Patsy Ramsey

[pukasonqo2]

for me, leaving the note at the bottom of the staircase makes no sense, they could have walked over it, trampled it before someone picked up, and, from LHP's descriptions, not much pick up was done in the household
as the note was read by both PR and JR and moved, do we really know 100% that the note was left where the Rs said they found it?

 

[Detective Pinkie]

The contradictions that I have been pointing out are all very clear. They are real. They exist. You can rationalize them by saying, oh, they were panicked, or they were inexperienced or they were stupid, etc; BUT, this doesn’t make the contradictions suddenly vanish.

AK

So, when asked about contradictions in interviews you are happy to go with the explanation that the Ramseys may have been panicked, in shock etc but when RDI use the same explanation for contradictions (and this is your opinion only) then that is rubbish and makes no sense? Saying that the Ramseys were in shock so they don't remember things correctly doesn't make THOSE contradictions vanish either.

Not fair AK, you can't have it both ways. And before you argue that it makes sense in ID and not in RDI (why, I don't know) please give evidence. You are allowed to think that but you can't state it as FACT unless you give evidence.

Yes, there are contradictions in this case, but on both sides of the fence. If you can use an excuse for one side, I am pretty sure you can allow it for the other side, otherwise YOUR argument is invalid.

 

[Detective Pinkie]

but, still, a kidnapper. That’s what a ransom note means – a kidnapping, and that’s what was reported – a kidnapping.

No, the note gave the Ramseys an excuse to ring the police. The note also suggests that someone else besides John, Patsy, Burke and JonBenet were in the house. It puts a buffer between the Ramseys and the police. It makes them VICTIMS in the eyes of the police and their friends instead of SUSPECTS.

The note, indeed, nothing in the crime appears to be the work of someone who was panicked, or confused, frazzled, etc. The note, etc appears to be the work of someone with a plan, someone who took their time and performed deliberate actions. There’s just no panic or rush involved here.

In your opinion. It was a fairly rambling note. Not succinct or to the point. That may point to someone who is frazzled, not thinking straight.

In the note there is a time frame provided (expect call between 8 and 10), so the Ramseys could have taken advantage of that. They didn’t. Are we to believe that they put that in there without consideration?

Yep. I believe that it is entirely possible that a bunch of cliches were thrown into the ransom note with not much thought as to what they would actually mean. Explains why everyone ignored the threat of killing JB if anyone was called.

 

[Detective Pinkie]

You see there’s all this evidence from the note alone that points to the Ramseys, so how is it that we are supposed to believe that they created it to point away from themselves?
...

AK

Here I am confused by your point AK. What it looks to me like you are saying is that there is so much evidence that points to the Ramseys that you can't believe they did it because they wouldn't have left so much evidence pointing to the fact that they did it. Now who is making things overly complicated?

Either there is all this evidence pointing to them doing it, thus being the more simplistic theory (I am sure you can follow the logic) or there isn't, so RDI has to make it complicated to explain how the Ramseys did it. If there is all this evidence pointing to the Ramseys, then claiming that there is an intruder planting all this evidence pointing to the Ramseys is the more complicated theory.

 

[Anti-K]

First of all, I take umbrage with your assertion that there's nothing special about the Ramseys. You must mean a different Ramsey family than I'm thinking of, because the one I'm thinking of did this to their kid when she was alive:

View attachment 74197

As for the main point, you're all hung up on the body being found in the same house as the ransom note. Well, since the idea was to explain why she was dead, it would have to be botched, ie, "went wrong and she died."

For the last few days, I've watched as you've handed out the idea that staging a simple accident would have been better for the Rs than staging a murder. I'm not so sure it would have been, if one considers that what might be "better" varies from one person's point-of-view to another.

What I'm trying to say is this. Staging a regular accident was out of the question, as they saw it, because once the prior abuse was discovered, even if no one had been arrested (and as you say, it's possible that no one would have been), there was still the "family name" to consider. "Someone else" had to be blamed.

