Our university teaches that Patsy did it

[Brefie]

You have heard about the four red acrylic fibers, however did you hear about the many, many others on her that could NOT be "considered consistent" to anything in the house?

Actually, no, I hadn't. Thanks for the info.

 

[Lacy Wood]

Your point on Lindburg is valid, but not really applicable. You can't confirm the identity of a baby over the phone, but I'm sure JBR's parents would have demanded proof of JBR's well-being before paying any ransom. I'm interested in the "substantial number" of ransoms that have been paid for dead people, though.

Sure there's evidence of a foreign faction intent on kidnapping. There's just no published corroborating evidence. There's more evidence of a foreign faction than there is of a postal worker.

If you're an attorney, don't forget to bring the RN with you, because its evidence.

There's evidence the perp can't spell 'business'.

There's evidence the perp doesn't like 'fat cats' or the U.S.

The "note" is obviously evidence left by a participant. Claims inserted in the note have no priviledged status. They don't offer proof of themselves in the sense of "evidence", or confirmation that they are valid. Even the misspelled words are merely clues which could equally represent staging. They can be evidence if a suspect is identified and his prior writings match the errors. The error of thought above is misapplying two different meanings of "evidence" to try to support a theory: 1. Evidence=proof or validation 2. Evidence=Admissible at trial. Being admissable into evidence at trial does not in any way correlate with validity or proof of an issue. There is no validity to claiming there was a foreign faction based on a suspicious and unverified allegation because there is no evidence(#1).

It might help to recall that when a judge instructs a jury, he/she instructs them as to what is and is not evidence, and admonishes them to remember that NONE of the prosecutor's and the defense attorney's claims and statements is evidence. Validity of anyone's claim is established by confirmational evidence ( meaning proof)...even if it's included in an item of evidence (meaning admissible at trial).

Other dead kidnap victims when ransom paid? Bobby Greenlease, jr, Marian Parker, Gill Jamieson, Charles Ross..I quickly looked only at old cases. Many newer cases have been covered on Court TV. I only listed the Lindburg case since it showed the total absurdity of claiming that no one ever collected a ransom on a dead abductee.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

The "note" is obviously evidence left by a participant. Claims inserted in the note have no priviledged status. They don't offer proof of themselves in the sense of "evidence", or confirmation that they are valid. Even the misspelled words are merely clues which could equally represent staging. They can be evidence if a suspect is identified and his prior writings match the errors. The error of thought above is misapplying two different meanings of "evidence" to try to support a theory: 1. Evidence=proof or validation 2. Evidence=Admissible at trial. Being admissable into evidence at trial does not in any way correlate with validity or proof of an issue. There is no validity to claiming there was a foreign faction based on a suspicious and unverified allegation because there is no evidence(#1).

It might help to recall that when a judge instructs a jury, he/she instructs them as to what is and is not evidence, and admonishes them to remember that NONE of the prosecutor's and the defense attorney's claims and statements is evidence. Validity of anyone's claim is established by confirmational evidence ( meaning proof)...even if it's included in an item of evidence (meaning admissible at trial).

Other dead kidnap victims when ransom paid? Bobby Greenlease, jr, Marian Parker, Gill Jamieson, Charles Ross..I quickly looked only at old cases. Many newer cases have been covered on Court TV. I only listed the Lindburg case since it showed the total absurdity of claiming that no one ever collected a ransom on a dead abductee.

I only found three small problems with your post. First, the first definition of evidence at dictionary.com is: A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment. Its possible your definition of evidence is a little more strict than that. Maybe if you relax your definition you can utilize the evidence that was left at the crime scene in a more productive way.

Second, the RN could also be found to match writings the suspect has written since the murder, and not just prior. In fact, there's a good possibility that is how the killer of JBR will be nabbed.

Third, what you are calling a 'ransom' collected by the kidnapper of the Lindbergh baby wasn't really a ransom at all. They wanted to give the kidnapper the money, regardless of the condition of the baby, because the bills were traceable. So the kidnapper never actually collected a ransom per se, instead he collected kidnapper-bait that ultimately led to his arrest.

 

[Lacy Wood]

HOTYH, your last post tells more than I would be allowed to say about your thinking.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

HOTYH, your last post tells more than I would be allowed to say about your thinking.

Well, after over 8 years, anyone still clinging to this 'staging' idea without any 'evidence' to back it up is going to be in exactly the same place 8 years from now.

 

[Brefie]

I believe the FBI declared the scene as having been staged. I would be more inclined to believe the FBI than someone who had never seen inside the house.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I believe the FBI declared the scene as having been staged. I would be more inclined to believe the FBI than someone who had never seen inside the house.

The FBI didn't 'declare' anything.

 

[Brefie]

The FBI didn't 'declare' anything.

You know for sure the FBI didn't say the crime scene was staged?

 

[tipper]

You know for sure the FBI didn't say the crime scene was staged?

