How Many Steps to Innocence??

[MurriFlower]

I will gladly and willingly omit the RN.

Without it, the same conclusion is reached by simply considering the remaining evidence, in my mind anyway.

Ok, so for you the RN isn't the prime piece of evidence.

What then? What evidence against the R's (if it was taken away) would be most likely to cause you to reconsider? In other words, what is the most important damning evidence to you?

 

[MurriFlower]

You really don't understand why she wrote that note, do you? Not at all. You really don't get it that this note and some lucky touch dna kept these folks out of prison for 14 years. That's it and that's all. No note, nobody to blame. Murri, if she had not written the note, how do you think they would have explained the previous molestation?

Well, I really don't know THAT she wrote the note. Not at all. There has been 14 years of trying to prove she wrote it and it's never happened. It kinda sorta looks a bit like it, but not as much as JMK's does. The DNA isn't just a lucky break for them, it's proof that someone else (an unidentified male) handled two items of their daughter's underclothing. That's probably the bit you don't get beck.

How, in your opinion, did the RN explain what you believe to have been previous molestation??

 

[joeskidbeck]

Well, I really don't know THAT she wrote the note. Not at all. There has been 14 years of trying to prove she wrote it and it's never happened. It kinda sorta looks a bit like it, but not as much as JMK's does. The DNA isn't just a lucky break for them, it's proof that someone else (an unidentified male) handled two items of their daughter's underclothing. That's probably the bit you don't get beck.

How, in your opinion, did the RN explain what you believe to have been previous molestation??

The ransom note doesn't explain it at all. It only points to the fact that someone else had to be responsible. They really felt like enough damage was done that the previous molestation would never even be noticed. Actually, that's the one thing that brought me to RDI. Once that bit of info came out it was easy enough to follow the evidence.

 

[BBB167893]

Because the Ramseys could not have blamed everyone but the chief of police, that's why. There were 4 people in the home, one was dead, and NO sign of anyone else having been there. Who does that leave to commit this crime?

An excellent point. The RN leaves the whole WORLD open to suspicion.

 

[akashana]

Removing the ransom note as evidence of PDI, or cooperated extensively in the cover-up, if you will, still does not answer why the Ramseys have always been less than forthcoming with police investigators. I am not even talking about lawyering up early on. Were they truly innocent and thought they were being railroaded, of course they would engage counsel. But even very early in the investigation, when facts were still being gathered and sorted, the Ramseys didn't open their lives to the police to comb through it, as we have seen with other parents of missing/mudered children. parents who are truly innocent and want nothing more than their child's killer(s) to be found and brought to justice. People like Susan Smith's husband, the Van Dams, Mark Klaas. Whenever there is duplicity and/or murderous intent like with the Anthony clan, or the Cummings, or the Ramseys, that's when we see - or rather don't see - complete transparency. Think about it; everyone has something to hide. All of us have a skeleton or two or three floating around in our closets, hiding from the light of day, something that we would certainly prefer not be revealed to the police and in this digital age, to the world at large. Maybe it's an old shoplifting or DWI arrest, or mom and dad smoke a little pot, or there was some issue of domestic abuse. People cheat on spouses, they gamble kids' college funds, get drunk and punch out the neighbor. They do all sorts of sordid, stupid stuff over the course of a lifetime that they wish to remain a secret. But when real tragedy arrives in the form of a missing and murdered child, all those concerns go right out the window when you are dealing with truly innocent parents. They couldn't care less about that at that point; their entire focus is on either finding the child or bringing the killer to justice. But the Ramseys haven't offered that type of unfettered access into their lives, then or now. They have always used their lawyers and their money to keep the police and the world at bay. They didn't want to open up their lives in order to find a killer, because the killer was amongst them already.

 

[BBB167893]

Yep, that about sums it up!

Same deal for me, Murri.

 

[BBB167893]

You really don't understand why she wrote that note, do you? Not at all. You really don't get it that this note and some lucky touch dna kept these folks out of prison for 14 years. That's it and that's all. No note, nobody to blame. Murri, if she had not written the note, how do you think they would have explained the previous molestation?

:clap: :clap: :clap:

Sorry to butt in, ladies, but for me, it's a little more complicated than Murri makes out. Far as I go, the RN IS powerful evidence against the Rs. But at the same time, it serves as a way to cast suspicion ANYWHERE. Without it, all you have is a dead girl in her own house with sexual injuries. But WITH it, you create the chance, no matter how remote, that SOMEONE will believe it.

You really don't get it that this note and some lucky touch dna kept these folks out of prison for 14 years.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[BBB167893]

Well, I really don't know THAT she wrote the note. Not at all.

It's pretty obvious to the rest of us.

There has been 14 years of trying to prove she wrote it and it's never happened.

