Coincidences

[BBB167893]

Me too,no accident,there's nothing IMO that points to "just an accident " +the most complicated staging in history.

Okay. I just thought you'd want to know why some of us adhere to that notion and what we mean when we say "accident."

 

[Roy23]

I see. Well, I respect Dr. Wecht deeply. But in this instance, I think it's helpful to remember that when we say "accident," we mean that the killing was not intentional.



"Logic game?" You lost me, friend.



Well, someone certainly wanted it to look brutal. How successful they were is up for debate. You seem to believe it. The person certainly left her in good enough shape for that massive funeral, didn't they? (And we'll get to that.)



Yeah, I've come across that notion many times. And I have to admit, I'm no closer to understanding it now than I ever have been. It just strikes me as hopelessly naive. That's NOT an insult to anybody. I'm talking about the viewpoint. I honestly can't figure why anyone would accept that uncritically, since I myself am constantly horrified by what people are capable of when they abandon dignity. I keep going back to what Ron Walker said.

But let's talk specifics here. To address you specifically, you talk about "the fear of prison" as if it was nothing, like it was no big deal. But you think about what may have been going through their minds at the time. PR grew up in the Deep South, where the law is extremely harsh on criminals. The stereotypes of the brutal Southern sheriff and the hanging judge didn't come out of nowhere. They had no reason to think that the law in Boulder would be any different, especially to people like the Rs who were outsiders and nouveau riche in a town known for its leftist, anti-corporate politics.
Add to that the generally unpleasant treatment that people who harm children get in prison. We all know what I'm talking about, and if you don't, I'll spell it out: we're talking mop handles and razor blades here. I have no doubt they were thinking about that. Throw in PR's health worries, the loss of status in the community, the possible rejection by her other loved ones, and the fact that self-preservation is the most powerful instinct there is, human or animal, and you've got a pretty powerful recipe. I would also remind you that in Christian theology, the soul is the person. The body is just crude material. Once the soul leaves the body, it's just a body. It's not that person anymore. I'm not even Christian, but that's how I looked at it when Mom died: it's just a body.

That's not even touching on some of the more esoteric factors. I already did that in "Loved to Death." It's there if you want to read it, and I'd very much like it if you would.

In this particular case, you seem to be relying on what ol' HOTYH would have us believe is the exclusive province of RDI: "circular reasoning." Maybe I'm misinterpreting you, and feel free to tell me so if I am, but your statement reads like: "this was a brutal murder, and the Rs couldn't do it because they weren't capable of brutal murder because they never committed brutal murder before."



So have I. You interest me, Roy. Your answers seem to lead to more questions.

Okay Dave, I will bite on this one. Let me stress that Hotyh thoughts on this have not a damm thing to do with mine. To start you ask about Wecht's logic. His opinion is based on these facts and it is much of RDI facts. How could someone pull off this based on the structure of this house without being detected, leaving little forensic evidence besides DNA, and writing the note. Forgetting how much the crime scene was bungled, it is a solid theory. Especially with the original minute DNA, AS IT WAS AT THE TIME.
This is the logic he lays out with his theory. But he give the DNA a lot of credence Dave. To put it simply, at minimum in your favor he believes as your brother does.

Now, lets talk of religion. I am not gonna criticize your beliefs nor what I read in your comments that I think I see. I would imagine that you may think believers are naiive from what I read. I get that in your mind a dead body is just what it is, an object. If I am wrong, don't get upset. The Ramsey's, you have to see, are SO much different. I imagine they can't take a crap without appearance being an issue. These people have a reputation enough that an accident would be just what it is. But I get your point. We disagree, though, because I have a source that says this was a murder that was beyond brutal. And I think the motive is hate. I mean absolute hate. I would not doubt that one of the Ramsey's has a secret that is the motive of this hate but we are gonna find out.

And your last comment, human beings are capable of anything. I know that. But, although, I agree with Wecht on the brutality I don't think they were capable of this kind of killing. Not an accident and they could not have desecrated the body as it was. And that even is not close to my best reasoning. Wecht believes in an accompliss, but don't believe me. The DNA is the reason and RDI doesn't get that it is REALLY REALLY STRONG. Just call Wecht yourself and he will tell you if RDI it has to be a murder for hire. Cause he believes in a whole lot of circumstancial evidence that you do.

 

[Roy23]

Okay guys. I have said my peace on this and I believe 99% that this will be solved soon. I have my reasons and I can only beg you to repent. I will end with lyrics that have a meaning to me.