I don't know if the quibble is over the word declared but they did say they thought there was staging. They also didn't think there was prior sexual abuse and at least one agent thought an intruder was a real possibility.

 

[Brefie]

I don't know if the 'quibble' is over the word 'declared', but if it is - forget it.
I have no time for grammar (sp?) or spelling police (ha ha).

 

[deanws]

 

[Mama-cita]

This thread is getting exhausting. All I have learned so far is that some people believe that if something is written it must be true, if there is no evidence to prove otherwise. So therefore, I am a 5'11" blonde, blue eyed, leggy supermodel sugar-mama, and since you people have no evidence to prove that is not true, then it must be as I have just written. Incidentally, I could be a bald, 500 pound chinese man with no pants on, and you couldn't prove or disprove that, again, since you can not prove it. SHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESH! I think it's time to move on, and stop giving in to people who can't get the picture :banghead:

 

[Brefie]

Amen. To quote Paris - I am so over it.

 

[deanws]

Amen. To quote Paris - I am so over it.

Now which Paris are we talking about!?!

 

[deanws]

This thread is getting exhausting. All I have learned so far is that some people believe that if something is written it must be true, if there is no evidence to prove otherwise. So therefore, I am a 5'11" blonde, blue eyed, leggy supermodel sugar-mama, and since you people have no evidence to prove that is not true, then it must be as I have just written. Incidentally, I could be a bald, 500 pound chinese man with no pants on, and you couldn't prove or disprove that, again, since you can not prove it. SHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESH! I think it's time to move on, and stop giving in to people who can't get the picture :banghead:

I soooo agree. Now where is that "beating a dead horse" icon when you need it? I want to add some different smilies to this site! Hey Mod's..........can you add some? Pretty please? :innocent:

 

[Lacy Wood]

"And if she's gone, the Ramsey's have no way of knowing if she's dead or alive."

I respectfully disagree. They have only to wait for the phone call, and then demand the kidnappers prove she's alive before paying the ransom. You need a live abductee to get a ransom. That's pretty basic stuff. Nobody ever collected a ransom on a dead abductee.

Interesting post claiming that a kidnapper would not seek ransom for a deceased victim, and wrongly claiming that it has not ever been successfully done. The purpose is to "explain" why JB's body would be left behind, as an attempt to support the claim that note elements can be taken literally, and that the note is valid "evidence" of a "foreign faction" and actual planned kidnapping.

A responding post of mine noted that the most famous kidnapping in history, that of Charles Lindbergh, Jr, (age 20 months) involved a ransom paid for a child who died during the kidnapping (the body was buried by the kidnapper). The exchange is revealing and I will try to bump the posts to reveal a sequence of thought.

 

[Lacy Wood]

Your point on Lindburg is valid, but not really applicable. You can't confirm the identity of a baby over the phone, but I'm sure JBR's parents would have demanded proof of JBR's well-being before paying any ransom. I'm interested in the "substantial number" of ransoms that have been paid for dead people, though.

Sure there's evidence of a foreign faction intent on kidnapping. There's just no published corroborating evidence. There's more evidence of a foreign faction than there is of a postal worker.

If you're an attorney, don't forget to bring the RN with you, because its evidence.

There's evidence the perp can't spell 'business'.

There's evidence the perp doesn't like 'fat cats' or the U.S.

Asks about more examples. OK.

 

[Lacy Wood]

....Other dead kidnap victims when ransom paid? Bobby Greenlease, jr, Marian Parker, Gill Jamieson, Charles Ross..I quickly looked only at old cases. Many newer cases have been covered on Court TV. I only listed the Lindburg case since it showed the total absurdity of claiming that no one ever collected a ransom on a dead abductee.

More cases given.

 

[Lacy Wood]

..... what you are calling a 'ransom' collected by the kidnapper of the Lindbergh baby wasn't really a ransom at all. They wanted to give the kidnapper the money, regardless of the condition of the baby, because the bills were traceable. So the kidnapper never actually collected a ransom per se, instead he collected kidnapper-bait that ultimately led to his arrest.

And what do we have? No admission of a mistake but a twisting of words to invent the term "kidnapper-bait"! Presto, no ransom...just bait. But the poster also ignored the other examples given in order to avoid admitting an obvious truth.

The fact that has to be faced here is that the supporting of obviously false elements of arguments has to create a presumption that the person who does this is actually supporting what he disputes. Disputing becomes in fact confirmational, in the sense that when a person believing white is black says "It's black", you then know it's really white. This should make it much easier to agree with some lines of thought.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

And what do we have? No admission of a mistake but a twisting of words to invent the term "kidnapper-bait"! Presto, no ransom...just bait. But the poster also ignored the other examples given in order to avoid admitting an obvious truth.

The fact that has to be faced here is that the supporting of obviously false elements of arguments has to create a presumption that the person who does this is actually supporting what he disputes. Disputing becomes in fact confirmational, in the sense that when a person believing white is black says "It's black", you then know it's really white. This should make it much easier to agree with some lines of thought.

Thanks again for all the critique!