Intruder probability more, less, or same?

[Holdontoyourhat]

I sincerely doubt someone was invoking 1920's colloquial speech references when they wrote this note in 1996.

Do you think they were invoking 1960's-1970's when they wrote the note? How can you tell? This expression has been in use for a hundred years, so its impossible to infer someone's age just because they said it.

Don't take my word for it:


Sidebar:
The Fat Cat's Nine Lives

Long after real-life executives had slimmed down, political cartoonists continued to portray CEOs as rotund nineteenth-century tycoons; even today, the silhouette prompts instant recognition. Once in a while, a Garfield-type fat-cat figure appears as shorthand for, well, a fat cat. The stereotype isn't dying anytime soon.
Some word historians trace the origins of the phrase "fat cat" to World War I, when it was applied to war profiteers, but it quickly came to include any capitalist reaping profits considered to be excessive, especially if they came through the sale of shoddy goods or through contracts obtained by political clout.
Many more sources relieve "fat cats" of the imputation of fraudulent doings. This more benign definition is usually traced to reporter Frank R. Kent of the Baltimore Sun. It was Kent who popularized a term already in use in political circles. As he explained in his 1928 book Political Behavior: "These capitalists have what the organization needs — money to finance the campaign. Such men are known in political circles as ‘fat cats.'" Thanks to Kent, "fat cat" took on a specifically political dimension. A fat cat became a person of wealth and ease who uses the former to buy political influence in order to perpetuate the latter. Over the years, the term gradually lost its unflattering connotations, at least as used by the wider public. The fixer became merely the "wealthy, powerful, prominent individual."
To some, fat cats were distinguished not by how they used their wealth but how they flaunted it — the "ostentatiously wealthy of any place, position, or class." Fitting, then, that this particular fat cat should be found in the nation's casinos in the Fat Cat slot machine game; its theme is "the big businessman ‘Fat Cat' lifestyle and the surrounding wealth" in the form of a pretty "Kitty Cat" girlfriend, a dog butler, gold coins, dollar bills, and sacks of cash.
By the mid-twentieth century, "fat cat" was widely used to refer to neither the greedy capitalist, the political influential, nor the vulgar rich. Instead, it became a generic term for the wealthy, period — a phrase suggestive of ease, privilege, and luxury. "Fat cat" is now widely understood to refer to anyone who is living the good life; it has even been taken as a nom de street by a famous hip-hop hustler.
However, "fat cat" has implicitly retained its original sinister connotations among those convinced that the very wealthy thrive thanks to exploitation and manipulation. In "Fat Cat Keeps Getting Fatter," the 1990s retro swing combo Squirrel Nut Zippers lamented: "Ev'ry dog will have its day/That's what people used to say/Nowadays that's not the case/‘Cuz there's a fat cat runs the place."
It is still 1917 in certain parts of the blogosphere. There, fats cats are rhetorically flayed every day by commentators who decry what they see as a new Gilded Age in which "corporate fat cats are ensured obscene profits while workers suffer." Indeed, the fat cat is keeping some very low company these days in the person of "the outsourcers, the stuntmen, the war profiteers, the arms dealers, the fat cats, executive fixers, and neo-cons" as well as "Free-Market apologists." Foes of globalization, processed food, and factory farming are among the many of business's natural enemies who have revived the phrase as a pejorative by putting the "fat" back into "fat cat." "Nature knows how to feed us far better than some overweight executive of a food manufacturer stuffing old crops in a box and then covering it in ice," insists one ardent vegan in a 2001 book.
In 2002, the green activists Friends of the Earth toted a Macy's-parade-style inflatable fat-cat businessman through cities in Belgium, Luxembourg, Ireland, and the United Kingdom to call attention to its proposals for global constraints on multinationals. Adorned with a sign reading, "Don't let big business rule the world," he wore a suit as bulging with flesh as his pockets were with cash.
Attempting not long ago to explain the origins of the spurious advice that Americans should drink more water, Gatehouse Media columnist Jeff Vrabel wrote, "Maybe there's some sort of shady backroom cabal of sweaty, overweight executive types, lighting cigars with rolled-up $100 bills because they get a cut every time a toilet is flushed, every time the pipes run anew with fresh, fresh water." He was making a joke, but by troubling to dismiss the possibility he made clear that the fat-cat fixer still prowls the alleys of the public mind.
As stereotypes drift with changing times, the slang based on them changes meaning. What once alluded to capitalists now is used in the business press to refer to the people who work for them — specifically, corporate executives and directors who enjoy extravagant pay and perks. Typical headlines of the sort are "Euro fat cats under attack," "Helping Fat Cats Dodge the Taxman," and "Fat cat pay packages show no signs of causing indigestion."
Those at some remove from the class war find the phrase remote enough from their everyday reality that it amuses rather than outrages. One dealer offers an early twentieth-century wood carving believed to be a caricature of a fat-cat businessman. "A charming carving with just oodles of personality," she describes it — just the thing to "add a little fun [to] your office decor." — J.K. Jr.