Excuse me, but that's not quite accurate. One, the only way they could "prove" she wrote it as you say is if a jury were to rule that she did. There was never a trial. Two, they have not tried for 14 years. They stopped trying after the GJ when Alex Hunter and Mary Lacy after him made it more or less clear that they were not going to devote much time to investigating the Rs any further. (I could expand on that even more, but that will do.) Indeed, if I were a betting man, I'd wager that the document examiners' reports naming PR as the author are still buried deep in the police file.

It kinda sorta looks a bit like it, but not as much as JMK's does.

I'll say this much for you, Murri: you have quite a sense of humor.

The DNA isn't just a lucky break for them,

I'm afraid it is. A DAMN lucky break/

it's proof that someone else (an unidentified male) handled two items of their daughter's underclothing.

That's what the IDIs keep telling us. Problem is, it's only proof of such a thing if it's viewed in a vacuum, to the exclusion of everything else. That's just not how it works.

That's probably the bit you don't get beck.

If you only knew how SICK I am of being told that I don't "get" it about the DNA.

I assure you: we GET it, better than you might like. In fact, we "get" it so well that we understand that DNA is an extremely problematic field and requires a tremendous amount of circumspection, which the IDI has not shown so far.

 

[Tadpole12]

Well, I really don't know THAT she wrote the note. Not at all. There has been 14 years of trying to prove she wrote it and it's never happened. It kinda sorta looks a bit like it, but not as much as JMK's does. The DNA isn't just a lucky break for them, it's proof that someone else (an unidentified male) handled two items of their daughter's underclothing. That's probably the bit you don't get beck.

How, in your opinion, did the RN explain what you believe to have been previous molestation??

Heyya MF.

PR placement as 'cannot be excluded', is difficult to dismiss.

The Ramsey hired experts always sought to remove her from the possibility of being the author. Distance had to be established and that any resemblance was purely by chance.

But the possibility that the resemblance was a purposeful immitation was never persued.

 

[joeskidbeck]

Heyya MF.

PR placement as 'cannot be excluded', is difficult to dismiss.

The Ramsey hired experts always sought to remove her from the possibility of being the author. Distance had to be established and that any resemblance was purely by chance.

But the possibility that the resemblance was a purposeful immitation was never persued.

Tad, does this mean that you believe or could believe that someone else wrote the note and deliberatly tried to mimic Patsy's writing? If so, do you think it may have been someone in the home?
TIA
Becky

 

[Tadpole12]

Tad, does this mean that you believe or could believe that someone else wrote the note and deliberatly tried to mimic Patsy's writing? If so, do you think it may have been someone in the home?
TIA
Becky

Heyya Becks.

It's easy enough to immitate or trace using a marker.
Patience and a few attempts.

But would a bad forgery be able to achieve the same position on the scale, the same range as PR's designation?

So many of the note pad pages were removed, but not the pages containing the doodles.

I've always considered that the kidnapping part could have been orchestrated and perpetrated by children or teens within the 'inside job' inner circle, and that' how it went so direly wrong.

 

[joeskidbeck]

Heyya Becks.

It's easy enough to immitate or trace using a marker.
Patience and a few attempts.

But would a bad forgery be able to achieve the same position on the scale, the same range as PR's designation?

So many of the note pad pages were removed, but not the pages containing the doodles.

I've always considered that the kidnapping part could have been orchestrated and perpetrated by children or teens within the 'inside job' inner circle, and that' how it went so direly wrong.

Thanks, Tad. You know what this made me think of? When my youngest daughter was in high school she could mimic my handwriting to the tee. She got soooo good at it, that now 14 years later, she still writes just like me. I guess it's a possibility, but the kids that I would imagine being there that night surely wouldn't have been old enough to have pulled this off so well. I'm no expert for sure, but I see Patsy in that handwriting.

 

[MurriFlower]

I'll say this much for you, Murri: you have quite a sense of humor.

Look for your self

Just goes to show doesn't it, even someone WE ALL KNOW DIDN'T DO IT, because hummm, because umm, oh well, because he admitted it and we all know anyone who really did do it wouldn't admit it eh? Why are we so sure?? Well the DNA didn't match. And his wife said he was with her.

Right. BUT:

The DNA doesn't match the R's but you ARE ALL STILL POSITIVE that means nothing.

They were all asleep and husband/wife/son are happy to vouch for each other, BUT YOU DON'T BELIEVE THAT.

So, here is a nutcase pedophile who admitted to it, and, surprise, surprise, his handrwiting looks VERY much like the RN!!

But of course, we all know he didn't do it don't we??

 

[MurriFlower]

I'm afraid it is. A DAMN lucky break/

That's what the IDIs keep telling us. Problem is, it's only proof of such a thing if it's viewed in a vacuum, to the exclusion of everything else. That's just not how it works.

If you only knew how SICK I am of being told that I don't "get" it about the DNA.

I assure you: we GET it, better than you might like. In fact, we "get" it so well that we understand that DNA is an extremely problematic field and requires a tremendous amount of circumspection, which the IDI has not shown so far.