Which brings me to the second point. Once that decision was made, in my opinion, Patsy’s natural inclination towards the flashy and overdone took over and she decided to give her daughter a death that was as spectacular as her life. It just wouldn’t do to have a child beauty queen with such a bright future taken in such a mundane way. But if it could look like JonBenet had been killed in her own home by a popular bogeyman, the kind who gets people thinking with their emotions rather than their good sense, right under the noses of her parents, that would be a fitting death. I’m merely speculating, but I think Patsy figured that JonBenet would make her famous as a beauty queen. With JonBenet dead, that was no longer an option. But make a good crime scene and do your best acting job and you will become a magnet for sympathy. Michael Kane did an interview in 2002 where he said that the staging of the crime was so overdone, it would have to have been done by someone with a proclivity for showmanship. He used these words: “It was a very theatrical production and Patsy is a very theatrical person.” He described her as a narcissist who “loves being known as the mother of a murdered beauty queen.”

Earlier, I said this: One possibility: by playing on fears of popular bogeymen. I think it might be helpful to know what I meant. In short, the note seems to be an attempt to play on popular fears, not only of kidnappers and home invaders, but of international terrorism as well. Patsy Ramsey, during the New Year’s Day CNN plea, tried to play on those same fears when she told all mothers across America to “hold your babies close. There’s a killer out there.”

You keep asking, and forgive me if these are not your exact words, "if they were trying to stage an outside killing, why was there no obvious point of entry?" Well, as I've TRIED to explain to you before, their entire story DEPENDS on finding the note before anything else. Until then, nothing else could appear to be off-kilter, because that would raise too many questions.

BUT, and I want to emphasize this, there is another consideration. It goes back to the "fear" angle I mentioned a moment ago. They had to seem like they did everything right--that they took all possible steps to safeguard their children and it wasn't enough, because they were dealing with a criminal who could enter a house, kill a child with no sound, and vanish into thin air without leaving any trace behind, just like a ghost. THAT's why the intruder didn't leave any good evidence behind: he was just that good. JR sure hinted that way during his 1998 interview, if I remember correctly.



YES! What is so damn hard to understand about that???



Hey, Anti-K, it's not US who are saying this, okay? I think a little refresher is in order:

Thomas reported that “CASKU observed that they had never seen anything like the Ramsey ransom note. Kidnapping demands are usually terse, such as ‘We have your kid. A million dollars. Will call you.’ From a kidnapper’s point of view, the fewer words, the less police have to go on.” The FBI, according to Thomas, “believed that the note was written in the house, after the murder, and indicated panic. Ransom notes are normally written prior to the crime, usually proofread, and not written by hand, in order to disguise the authorship.” Thomas said the FBI deemed the entire crime “criminally unsophisticated,” citing the child being left on the premises, the oddness of the $118,000 demand in relation to the multi-million dollar net worth of the Ramseys, and the concept of a ransom delivery where one would be “scanned for electronic devices.” Kidnappers prefer isolated drops for the ransom delivery, not wanting to chance a face-to-face meeting. CASKU profilers also observed that placing JonBenet’s body in the basement indicated the involvement of a parent, rather than an intruder. A parent would not want to place the body outside in the frigid night. They pointed out the use of the blanket that was found on her that day. It’s been characterized as just having been thrown over her, but in his 1998 interview, John said that whoever did it had taken enough time to carefully tuck her in, like a “papoose.” Even more importantly, inside the blanket with JonBenet was a pink nightgown with the popular doll Barbie on it. JonBenet’s grandmother said it was JonBenet’s favorite article of clothing, and that she treated it like a security blanket, even when she wasn’t wearing it. She’d even rub it on her face to feel better. That seems like an awful lot of care and trouble for an intruder, does it not?

(That's another bit you didn't have to pay for.)



IDI has enough problems.

What I CAN'T figure, Anti-K, is why you have such a burning NEED for the Rs to have committed the perfect crime. Murder is NEVER perfect. It always comes apart sooner or later. And when two or more people are involved, it's usually sooner. "Too many cooks" and all that.