"Everybody's said what has already been said, everybody's sold what has already been sold. All that glitter ain't gold. "

The media has made a fortune on this case. So have some parties involved. The only money to be made now is by going against the case as it stands now, IDI. If you want to make a buck, you gotta roll RDI. Keep that in mind when you see Wecht, Grace, Valez-Mitchell, Lee or whoever else you see talking.

And remember, Elizabeth Smart.

 

[BBB167893]

Okay Dave, I will bite on this one.

I was getting worried for a minute.

Let me stress that Hotyh thoughts on this have not a damm thing to do with mine.

Fair enough. I went over the line.

To start you ask about Wecht's logic. His opinion is based on these facts and it is much of RDI facts. How could someone pull off this based on the structure of this house without being detected, leaving little forensic evidence besides DNA, and writing the note. Forgetting how much the crime scene was bungled, it is a solid theory. Especially with the original minute DNA, AS IT WAS AT THE TIME.
This is the logic he lays out with his theory. But he give the DNA a lot of credence Dave. To put it simply, at minimum in your favor he believes as your brother does.

Okay. I think I've got it.

Now, lets talk of religion. I am not gonna criticize your beliefs nor what I read in your comments that I think I see.

Well, I don't know what you think you see, friend. I was merely explaining myself.

I would imagine that you may think believers are naiive from what I read.

Not at all. Just because it's not my thing doesn't mean that I'm trying to rip on anybody. Quite frankly, the notion that a body is just material flesh strikes me as a very practical one.

I get that in your mind a dead body is just what it is, an object. If I am wrong, don't get upset.

You're not wrong, friend. If that strikes you as insensitive, so be it. And I'm not upset.

The Ramsey's, you have to see, are SO much different. I imagine they can't take a crap without appearance being an issue.

That's kind of my point. (Nice image, BTW. I'm going to go pour bleach on my brain now.)

These people have a reputation enough that an accident would be just what it is.

That's what I'm saying. If it was just an accident, in the strictest sense,

But I get your point.

Damn glad to hear it!

We disagree, though, because I have a source that says this was a murder that was beyond brutal. And I think the motive is hate. I mean absolute hate. I would not doubt that one of the Ramsey's has a secret that is the motive of this hate but we are gonna find out.

Wow! Now you've REALLY piqued my interest. Just who is this source? Can you share it with us, or is it one of those "secret" sources? Because otherwise, you're going by the same knowledge that we're all using. What "secret" could one of the Rs have to provoke a crime like this? Must be something AWFUL.

Now that I think of it, ever since you came here, you've talked as if you had some extra insight into this case. This has not escaped my attention.

And your last comment, human beings are capable of anything. I know that.

You wouldn't know it to read some statements around here.

But, although, I agree with Wecht on the brutality I don't think they were capable of this kind of killing. Not an accident and they could not have desecrated the body as it was.

Why not? I mean, have you got anything specific?

And that even is not close to my best reasoning. Wecht believes in an accompliss, but don't believe me. The DNA is the reason and RDI doesn't get that it is REALLY REALLY STRONG. Just call Wecht yourself and he will tell you if RDI it has to be a murder for hire. Cause he believes in a whole lot of circumstancial evidence that you do.

This has taken a most fascinating turn. You talk as if you know the man well. Is that the case?

The media has made a fortune on this case. So have some parties involved. The only money to be made now is by going against the case as it stands now, IDI. If you want to make a buck, you gotta roll RDI. Keep that in mind when you see Wecht, Grace, Valez-Mitchell, Lee or whoever else you see talking.

I don't give a tinker's damn about money. And anyone who says that's what this is about doesn't know their butt from their elbow.

 

[MurriFlower]

We disagree, though, because I have a source that says this was a murder that was beyond brutal. And I think the motive is hate. I mean absolute hate. I would not doubt that one of the Ramsey's has a secret that is the motive of this hate but we are gonna find out.

I hope you are right here Roy23, it would be wonderful if this could finally be solved.

There's altogether too much hate involved in this. But we can't focus just on the negative, 'cause there has also been a lot of love as well. They do say the two emotions are very close. Is this the yin and yang of the universe?

 

[Roy23]

I was getting worried for a minute.



Fair enough. I went over the line.



Okay. I think I've got it.



Well, I don't know what you think you see, friend. I was merely explaining myself.



Not at all. Just because it's not my thing doesn't mean that I'm trying to rip on anybody. Quite frankly, the notion that a body is just material flesh strikes me as a very practical one.