Yep, fat cats are rhetorically flayed and attacked.

Thanks, NoBull, as this tells us that one of the purposes for the ransom note was to provide its author with the means of rhetorically flaying a fat cat.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

It's absurd to imply that either John Ramsey or JonBenet were important enough in the scheme of world politics that either would be the subject of a "small foreign faction" kidnapping/killing plot. I interpret many of your posts to mean we should believe they were.

The idea that the RN author thought JBR or JR were important in the scheme of world politics is your idea, not mine.

The ransom note author, unlike you or I, was THERE THAT NIGHT. In a written statement, he explicitly stated that JBR WAS the subject of a "small foreign faction" kidnapping/killing plot. He further stated it was for $118K.

I interpret many of your posts to mean that we should ignore crime scene evidence at your discretion, and believe that JBR was strangled to death by the Ozzie and Harriet of criminality.

How absurd is that?

 

[BOESP]

The idea that the RN author thought JBR or JR were important in the scheme of world politics is your idea, not mine.

The ransom note author, unlike you or I, was THERE THAT NIGHT. In a written statement, he explicitly stated that JBR WAS the subject of a "small foreign faction" kidnapping/killing plot. He further stated it was for $118K.

I interpret many of your posts to mean that we should ignore crime scene evidence at your discretion, and believe that JBR was strangled to death by the Ozzie and Harriet of criminality.

How absurd is that?

Nope. They are not my words nor my idea. They are my interpretation of your words. You might want to re-read some of your posts since they nearly all sound like you believe a small foreign faction was responsible for JonBenet's death. If that's not what you mean then please say so otherwise my interpretation stands.

Sorry, but I just can not see John or Patsy Ramsey as candidates for sainthood.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Nope. They are not my words nor my idea. They are my interpretation of your words. You might want to re-read some of your posts since they nearly all sound like you believe a small foreign faction was responsible for JonBenet's death. If that's not what you mean then please say so otherwise my interpretation stands.

Sorry, but I just can not see John or Patsy Ramsey as candidates for sainthood.

Then you're interpretation isn't quite right. My belief is that JR and JBR were targeted, just like other killers target their victims first. Its not that complicated. A foreign ransom note author used insane political and social ideologies as an excuse to justify the attack and murder of an American female child.

I think RDI feels comfortable with the R's as suspects because that puts this child killer in front of them for poking. Parentalizes it by sugar coating the brutality and citing typical parental anger when nobody even knows if JR or PR were ever angry in the first place! RDI just makes this stuff up, while dismissing evidence and only considering expert testimony that fits.

 

[BBB167893]

Her LIKELY point of view? You're way, way ahead of yourself.

Perhaps I did not make myself completely clear. When I say "likely," I mean that it was likely if what I think happened happened.

IF PR accidentally hit JBR in the head, PR would not introduce implements of murder in a capital murder state, and compound the problem exponentially by associating at will her own handwriting in the form of long, long note.

How do you know? I'm serious; I'd like to know on what basis can you make that claim, much less state it as an inarguable fact. Because at this point, it's no different than what you accuse me of doing.

BOESP and cynic understood what I was saying with my "bear-trap" metaphor, but I'm not sure you did. You talk about people being intelligent and highly educated, but at the base of it, people are animals, HOTYH. And I never cease to be amazed what people will do when survival mode kicks in. You just said it yourself: CO is a death-penalty state. That was, I think, part of the consideration.

I STRONGLY urge you to re-read what I wrote in my post and think about it from ALL of the angles.

If PR wrote the note as you claim (c-l-a-i-m),

Yes, that is what I claim. What of it?

then her likely point of view is that she was FORCED by someone else to write it, under threat of death. Thats the only way a highly educated, intelligent person would handwrite a ransom note and leave it in their own house.

NOW you're talking!

If you read what I said, you will notice that she (again, my opinion), in her mind, was under threat of death: either from going to Death Row or (more likely) dying in prison from her illness. It goes back to what I said about the bear-trap: if the coyote chews his own leg off, he MIGHT die. If he does nothing, he WILL die.