Nah, you know it's problematic so you all try to discount it, reckon it got there by tertiary transfer from some innocent person (I lurve the parcel theory LOL) and are really stretching trying to come up with something that is plausable even to people for whom ANYTHING is possible (provided it points to the Rs as murderers).

You really haven't faced up to the fact that this evidence is evidence. What you have is what? Some dodgy 'experts', paid by tabloids to say so, or merely seeking publicity for themselves, reckon PR wrote the note. There were some who said she 'could not be excluded'. (Nor could 50% of the general population, including JMK.) And that is about it. Oh I forgot, they looked and acted suspicious in your opinion. That's a biggy. No, my friend, you don't have any evidence against them except what exists in your own mind. You don't want to find it's someone who came into the house, took the child, molested and murdered her in an horific way and left an irrational ransom note. You want to believe her parents killed her, accidentally or on purpose, wrote an irrational ransom note, covered for each other and if you get the chance you will include all the family as accessories. Hmmmmm. Don't think so!!

 

[MurriFlower]

The ransom note doesn't explain it at all. It only points to the fact that someone else had to be responsible. They really felt like enough damage was done that the previous molestation would never even be noticed. Actually, that's the one thing that brought me to RDI. Once that bit of info came out it was easy enough to follow the evidence.

Hang on a bit. Let's look at this logically. You think they wrote it because you think she was previously molested by her father/brother, which you think was the cause of her being murdered!! Here we go again, one piece on top of another with no basis of fact in the beginning. The previous molestation (which is simply a misinterpretation of the autopsy wording) was at the root cause of all this?? So, what caused the molestation? PR's own molestation by her father, I'm guessing?? Well, it's all sewn up then! Oh boy you really are building a 'body of evidence' there. All on a premise of familial serial sexual molestation of which there is absolutely no basis in fact.

How about that Occams Razor you RDI's are all so keen promote?

The IDI wrote the crazy note, because he was crazy and killed her in a crazy manner, with a bit of molestation thrown in for good measure.

 

[Agatha_C]

Murri,

Answer me this one question please, as IDI is good at avoiding and I just want one question answered by one of you.

How was the Intruder going to get JB, out of the window? Saying that a kidnapping was the intent, being that the Intruder left the RN.

So again, I ask.. How was the intruder going to get himself and JB onto the suit case and out that tight window, into that small space and out the grate? Just tell me how you see that playing out..Please, this is your chance to show me you have real ideas and have given real intelligent thought to at least one small thing. PLEEEEEEASSSSSE, I am begging you.

 

[MurriFlower]

Murri,

Answer me this one question please, as IDI is good at avoiding and I just want one question answered by one of you.

How was the Intruder going to get JB, out of the window? Saying that a kidnapping was the intent, being that the Intruder left the RN.

So again, I ask.. How was the intruder going to get himself and JB onto the suit case and out that tight window, into that small space and out the grate? Just tell me how you see that playing out..Please, this is your chance to show me you have real ideas and have given real intelligent thought to at least one small thing. PLEEEEEEASSSSSE, I am begging you.

Agatha_C

When ever did I say that??

 

[Agatha_C]

You didn't, its just a question I want answered by anyone believing IDI, and I thought you might be the one I could ask.

If you believe IDI, then your going on LS, right? Isn't the window and suitcase his idea? So I just want to ask an IDI, to explain that to me. Just curious, not being confrontational or making accusations

 

[MurriFlower]

You didn't, its just a question I want answered by anyone believing IDI, and I thought you might be the one I could ask.

If you believe IDI, then your going on LS, right? Isn't the window and suitcase his idea? So I just want to ask an IDI, to explain that to me. Just curious, not being confrontational or making accusations

If you believe IDI, then your going on LS, right?

No, I'm not from around there, so I'd never heard of LS before I came on the forum. I think when I first came on here, it appeared to be (and still does) a suspicious item and a possible place where someone either:- stood on to look out; or to put something in the well to pick up later (having left via a door but not wanting to carry stuff through the house). You can't just dismiss a suitcase like that in an odd place, with evidence of the 'outside' (leaves etc) on top. Now the suitcase apparently had a comforter and a children's book in it. We don't know if the comforter came from the house or if the book was from the house. Funny that no one's ever really discussed these items on here, now I come to think of it. It was apparently used by JAR to take things to and from University. There was also mention in an interview that LHP had used it as well. That was never followed up either.

There was some suggestion that there was evidence of this comforter (fibers) on JBR and I think there had been a suggestion that somone (this might be LS) thought she had been put in it to be taken away, but didn't fit.

I suppose as an IDI, this is an option. Did someone really think they could fit her in the suitcase, dead or alive? When that didn't work, did they then put her in the winecellar and thus ruin their chance of getting the ransom? It's not really a theory I've given much credence.

Yeah, the suitcase appears to be a bit of a 'pineapple' issue. It's suspicious, but may just end up being completely innocent and nothing to do with the crime.

 

[Agatha_C]

The comforter was JAR, his semen was on it. and thank you for answering.