You're not wrong, friend. If that strikes you as insensitive, so be it. And I'm not upset.



That's kind of my point. (Nice image, BTW. I'm going to go pour bleach on my brain now.)



That's what I'm saying. If it was just an accident, in the strictest sense,



Damn glad to hear it!



Wow! Now you've REALLY piqued my interest. Just who is this source? Can you share it with us, or is it one of those "secret" sources? Because otherwise, you're going by the same knowledge that we're all using. What "secret" could one of the Rs have to provoke a crime like this? Must be something AWFUL.

Now that I think of it, ever since you came here, you've talked as if you had some extra insight into this case. This has not escaped my attention.



You wouldn't know it to read some statements around here.



Why not? I mean, have you got anything specific?



This has taken a most fascinating turn. You talk as if you know the man well. Is that the case?



I don't give a tinker's damn about money. And anyone who says that's what this is about doesn't know their butt from their elbow.

Dave,

Your take on religion is your business and I have no issues or feelings about it whatsoever. And about the money, I was not referring to you. I may have some thoughts about you writing a book but I was not referring to that at all in my last response. The money thing is about the media in general. A ton of it was made in this case and it was not always responsible media.

I refer to it now because the only way a penny is really made is by controversy. It is my take that this case is now about an unidentified man who left DNA at the scene. And it has been this was for a while. Nothing too exciting about that until you throw a little controversy. And that is kind of what the Nancy Grace's of the world do. They did it to the Smart's, Richard Ricci, and whatever.

I kind of wish I would not have posted about a source. I hate when people throw out they have inside information when they don't. And here I have suggested the same. Let me say that I did not lie but it sure ain't any source that saw a crime scene or did an autopsy. It is more second hand and it is forensic in nature.

I have never personally met Dr. Wecht. His thoughts on the brutality of the crime match up with I have heard. The term staging has been used a lot. And I believe there was staging. The killer wanted to show the Ramsey's, LE, or someone that they are a sick piece of crap. I don't subscribe to HOTYH theories of a foreigner but he is right about a message being sent by this crime. It definitely does not fit the mold of previous crimes and it made sense to look hard at the Ramsey's in the beginning. I think HOTYH theory may be a little farfetched but he is right about conspiricy IMO. The killing appears like JBR was a sacrifice.

 

[DeeDee249]

One of JR's comments right after the murder was "they've killed her". And as we all know, Patsy commented "We didn't mean for this to happen". Conflicting statements, to me. That is one reason why LE wants to separate suspects for questioning. This is especially important when the suspects were present in the home where their child's body was found. They need to see the holes in the stories and where they don't match.
And even more telling- one of the reasons why it took so long for the BPD to actually interview them was attorney LW's refusal to allow them to be interviewed separately. He wanted them to be interviewed together only.

 

[MurriFlower]

"they've killed her"

The kidnappers.

"We didn't mean for this to happen".

By not obeying the RN instructions.

 

[DeeDee249]

The kidnappers.



By not obeying the RN instructions.

That may be what JR was trying to infer, but I think it is an odd way to phrase it. In that situation, I'd say "her kidnappers killed her" or "someone killed her". "they've killed her" sounds like someone he knew.

Patsy's comment seems to me to be saying that her death was unintentional.

 

[MurriFlower]

That may be what JR was trying to infer, but I think it is an odd way to phrase it. In that situation, I'd say "her kidnappers killed her" or "someone killed her". "they've killed her" sounds like someone he knew.

Patsy's comment seems to me to be saying that her death was unintentional.

Yes, I understand that everything they said is suspicious to RDI. It sounds quite normal to me. They would have spent all morning referring to the 'kidnappers' as 'they' -- why don't they call; we've got their money; hope they don't hurt her; where are they keeping her. Pretty normal stuff.

If you have strict instructions not to call the cops and you do, and then you find her dead, you are going to think first up that it happened because of your actions. So you would say 'we didn't mean for this to happen', that they killed her because you disobeyed.

Just on this subject, lets say they HAD heeded the RN and JBR was already dead just the same. What would RDI have made of that? I can't believe you guys would have gone any easier on the Rs, quite the contrary. You would have said, "first thing I would have done is call the cops, regardless of what the RN said, so it proves they did it and they needed more time to cover it up and remove the evidence".

 

[BBB167893]

Dave,

Your take on religion is your business and I have no issues or feelings about it whatsoever.

Good, because that's a rabbit hole we'll never climb out of.