I’m going to break up my response into a cpl posts. You’ve raise several points I’d like to address and it will be easier to rebut and/or ignore if I keep things separate.

I see nothing special about the Ramseys, but maybe it depends on how you define “special.”

It does seem that, if RDI, there must have been something ‘special” about them. Because we are to believe that they acted in a way that no other would. This is something that most people realize and so we have, for example, the argument that they must have been acting to protect someone and the only one they would protect would be Burke, etc. This, too, is theory drive and not evidence based. Of course, it might be true, but...
.

The note/body in the house could be the defining aspect of the crime. We should be hung up on it.

The body is in the house. Look at the parents. That’s what the FBI said (so would I!!!). It’s the body in the house that is the problem. The ransom note doesn’t explain it. Even a stupid person knows this and that is why no one has ever reported a fake kidnapping to explain a dead body in the house. No one.

RDI rationalize this, but it does not and cannot explain it. And, the rationalization is theory-based. They did it, so they must have been thinking this, they must have been planning that (your words: as they saw it). Bad reasoning. Mere speculation (I’m okay with speculation), but let’s not pretend that it is more than that.

IMO, the ransom note is the KEY to this crime.
Cont .
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

First of all, I take umbrage with your assertion that there's nothing special about the Ramseys. You must mean a different Ramsey family than I'm thinking of, because the one I'm thinking of did this to their kid when she was alive:

View attachment 74197

As for the main point, you're all hung up on the body being found in the same house as the ransom note. Well, since the idea was to explain why she was dead, it would have to be botched, ie, "went wrong and she died."

For the last few days, I've watched as you've handed out the idea that staging a simple accident would have been better for the Rs than staging a murder. I'm not so sure it would have been, if one considers that what might be "better" varies from one person's point-of-view to another.

What I'm trying to say is this. Staging a regular accident was out of the question, as they saw it, because once the prior abuse was discovered, even if no one had been arrested (and as you say, it's possible that no one would have been), there was still the "family name" to consider. "Someone else" had to be blamed.

Which brings me to the second point. Once that decision was made, in my opinion, Patsy’s natural inclination towards the flashy and overdone took over and she decided to give her daughter a death that was as spectacular as her life. It just wouldn’t do to have a child beauty queen with such a bright future taken in such a mundane way. But if it could look like JonBenet had been killed in her own home by a popular bogeyman, the kind who gets people thinking with their emotions rather than their good sense, right under the noses of her parents, that would be a fitting death. I’m merely speculating, but I think Patsy figured that JonBenet would make her famous as a beauty queen. With JonBenet dead, that was no longer an option. But make a good crime scene and do your best acting job and you will become a magnet for sympathy. Michael Kane did an interview in 2002 where he said that the staging of the crime was so overdone, it would have to have been done by someone with a proclivity for showmanship. He used these words: “It was a very theatrical production and Patsy is a very theatrical person.” He described her as a narcissist who “loves being known as the mother of a murdered beauty queen.”

Earlier, I said this: One possibility: by playing on fears of popular bogeymen. I think it might be helpful to know what I meant. In short, the note seems to be an attempt to play on popular fears, not only of kidnappers and home invaders, but of international terrorism as well. Patsy Ramsey, during the New Year’s Day CNN plea, tried to play on those same fears when she told all mothers across America to “hold your babies close. There’s a killer out there.”

You keep asking, and forgive me if these are not your exact words, "if they were trying to stage an outside killing, why was there no obvious point of entry?" Well, as I've TRIED to explain to you before, their entire story DEPENDS on finding the note before anything else. Until then, nothing else could appear to be off-kilter, because that would raise too many questions.

BUT, and I want to emphasize this, there is another consideration. It goes back to the "fear" angle I mentioned a moment ago. They had to seem like they did everything right--that they took all possible steps to safeguard their children and it wasn't enough, because they were dealing with a criminal who could enter a house, kill a child with no sound, and vanish into thin air without leaving any trace behind, just like a ghost. THAT's why the intruder didn't leave any good evidence behind: he was just that good. JR sure hinted that way during his 1998 interview, if I remember correctly.