BUT having said that, I must admit that your assertion about someone forcing her with threats of death strikes me as an avenue worth pursuing. Indeed, I'd like very much to discuss that at length.

My point is, either way, she had the proverbial gun to her head.

Ya can't win 'em all, SD.

Isn't THAT the truth! But do you know what's worse than losing? Giving up.

 

[BBB167893]

This ransom note author makes reference to not respecting the U.S., identifies himself as foreign, and uses charged political expressions like 'execution'.

It touches on politics in only the most shallow way, almost as an afterthought. That was noticed right off. You talk as if no one considered these things. But if you read anything other than media soundbites, you'll realize that they were considered and dismissed, for a few different reasons.

If you're so politically saavy, how come the only people you come up with that use the term 'fat cat' are misguided domestic teenagers from the 1960's and 1970's? Because you believe that's PR and JR's demographic?

Don't push me. I can think of plenty of people who use that phrase and why they do it. But as usual you fail to perceive these events in the larger context. So let me provide some. One of the other points that Ressler made was that the acronym at the bottom of the note was done with periods between each letter, as was "FBI." Putting periods between letters in acronyms is a grammatical touch that has not been standard since the late 1960s. Patsy was born on December 29, 1956 and would have been a kid learning her English lessons in school before then. She was known to sign her letters to friends with acronyms with periods in them. One that stood out was "To B.V.F.M.F.A. from P.P.R.B.S.J." That meant "To Barbara V. Fernie, Master of Fine Arts from Patricia Paugh Ramsey, Bachelor of Science in Journalism."

THUS, my viewing the political vanities of the RN through PR's demographic isn't so circular now, is it? :biggrin:

Or, are you simply obfuscating the ransom note content by deliberately avoiding the most common sources for some of the terms it contains?

I'm not the one who's avoiding anything!

That is how it seems, because 'fat cat' term is used globally from the 1800's to present, not just domestically from 1960's to 1970's as your propaganda suggests.

Don't give me that "propaganda" jazz. I have good reason to believe what I believe. And it's not like those reasons are a big secret.

Since the term is used globally for a hundred years, it is impossible to infer age simply from the use of the term 'fat cat',

You're right: it isn't possible to determine that from the term ALONE. That's why I didn't try!

especially in the context that it was actually used in the ransom note.

It's exactly the context that we should pay attention to!

Anyone capable of thought over the border would know this, since the term is more popular outside the US than inside (U know, like attache is more popular outside US).

I would not think too much about the use of attache in the note if I were you, HOTYH. That's a whole 'nother can of worms right there.

There is no doubt the investigation suffers from political naivety, obfuscation, and circular reasoning.

I agree wholeheartedly! Though probably in a much different way than you suggest!

Might as well wait for a DNA match.

Don't hold your breath.

 

[BBB167893]

:applause:

She was truly fighting for her life and did a pretty good job.

It's nice to know that SOMEONE understands what I'm trying to say.

 

[BBB167893]

A college educated mature female? U gotta be kiddn me. The vocabulary doesn't even reach middle-school. There isn't one college-level word in the entire note. Where do you get this cr@&?

cynic, you want to take that one?

 

[BBB167893]

Sorry, but I just can not see John or Patsy Ramsey as candidates for sainthood.

No kidding. He keeps referring to them as "Ozzie and Harriet." What that leaves out is that the public image Ozzie and Harriet Nelson projected was far different than their real lives. I can't help but think the same thing was true here.

 

[BOESP]

Then you're interpretation isn't quite right. My belief is that JR and JBR were targeted, just like other killers target their victims first. Its not that complicated. A foreign ransom note author used insane political and social ideologies as an excuse to justify the attack and murder of an American female child.

I think RDI feels comfortable with the R's as suspects because that puts this child killer in front of them for poking. Parentalizes it by sugar coating the brutality and citing typical parental anger when nobody even knows if JR or PR were ever angry in the first place! RDI just makes this stuff up, while dismissing evidence and only considering expert testimony that fits.

It still sounds to me like you are saying John Ramsey and JonBenet were targeted by a small foreign faction for political reasons, albeit from an insane person (if I am interpreting you correctly).

I find your idea convoluted and without justification. I'd mention Occam's Razor but I know it won't do any good. :innocent:

 

[BBB167893]

I think RDI feels comfortable with the R's as suspects because that puts this child killer in front of them for poking.

COMFORTABLE!? Most of us would give anything NOT to believe it!