And about the money, I was not referring to you. I may have some thoughts about you writing a book but I was not referring to that at all in my last response.

I know. I was just saying that it's possible that not all of the people you mentioned are after it, either.

The money thing is about the media in general. A ton of it was made in this case and it was not always responsible media.

I think that's something we all can agree on. Indeed, there was a rather unscrupulous man a while back who bragged about the amount of money he made off of this case and how he spent that money on race horses and fancy cars. Darned if I can remember who that was, though. His name will come to me, I'm sure.

I refer to it now because the only way a penny is really made is by controversy. It is my take that this case is now about an unidentified man who left DNA at the scene. And it has been this was for a while.

You've made yourself abundantly clear.

Nothing too exciting about that until you throw a little controversy. And that is kind of what the Nancy Grace's of the world do. They did it to the Smart's, Richard Ricci, and whatever.

I know. And let's be clear in our language. Words like "controversial" are not necessarily pejorative. Sometimes, a little controversy is a good thing. There will always be people who will accuse those who speak out of trying to further their own ends, and that they spark more heat than light. Well, you can't GET light without heat, Roy. Some people are going to be hurt by the truth. And that may very well be the case here. In fact, that's the whole purpose of my book: to show people just what kind of sleazy dealings went on here that put this case in the damn lousy shape it's in. I'll give you just ONE example: it's been almost two weeks since Lou Smit died. And I'm wondering if that's enough time so I won't seem disrespectful to the dead by mentioning some of his underhanded goings-on. LS played a MAJOR role in taking this case in the direction it's in now. I think people have a right to know just what kind of man he was and if it fits in with his reputation as a first-class detective.

And I'll go out on a limb here and say that some (not all) of the people you refer to are out for the same. They go out there (knowing full well that Lin Wood is lurking about, threatening anyone who dares challenge the "accepted wisdom") and say, "Whoa! You can't proceed with DNA until this, that and the other thing are addressed." And there are people who don't like that. You appear (correct me if I'm wrong) to be one of them. That's a shame, because I would think that everyone would be advocation a little introspection and circumspection in a case that has been so marred by egos and petty rivalries. To put it another way, if the cattle start stampeding, someone has to be brave enough to ride out in front of the herd and try to keep them from going over the cliff.

Now, contrast that with just flat-out being out for your own ends. That's the dynamic you're suggesting, and I agree with you 100%. What Nancy Grace and Co. did to the Smarts was not "controversial." It was evil and stupid.

Have I made MYSELF clear?

I kind of wish I would not have posted about a source. I hate when people throw out they have inside information when they don't. And here I have suggested the same. Let me say that I did not lie but it sure ain't any source that saw a crime scene or did an autopsy. It is more second hand and it is forensic in nature.

I see.

I have never personally met Dr. Wecht. His thoughts on the brutality of the crime match up with I have heard.

Okay.

The term staging has been used a lot.

You bet, man.

And I believe there was staging. The killer wanted to show the Ramsey's, LE, or someone that they are a sick piece of crap.

Well, it doesn't really work that way, Roy.

I don't subscribe to HOTYH theories of a foreigner but he is right about a message being sent by this crime. It definitely does not fit the mold of previous crimes and it made sense to look hard at the Ramseys in the beginning. I think HOTYH theory may be a little farfetched but he is right about conspiracy IMO.The killing appears like JBR was a sacrifice.

I was hoping not to get into that.

 

[DeeDee249]

In virtually any REAL kidnapping (victim actually TAKEN), whoever the RN was intended for would probably call police. Even a phone line that has been tapped will show calls made and received (in a computer printout) but not alert when a receiver has been picked up to make a call.
IMO, this note was written for an already-dead child, to provide a false explanation for why she'd been killed. The 911 call (in the caller's mind) provided the "reason" to kill her.

 

[MurriFlower]

In virtually any REAL kidnapping (victim actually TAKEN), whoever the RN was intended for would probably call police. Even a phone line that has been tapped will show calls made and received (in a computer printout) but not alert when a receiver has been picked up to make a call.
IMO, this note was written for an already-dead child, to provide a false explanation for why she'd been killed. The 911 call (in the caller's mind) provided the "reason" to kill her.

Yes, I think that's what I said. PR thought that this was a genuine kidnapping (as did everyone else except the FBI supposedly) and when she was found dead immediately assumed that her calling 911 was the reason she was killed. They were going to pay the ransom, so they thought she would be returned unharmed once that was done. But then they must have begun to worry when no call came and if what the RN said was true and they were being monitored so "We didn't mean for this to happen", by disobeying the instructions.