YES! What is so damn hard to understand about that???



Hey, Anti-K, it's not US who are saying this, okay? I think a little refresher is in order:

Thomas reported that “CASKU observed that they had never seen anything like the Ramsey ransom note. Kidnapping demands are usually terse, such as ‘We have your kid. A million dollars. Will call you.’ From a kidnapper’s point of view, the fewer words, the less police have to go on.” The FBI, according to Thomas, “believed that the note was written in the house, after the murder, and indicated panic. Ransom notes are normally written prior to the crime, usually proofread, and not written by hand, in order to disguise the authorship.” Thomas said the FBI deemed the entire crime “criminally unsophisticated,” citing the child being left on the premises, the oddness of the $118,000 demand in relation to the multi-million dollar net worth of the Ramseys, and the concept of a ransom delivery where one would be “scanned for electronic devices.” Kidnappers prefer isolated drops for the ransom delivery, not wanting to chance a face-to-face meeting. CASKU profilers also observed that placing JonBenet’s body in the basement indicated the involvement of a parent, rather than an intruder. A parent would not want to place the body outside in the frigid night. They pointed out the use of the blanket that was found on her that day. It’s been characterized as just having been thrown over her, but in his 1998 interview, John said that whoever did it had taken enough time to carefully tuck her in, like a “papoose.” Even more importantly, inside the blanket with JonBenet was a pink nightgown with the popular doll Barbie on it. JonBenet’s grandmother said it was JonBenet’s favorite article of clothing, and that she treated it like a security blanket, even when she wasn’t wearing it. She’d even rub it on her face to feel better. That seems like an awful lot of care and trouble for an intruder, does it not?

(That's another bit you didn't have to pay for.)



IDI has enough problems.

What I CAN'T figure, Anti-K, is why you have such a burning NEED for the Rs to have committed the perfect crime. Murder is NEVER perfect. It always comes apart sooner or later. And when two or more people are involved, it's usually sooner. "Too many cooks" and all that.

You say that you’ve “watched as [I’ve] handed out the idea that staging a simple accident would have been better for the Rs than staging a murder.”

It isn’t so much that it would have been better as it is that this is what people do in such situations. They fake accidents or break-ins; and, they never fake or report kidnappings. Whether or not they would be found out is beside the point.

The rationalization for the Ramseys reporting a kidnapping is theory first, and not evidence based.

It may be fine to say that “their entire story DEPENDS on finding the note before anything else.” But, this is only your opinion and it does not answer the objection. They could have said that they came downstairs, discovered note and then checked doors, etc and discover something amiss – a door ajar, a door unlocked, a window open, etc.

Nothing in your “little refresher” addressed my claim that committing the sexual assault to cover up prior abuse IS an explanation; but covering up the sexual abuse (at or near point of death) is a rationalization. It must be a rationalization (or, false) if the explanation (to cover up prior abuse) is true.

You ask, “What is so damn hard to understand” about the Ramseys covering up the sexual abuse inflicted at or near point of death because they felt bad about it. Nothing. It makes sense, it seems reasonable, I wouldn’t argue against this as a possible motive, but – and, it is a big BUT – this explanation falls away when we consider the motive for the sexual abuse.

If you remove the cover-up motive behind the sexual assault, then your explanation for the cover-up of the sexual assault makes perfect sense.
...

AK

 

[Detective Pinkie]

I don't think they WERE hoping to avoid an investigation.

Nope, they were just trying to NOT be the focus of that investigation.

 

[Anti-K]

So what's your simple theory that explains everything?

This is part of my problem with discussing this with IDI. They have a shadowy, non-discript figure for a suspect. They can mould their suspect around the evidence. When asked about specific evidence they just say "Well maybe they did such-and-such" without having to back up their theory. With everyone as your suspect then everything is a possibility.

This is how it is with many unsolved crimes.

My suspect is DNA-man. I don’t know who he is. No one does. Should he ever be identified, he can be investigated and maybe all of a sudden everything will fall into place. Or, not. I don’t know.