RDI just makes this stuff up, while dismissing evidence and only considering expert testimony that fits.

You're describing IDI, not us. I've wanted to say that for a long time.

 

[BOESP]

No kidding. He keeps referring to them as "Ozzie and Harriet." What that leaves out is that the public image Ozzie and Harriet Nelson projected was far different than their real lives. I can't help but think the same thing was true here.

Yes, and opinions based on news media and television sit-coms are not exactly in the primary evidence category (maybe allegory????).

There is an old saying around here. Anyone who reaches the top probably stepped on a lot of people to get there.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Yes, and opinions based on news media and television sit-coms are not exactly in the primary evidence category (maybe allegory????).

There is an old saying around here. Anyone who reaches the top probably stepped on a lot of people to get there.

Your post is self-contradicting.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

COMFORTABLE!? Most of us would give anything NOT to believe it!

I think it was easier back in 1997 to present the parents as suspects, because that averted all public pressure to find the real child killer. More comfortable, easier, and publicly palatable at the grocery checkout.

As the years passed, the lack of any solid evidence that would link either parent to any act from that night was exposed. The GJ failed to indict, and surprising new evidence surfaced that supported IDI. The RDI stories evaporated except for a few desperate holdouts.

Now, the reality of an intruder is starting to set in but only with the realists.

I doubt you could ask yourself these questions:

If IDI, why has nobody come up with a handwriting match, a DNA match, or a linguistic match? Why has no relative, friend, or coworker come forward? What does SBTC stand for? Why did the note end in Victory!

If IDI, what was the plan?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

It still sounds to me like you are saying John Ramsey and JonBenet were targeted by a small foreign faction for political reasons, albeit from an insane person (if I am interpreting you correctly).

I find your idea convoluted and without justification. I'd mention Occam's Razor but I know it won't do any good. :innocent:

Its only convoluted and without justification to those who can't read or choose not to read. I presume you've chosen not to read the ransom note. I have as yet been given no reason to discount the content of the ransom note. Its not my fault if you mistakenly chose to ignore the note based on incorrect conclusions from invalid logic. Remember you DID choose to ignore the note. And that WAS a mistake.

 

[BBB167893]

I think it was easier back in 1997 to present the parents as suspects, because that averted all public pressure to find the real child killer. More comfortable, easier, and publicly palatable at the grocery checkout.

Even if what you say is true, and I certainly take issue with some of it, that does not address my point. As I've explained to you many times, it's easier for most people to believe in some random boogeyman than it is to think about what makes a parent kill. Believing in RDI is thoroughly uncomfortable because it forces us to confront the demons inside ourselves, and most people would rather believe those demons don't exist, and prefer not to think about how close to the surface those forces are.

As the years passed, the lack of any solid evidence that would link either parent to any act from that night was exposed.

I would not agree with that as such. I would say that no solid evidence emerged that would say for sure which parent did what. I think a revisit to the "cross fingerpointing defense" thread is in order.

The GJ failed to indict, and surprising new evidence surfaced that supported IDI. The RDI stories evaporated except for a few desperate holdouts.

The coin is still turning, HOTYH.

Now, the reality of an intruder is starting to set in but only with the realists.

You've got some brass saying that I'm not a realist. I'm not the one who can't confront the evil of the human soul.

I doubt you could ask yourself these questions:

If IDI, why has nobody come up with a handwriting match? Why has no relative, friend, or coworker of the intruder come forward? What does SBTC stand for? Why did the note end in Victory!

If IDI, what was the plan?

Don't you think I HAVE asked myself these questions? Don't forget: I used to be one of you.

Now, I have a few questions I want you to consider. Actually, it's just one question, but it's a big one:

If RDI is true, what does that say about humanity and society? And what do we DO about it?

 

[DeeDee249]

This is a high RDI myth. There's no truth to this idea. Its a COMPLETE fiction. The ransom note added nothing to the basement crime scene.

The note adds a lot to the basement crime scene. It adds a very important thing: An explanation for there being a dead child there. The reason? The note said not to tell anyone (even a stray dog). They did. They called 911. So they gave the appearance of the "kidnappers" having a reason to kill their victim- because her parents called 911.
Without the pretend kidnapping and threats in the note, it would have been much more difficult to explain why JB was dead and still in the house.
What the Rs WANTED people to believe is that JB was no longer of any use to the kidnappers as a ransom prize because they had to kill her to punish the parents for calling police. That's why she was left behind.
What the Rs didn't realize was that it could be determined what time she died. The 911 call came at 6 in the morning, after the parents were up and about. No way could the kidnappers have still been in the house and make an escape at that time. And kill her at the same time, too, if the killing was supposed to be retaliation for calling police.