 

[madeleine]

Okay. I just thought you'd want to know why some of us adhere to that notion and what we mean when we say "accident."

I guess by accident you say it wasn't planned right?
But does a fit of rage (which IMO implies a pretty disturbed person) which ends up in a brutal murder can be called an accident?In my personal view not,that's all.

 

[BBB167893]

I guess by accident you say it wasn't planned right?

That's it exactly. When we say "accident," we mean that no one intended to kill her.

But does a fit of rage (which IMO implies a pretty disturbed person) which ends up in a brutal murder can be called an accident? In my personal view not,that's all.

And that's precisely what I want to explain.

1) A person need not be disturbed in any fashion to experience flashes of unthinking fury. All it takes is the right elements.

2) I'm more than willing to discuss the possibility of a disturbed mind. I've tried in the past, for all the good it did me.

3) The strangulation, IMO, was also accidental in the sense that the killer did not know she was still alive and as such, lacked the intent to kill.

I don't know what this does for you, but I find it helps to know where the other person is coming from.

 

[DeeDee249]

I guess by accident you say it wasn't planned right?
But does a fit of rage (which IMO implies a pretty disturbed person) which ends up in a brutal murder can be called an accident?In my personal view not,that's all.

I think it can be called an accident. In a rage attack, the attacker lashes out in a violent outburst, but the death of the victim may not be intended.

 

[madeleine]

If we are dealing with a disturbed person then it could have been avoided.I mean,if I live with a violent or unpredictable person I guess I could see it coming and I'd do something about it.In this case IMO it's the other people's fault (family,friends) as well that it has come to something like this.I wouldn't call it accident,I'd call it an effect.And the cause could have been dealt with.People just don't arrive home X-mas night happy happy joy joy ,pick up a hammer and bash their child's skull.Something was wrong there and maybe it wasn't the first time it happened (violent outburst)if so.

 

[MurriFlower]

I think it can be called an accident. In a rage attack, the attacker lashes out in a violent outburst, but the death of the victim may not be intended.

And in your opinion, what caused this 'rage attack'?

 

[MurriFlower]

If we are dealing with a disturbed person then it could have been avoided.I mean,if I live with a violent or unpredictable person I guess I could see it coming and I'd do something about it.In this case IMO it's the other people's fault (family,friends) as well that it has come to something like this.I wouldn't call it accident,I'd call it an effect.And the cause could have been dealt with.People just don't arrive home X-mas night happy happy joy joy ,pick up a hammer and bash their child's skull.Something was wrong there and maybe it wasn't the first time it happened (violent outburst)if so.

Only in "RDI World" madeleine!

This is a loving mother, someone who as far as we know has never even smacked their child (except for LHP's suggestion which IMO is not reliable), let alone inflicted an injury. But more than this, the injury was fatal or near fatal, so not something to be confused with punishment or accident. So if it was a 'rage attack' that caused the supposed accident then there is no evidence for it before or after.

I just wrote and deleted the RDI scenario!! Because I realised that regardless of how totally ridiculous it seems to me, there will be several prominent RDI enthusiasts who will say, "yep, that's pretty much how it happened pilgrim."

Oh dear! Please tell me you don't ascribe to these theories?

 

[madeleine]

Only in "RDI World" madeleine!

This is a loving mother, someone who as far as we know has never even smacked their child (except for LHP's suggestion which IMO is not reliable), let alone inflicted an injury. But more than this, the injury was fatal or near fatal, so not something to be confused with punishment or accident. So if it was a 'rage attack' that caused the supposed accident then there is no evidence for it before or after.

I just wrote and deleted the RDI scenario!! Because I realised that regardless of how totally ridiculous it seems to me, there will be several prominent RDI enthusiasts who will say, "yep, that's pretty much how it happened pilgrim."

Oh dear! Please tell me you don't ascribe to these theories?

I said if
I like to listen to all theories ,doesn't mean I think this is exactly how it happened,but in this case everything is possible IMO since we have NO clue what exactly happened.

What I was trying to say is that I don't see a rage attack as an unique event and that's why I wouldn't call it accident.If it was a rage attack there must have been some signs before,other violent outbursts,physical abuse,depression,problems,God knows what else.
There is no evidence (not that we know of) that this happened before with PR.(even if I would like to know what that "intervention" was about/the friends re PR and the pageant,IF it's true)