I have several theories regarding the note/body contradiction and they could all be wrong and probably are; but, for example: a kidnapper could have intended on murdering and hiding his victim in the house right from the get-go; a molester could have created the note as a means of hiding from himself and/or others his perverse desires and true motivation; a killer wishing to direct suspicion away from himself; a killer wishing to direct suspicion towards the occupants; etc. of the house; a killer wishing to create an enduring mystery; a killer hoping to create for the parents a sense of false hope mingled with hours of angst and pain reaching its peak when the body is discovered; etc.

Here is one where I go into some detail regarding a theory of INTENT (not motive which could fit with a cpl of the above scenarios. There are four posts starting here http://tinyurl.com/qa5mfbh
...

AK

 

[Detective Pinkie]

An investigation into an accident vs investigation into kidnapping/sexual assault/asphyxiation; the former with no evidence and the latter with self-incriminating evidence. The choice is obvious.

BBM.

Huh? How would there have been no evidence? If they had rang authorities saying there was an accident then a dead little girl instigates an investigation. Who are the focus of the investigation? The 3 living people known to have been in the house that night. What are the chances that the police would have found NO evidence pointing to what really happened? Oh, I would say very minute, possibly none at all. And what are the chances of no trial? Oh, I think just as small, if not smaller, especially IF prior damage to her hymen is discovered.

I want to believe that you want to have a genuine discussion about this AK but little fallacies like that statement dropped into arguments make me wonder. It is this sort of behaviour that turns polite discussions between IDI and RDI into very heated arguments. Many IDI proponents can't wait to accuse RDI of illogical arguments and not backing up statements with fact and then do just that themselves.

RDI (although not believing in one coherent theory) do believe that staging was done to stop a member or members of that household from becoming the focus of a police investigation and possibly going to jail and probably to save face within the community and their "peers". Can we agree on that? If we say that instead of what RDI believe happened, we go with your suggestion that they make a much more "simple" solution, what evidence do you have that proves that the police would never have found anything suspicious enough to cause: a) a police investigation; b) a loss of face c) at least a trial if not possible incarceration?

Once again, where is the evidence that points outside? RDI are quite fond of saying that no such evidence exists; so, where is it?
...

AK

Ok, I'll bite. Where is the evidence pointing to an intruder? Can you show me?

 

[Detective Pinkie]

If they committed the sexual aspect of the crime to cover up something, or to make it look like a certain type of crime than it just doesn’t make sense for them to turn around and cover it up, not even if they felt some remorse because this - the assault – would have been a planned act with an intended purpose.
...

AK

Why would an intruder cover it up? Do you think that they thought the police would see her dressed and say, "Oh well, she has clothes on I guess she wasn't sexually assaulted" and then look no further? If the Ramseys have no reason to cover her up why would an intruder?

 

[Anti-K]

BBM.

I think I am going to have to call you out on this AK.

Earlier on I asked you why an intruder would leave the note on the stairs for the Ramseys to find. I admitted then, and still admit, that with RDI it IS an odd place for them to have claimed to have found the note. There are multiple better locations to claim to have found the note. BUT, that goes against IDI too. If an intruder left the ransom note, then the bottom of the spiral staircase is just as crazy. If I am leaving a note for someone to find (for any reason) then the bottom of a staircase is NOT logical. A bench, a table, the place I wrote the note, the bed of the missing girl, somewhere eye height, slipped under their bedroom door. There was another stair case to the first floor, what if they had used that one? Would anyone have found the note before they discover JB's empty bed?

Your response to that question was that you suspected that they exited the nearby door so that's why they put the note on THAT staircase. So what evidence do you have to support that theory? Can you back up your claims?

For me, the fact that Patsy used that staircase to interact with LHP, does go someway to explain why the staircase would be considered a logical for the Ramsey's (in particular Patsy) to find a note. Patsy would not find it strange. Can you give me better evidence to support your conclusion?