The parents' thought process was really very simple. This horrible event occurred- resulting in the death of their daughter. The truth was not something that they could deal with being made public, so how else to explain your child's death? Make it look like she was kidnapped and killed by her captors. For that, the note needed to specifically mention not to tell anyone. Then all you had to do was TELL someone and there you have it- she was killed by her kidnappers for the reason stated in the note.
I really don't think the parents ever thought this case would take on the life it has. That people would smell a rat in Boulder. That people wouldn't just let it go. Of course, it would be news. A big flurry of notoriety. But then it would fade away, and with it any suspicion of the parents' involvement. They had help- certainly in the weak and incompetent DA's office and the "defend at any cost- truth be damned" legal team. But I really think JR and remaining family are quite perplexed that this hasn't gone away. After all, they PAID for it to go away, didn't they?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

The note adds a lot to the basement crime scene. It adds a very important thing: An explanation for there being a dead child there. The reason? The note said not to tell anyone (even a stray dog). They did. They called 911. So they gave the appearance of the "kidnappers" having a reason to kill their victim- because her parents called 911.
Without the pretend kidnapping and threats in the note, it would have been much more difficult to explain why JB was dead and still in the house.
What the Rs WANTED people to believe is that JB was no longer of any use to the kidnappers as a ransom prize because they had to kill her to punish the parents for calling police. That's why she was left behind.
What the Rs didn't realize was that it could be determined what time she died. The 911 call came at 6 in the morning, after the parents were up and about. No way could the kidnappers have still been in the house and make an escape at that time. And kill her at the same time, too, if the killing was supposed to be retaliation for calling police.

The parents' thought process was really very simple. This horrible event occurred- resulting in the death of their daughter. The truth was not something that they could deal with being made public, so how else to explain your child's death? Make it look like she was kidnapped and killed by her captors. For that, the note needed to specifically mention not to tell anyone. Then all you had to do was TELL someone and there you have it- she was killed by her kidnappers for the reason stated in the note.
I really don't think the parents ever thought this case would take on the life it has. That people would smell a rat in Boulder. That people wouldn't just let it go. Of course, it would be news. A big flurry of notoriety. But then it would fade away, and with it any suspicion of the parents' involvement. They had help- certainly in the weak and incompetent DA's office and the "defend at any cost- truth be damned" legal team. But I really think JR and remaining family are quite perplexed that this hasn't gone away. After all, they PAID for it to go away, didn't they?

JR or PR didn't get an indictment as RDI thinks should've happened had it not been for money and incompetence, right? Instead they got an exhoneration letter. This should be devastating for RDI, and yet RDI shamelessly persists. I have no explanation for this lack of humility.

BTW all you've done here is expound on your fiction. Its not that you lack creativity, its that the premise for it doesn't exist. Your story exists on a foundation of circular reasoning, a flawed logic.

Put another way, if you knew for a fact that PR or JR did it, then you could speculate on how the ransom note 'explains' the dead child in the basement or otherwise helps them. But its REALLY obvious that you don't know PR or JR did it.

By responding to it, I am feeding a delusion. Having said that, JR and PR don't need to explain why someone would sexually assault and then strangle a small child. Don't you read the news? Many, many sexual assault victims are subsequently strangled. Does somebody literally need to spell out the reasons why assaulters then strangle? No.

You're requirement (that JR and PR would need to explain to police why JBR was strangled because otherwise they wouldn't 'get it') doesn't exist.

 

[DeeDee249]

You don't know the truth any more than I do. I can only base my OPINION (like everyone else here) of what I feel is the truth based on what I know of the case. Just like you.

Either the parents are guilty (of either the death, the cover-up or both) or they are not. I think they are. You disagree. So what. I don't care that you disagree.
What I find most offensive with you is your condescending attitude towards people (not just their posts) that you disagree with.

Their "requirement" makes sense in that their child is found dead in her own home. Likelihood of parental involvement in such a case is VERY strong.
Had they NOT wrote the note suggesting a kidnapping and eventual murder of the victim, this involvement would have been hard for even soft-on-child-killers Boulder DAs to ignore.
When parents kill their kids, they always try to cover it up by pointing to an "intruder", "babysitter", "kidnapper", "carjacker", etc.

 

[BBB167893]

What I find most offensive with you is your condescending attitude towards people (not just their posts) that you disagree with.

You're not the only one.