long enough to collect the ransom. If the R's had been childless and had a dog they were very fond of then it would have been the subject of this extortion attempt. Sadly the dog wasn't in the loop, but poor little JBR was.

Would a dog have fared any better? Doubtful.

Whoever set this up, engaged as their accomplice someone who was very sick. He (I say 'he' only because this is what it appears due to the DNA evidence, although a 'she' is not completely ruled out) was to take care of JBR and keep her quiet until the ransom was paid. But instead, JBR ended up dead!!

So this person is the killer and sick though he/she was/is and should never have been left in charge of a child, but the person who organised it is just as much, if not more to blame for what happened.

What do we have to identify this person, and by association, the 'principal' person in this crime??

There appears to be a military background, real or imagined.
I believe there is a hand gun (possibly a Glock 19) involved
This person probably has no previous for child molestation.
There may be an aversion to blood.
There may be an aversion to adult females (molested by mother figure?).
There may be a fear of germs or of touching other people.
I think this person may be a 'hunter' or 'woodsman'.
This person would be considered 'slow' or 'dumb' by others.

Is there someone in or around Boulder that fits this description or someone associated with the Rs who has a husband/father/son/brother who would?

That's all I have at present.

I have to say that some of this is very very interesting. It would seem that you think this is some sort of plot by someone who worked at the Ramsey house. And the plan went unexpectedly wrong. This makes a whole lot of sense.

 

[WHITEFANG]

I call rebuttal.



People maintain that there were not such strips.



The tape's adhesive quality has been called into question previously.



Question: was there not a doll which went missing and a replacement was delivered to John Ramsey's office?



I counter by reminding the jury that the tape was not applied until after the deceased was already dead.

1. There was a perfect, undistorted set of lip prints on the adhesive side of the tape, which could not have happened if the deceased were trying to resist it.

2. No skin trauma was idenitfied around the mouth of the victim, a further indication of no resistance.

3. The size of the tape applied was fairly small, very impractical for silencing a person, even a small child.

4. The tape had bloody mucous on the adhesive side, which furthers our argument that it was not applied until after death.

Taking these facts into account, it is clear that the duct tape was not practical for silencing the victim. Thus, it could only have been applied after death for purposes of staging, making it look like something it wasn't. We are inevitably left with the question: cui bono? Who would benefit from making it look like an outsider committed this crime? Sadly, we are left with only family as the answer.

Objection, your Honor. Lack of foundation, hearsay, and we have not seen any documentation, accepted into evidence by this court, to support a single claim. We ask for a mistrial and seek protection from further proceedings under the principal of double-jeopardy.

Objection sustained. The motion for mistrial is hereby granted, this matter is dismissed and any and all further efforts to retry any claims associated with this case are hereby forever blocked based on the time honored principal of double-jeopardy.

 

[WHITEFANG]

Sorry. I'm a little embarrassed here. I can't recall any more. Could you remind me, specifically, what am I suggesting?

Well, the way I took it was that you were suggesting I had no feelings, no heart.

Nope. I was and I am pointing out what is obvious. You are a hypocrite.

 

[WHITEFANG]

Taking these facts into account, it is clear that the duct tape was not practical for silencing the victim. Thus, it could only have been applied after death for purposes of staging, making it look like something it wasn't. We are inevitably left with the question: cui bono? Who would benefit from making it look like an outsider committed this crime? Sadly, we are left with only family as the answer. SD

Which facts?