My answer was, of course, speculation. What else could it have been? But, it was speculation based on the ransom note being on the stairs, its proximity to the butler door and the claim that the door was found open (or, ajar) by, iirc, Fernie when he arrived that morning (before the crime techs).

Here’s the thing about the stairs. You can see the spiral staircase through the door that Fernie looked through when he read the ransom note as it lay on the floor in the hall. The notepad was a table desk thingy in the same hall and someone looking through this door may have been able to see it, also. Above this door is a second floor hallway window and to the left of that a bedroom (jbr’s). Beside the door that Fernie looked through is another window through which one should have been able to see the cup with pens.

Anyway, someone not familiar with the house and looking through Fernie’s door might think that there was only one set of stairs leading to the second floor.

If IDI, the note being in such a location may indicate that it was put there as the killer’s final act. He put it there on his way out of the house.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

So, when asked about contradictions in interviews you are happy to go with the explanation that the Ramseys may have been panicked, in shock etc but when RDI use the same explanation for contradictions (and this is your opinion only) then that is rubbish and makes no sense? Saying that the Ramseys were in shock so they don't remember things correctly doesn't make THOSE contradictions vanish either.

Not fair AK, you can't have it both ways. And before you argue that it makes sense in ID and not in RDI (why, I don't know) please give evidence. You are allowed to think that but you can't state it as FACT unless you give evidence.

Yes, there are contradictions in this case, but on both sides of the fence. If you can use an excuse for one side, I am pretty sure you can allow it for the other side, otherwise YOUR argument is invalid.

Panic (trauma, etc) impacts the way in which memories are stored and recollected. This is different from how panic impacts action.

When panicked, people behave without thinking.

These points have nothing to do with RDI vs IDI. They are simply true.

In RDI the Ramseys do the opposite. They don’t seek aid for their critically injured child. They first take the time to consider the ramifications of seeking aid. They decide against it. They consider whether or not an autopsy might reveal something that could trip them up if they claim an accident, or cause problems if prior abuse is revealed. They decide on a course of action. They plan, they act, they create a 2 ½ page ransom note and they manufacture the so-called garrote. They dispose of evidence. Etc and so on. These aren’t the actions of panicked people. Panicked people act without thinking.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

for me, leaving the note at the bottom of the staircase makes no sense, they could have walked over it, trampled it before someone picked up, and, from LHP's descriptions, not much pick up was done in the household
as the note was read by both PR and JR and moved, do we really know 100% that the note was left where the Rs said they found it?

If IDI, it is possible that the note was spread out as it was so as to increase the noticeability.

If RDI, the note is found on the stairs for I don’t know – because it’s more dramatic? (SD – that was sarcasm)
...

AK

 

[Detective Pinkie]

There is no evidence to support the claim of a botched kidnapping. Not a staged one and not a real one.

I don't understand what you are saying here. First you are saying that RDI claim that the Ramseys staged a kidnapping and that doesn't make sense to you because if there is a note and a body that is silly. In response I argued that they DIDN'T stage a kidnapping - they staged a sexual assault and a death and then needed a reason to make them look like victims not suspects and so created a ransom note to distract police (which worked by the way. Arndt said it wasn't until JonBenet's body was discovered that she realised it wasn't a kidnapping).

Now you are saying that there are no signs of a botched kidnapping. Which is what I am arguing, the kidnapping is not the focus: the staged crime scene is. If there is no botched kidnapping, then what explanation is there for IDI? Why is there a ransom note and a body? I just explained it for RDI (whether you agree or not) now you explain it for IDI.

I understand the evidence quite well, and I use the evidence as a starting point and view the crime and events through that prism. I see amongst this evidence much that is inconsistent with RDI (behavioral history; family dynamics; etc), much that is contradictory to RDI (creating self-incriminating evidence; note/body in house; etc); and I see evidence that is ambiguous (trace; etc) as well as exculpatory (trace; etc).

Same argument can be used for IDI. There are plenty of contradictions, plenty of ambiguous evidence and inconsistency all over the place. IDI has the magic mystery intruder that could be ANYONE and do ANYTHING for ANY reason. They don't HAVE to explain anything because there are a hundred explanations if you don't have to specify anyone.

Hold yourself to the same standards - explain why an intruder would leave a body and a note, simply and believably but also explain why they assaulted her with a paintbrush and fed her pineapple and changed her clothes, specifically the right day underwear but too big and why the wine cellar and why the note on the stairs, etc. I don't think you will be able to. I bet there are many holes to be poked.

 

[Anti-K]

No, the note gave the Ramseys an excuse to ring the police. The note also suggests that someone else besides John, Patsy, Burke and JonBenet were in the house. It puts a buffer between the Ramseys and the police. It makes them VICTIMS in the eyes of the police and their friends instead of SUSPECTS.





In your opinion. It was a fairly rambling note. Not succinct or to the point. That may point to someone who is frazzled, not thinking straight.





Yep. I believe that it is entirely possible that a bunch of cliches were thrown into the ransom note with not much thought as to what they would actually mean. Explains why everyone ignored the threat of killing JB if anyone was called.

I see you’ve posted quite a few comments/question that I still want to reply to, but I’m taking a break. Too many posts by me in a row. I’ll be back later.

Some of your comments/question might be addressed in the theory of intent I previously linked to for you.
...

AK

 

[Detective Pinkie]

In IDI, the prior abuse is not known to the killer, and it is not connected to the crime (there is NO evidence that suggest otherwise). The killer performs the sexual assault and he covers it up because he felt some shame, or remorse about the sexual aspect of his crime. In IDI there simply is no cover-up of a cover-up. There’s just a sexual assault committed because this was one of those guys that Kenneth Lanning (of the FBI) described as a “killer who happens to molest.”
...

AK

Why did the intruder cover up his/her assault? Shame? That is more believable than the Ramseys not wanting to see want had been done to their daughter (for whatever reason)? Really? The Ramseys are LESS likely to feel the same way?

 

[BBB167893]

I see nothing special about the Ramseys, but maybe it depends on how you define “special.”

I guess it does. How do you define it?

It does seem that, if RDI, there must have been something ‘special” about them. Because we are to believe that they acted in a way that no other would.

That's precisely what I'm saying.

Just in case you missed what I was trying to say with that pageant picture, I'll lay it out for you: it's easy for me to believe that they acted in a way that normal people wouldn't because they ALREADY acted in a way that normal people wouldn't! Don't even TRY to tell me that normal people would dress up their kid like that so other adults can gawk at them.

No, as far as I'm concerned, that's the answer right there: they gave her a showbiz death to match her showbiz life.

This is something that most people realize and so we have, for example, the argument that they must have been acting to protect someone and the only one they would protect would be Burke, etc. This, too, is theory drive and not evidence based. Of course, it might be true, but...

"But" nothing!

The note/body in the house could be the defining aspect of the crime. We should be hung up on it.

The body is in the house. Look at the parents. That’s what the FBI said (so would I!!!). It’s the body in the house that is the problem. The ransom note doesn’t explain it. Even a stupid person knows this and that is why no one has ever reported a fake kidnapping to explain a dead body in the house. No one.

At some point in time, "no one" had ever decapitated their child. At some point in time, "no one" had ever sent their conscious children to the bottom of a lake, then claimed a carjacker ran off with them, either.

RDI rationalize this, but it does not and cannot explain it. And, the rationalization is theory-based. They did it, so they must have been thinking this, they must have been planning that (your words: as they saw it). Bad reasoning. Mere speculation (I’m okay with speculation), but let’s not pretend that it is more than that.

It's called getting inside the person's head, Anti-K. In case you haven't heard, that's how a lot of crimes get solved. You have to use some imagination, because it's in the imagination that a crime is planned and where the facts are put together.

IMO, the ransom note is the KEY to this crime.

One of them, as I see it.

 

[Detective Pinkie]

It's the fact everything from the crime points to the inside that screams "Ramsey's did it! Ramsey's did it!" The only thing to make it more obvious would be spotlights and a marquee

Ah but to AK, the more that fingers point to the Ramseys the less likely they did it because they wouldn't leave so much evidence pointing to themselves. This is the most logical and least complicated theory.

 

[Detective Pinkie]

A botched kidnapping means that something occurred mid-crime to prevent the kidnapper from completing his task. So, why did the kidnapping fail? Because I heard a noise and called downstairs and went and looked and I must have scare the kidnapper off. He ran out leaving a door open. No I didn’t get a good look at him. Etc.
...

AK

But this wouldn't explain why John had time to have a shower and Patsy had time to get dressed back into the night before's clothes and put make up on. Why aren't they still in PJs and chasing the guy down the street?

 

[Detective Pinkie]

A ransom note and a body hidden in the basement is not a botched kidnapping (see post above). A kidnapper (I don’t think this happened) could have intentionally left the body in the house because he had nowhere to take it, or because it was easier than taking it with him, looking after it, hiding it, disposing of it, etc.

BBM

Once again AK you have posited a contradiction to your argument. You argue that there is no evidence of a botched kidnapping and then describe a botched kidnapping: The kidnapper could not leave with the body so they left it behind. If they didn't mean to kill her and/or leave her behind then that IS a botched kidnapping.

Did they plan to kill her and leave her behind the whole time? Then that is not a kidnapping, let alone a botched one. That is just a murder with a ransom note as a redherring. If your intruder can leave a note as a redherring why can't the Ramseys?

AK: If RDI, than the argument for the Ramseys creating self-incriminating evidence is sound and based solely on the evidence as we know it. If RDI is true, then this is exactly what happened.

No one is saying that they didn't leave self incriminating evidence. What I don't understand is why you think they wouldn't if RDI? Are they super, amazing, wonder criminals that know all police procedure so know every step to circumvent it? Yes I believe they were trying to mislead the police, but I still think they were capable of making mistakes and/or not realising all the ways they could leave evidence for the police.

AK: There is a difference between incriminating evidence and (unnecessariloy) created self-incriminaitng evidence. In an accident scenario no evidence is created. An autopsy may find them out, but it may not. in either case – no crime scene, no evidence.

Arrgghhh! You do not know that. Even staging an accident makes some sort of scene that can, and most definitely will, be investigated. There is just as much chance that they would leave evidence (or a suspicious lack of) if they staged this any other way. Oh and BTW they DID get behind those lawyers pretty darn quick.

AK: No, that’s not my argument.

I am saying, if RDI, that they would cover up the crime by claiming an accident or a break-in. This is what people do when faced with these circumstances. Look it up. Case after case, fake accidents, staged break-ins – NEVER NEVER NEVER a fake kidnapping with the body still in the house. It just doesn’t happen because these two things are contradictory. People do claim kidnappings but only after they’[ve disposed of the body. look it up. This is factual.

And no one ever gets caught by staging an accident or break in (sarcasm). It happens all the time, look it up. This is factual.

They never had a ransom note and a body before, period. So why does it make it more likely to be an intruder? Family members had never done it before and intruders had never done it before. Why does this point more toward an intruder than a family member?

AK: they could have used any scrap of wrapping paper, envelope, cardboard packaging, card, etc they wanted to use and, because it was Christmas, there was a busload of this stuff laying around. They could have written a cpl lines, “Daughter is ours. No cops, wait for call.” They could have skipped the paint brush handle, or at least left it as a single piece instead of breaking it and putting a piece in the tote for investigators to find.

I already covered this, but why would they believe it was harder for police to trace the wrapping paper or cards from their own house than a generic notepad and Sharpie pen?

Why wouldn't an intruder use a paintbrush from the house?

AK: I’m not actually saying that they wouldn’t, so much as I am pointing out that it would have been unnecessary and that doing so points the investigation inside the home and towards them and is therefore contradictory to the supposed intent of trying to point away from themselves.

BBM
Not more than a dead daughter and no evidence of anyone else being involved in her death. Or no evidence of some horrible event that no parent could ever do to their child.