Patsy Ramsey

[icedtea4me]

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?

Not really. (At least not to me.) Patsy claimed to have found the note on the 3rd step of the spiral staircase. Think about it. The number 3. A threesome. A triangulation.

 

[BBB167893]

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.

That wouldn't do for this girl.

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

So it was just luck that things went the way they did?

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.

But they didn't. No need, right? The note SAID she was kidnapped. It doesn't take as big a leap of imagination as you suggest.

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 know, you and I would probably get a lot farther if you didn't bother with these wordplays. Come on, man, say what you mean.

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.

Even without the motive removed, it makes sense: there are some things you have to do, but you don't have to like them.

BUT, for the sake of argument, let's go with it your way for a while. Even in my published theory, they probably would have done it either way.

 

[Detective Pinkie]

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?

I don't think that is where the note was found. I think that is where they told police the note was found because that is where Patsy regularly found things left by people (herself included) to be taken upstairs. To Patsy that made sense, it happened all the time.

I assume it was written and then after being read through, it was left on the floor where it was found by police when they arrived.

 

[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.

Breaks over.

It seems to me that if the Ramseys called people over so that they could serve some purpose than they should have done so before calling the police. You want your friends to already be there when the police arrive in case the police don’t let them in; don’t you?
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

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.

The objection here is that the Ramseys are being said to have created evidence to point away from themselves that actually (according to RDI) points towards themselves. I’m adopting the RDI position as I understand it – that the note is RDI evidence because it was written in the house, etc. I don’t agree with the RDI position.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

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?



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

If they reported an accident the only evidence would be that revealed at autopsy.

The autopsy might get them arrested, etc. It might not.

The Ramseys would have no way of knowing what the autopsy would reveal.

You can find many cases where people have done exactly what I am suggesting. This is because this is what people do when confronted with a dead body that they can’t dispose of – they fake an accident or a break-in.

With the Ramseys money, connections, lawyers, friends, etc; their supposed sense of entitlement or superiority or what have you, I think it reasonable to believe that they would think that they could get by with claiming an accident, bypassing the police, calling their lawyers and getting out of dodge.

But, really, the point is that this is simply what people in these situations do – they report an accident, etc; but, they never, ever report a kidnapping. It just doesn’t happen because kidnappings explain an absence of a body, not the presence.
.

I see amongst the 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).

Evidence that is exculpatory is, in essence, intruder evidence. If the Ramseys didn’t do it, someone (an intruder) did. For example, IMO, the force and brutality committed is exculpatory because extensive investigation into the Ramseys failed to show that they were capable of using such force and brutality. They might have anyway, but the evidence is not for it. The evidence is that they were loving, doting parents.

The argument goes on.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

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?

Ah, but I’m not saying that the Ramseys would have no reason to cover up the sexual assault that occurred at or near point of death.

I am saying that it up makes no sense to cover up the assault if the assault was performed to cover up prior abuse (or, if it was done to point towards asexual predator). This would be covering up the cover up. It’s nonsensical and contradictory.

An intruder might cover it up for the same reason that a Ramsey might – regret, remorse, shame, wanting to distract or point away from the sexual nature of the crime; etc.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

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.




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.

Most of this has already been addressed while we were cross posting.

I only want to pick up on two points here.

The evidence does not show that jbr was fed pineapple by anyone, never mind an intruder. She ate pineapple sometime before (30 minutes, 90 minutes, etc; opinions vary), if IDI, an intruder ever entered the picture.

There is no evidence that jbr’s clothes were changed. There is forum speculation that her panties were changed, but this is not a fact. As far as I have been able to ascertain, it is only forum speculation.

So, no – no one has to explain either of these acts within an IDI context.
...

AK

 

[BBB167893]

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

I'm going to ignore that, this time.

 

[Anti-K]

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?

Because they weren’t staging a botched kidnapping.

AK

 

[Detective Pinkie]

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...

But there is nothing "special" about this intruder? Just a run-of-the-mill, crazy, child-assaulting murderer that broke into a house, but left no evidence of that. Spent some amount of time in the house, fed pineapple to the victim, planted tonnes of evidence against the family, changed the victim's clothing and disappeared without a trace. They managed to leave DNA though. Yep, happens everyday. Not overly complicated at all.

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.

Until this not-very-unusual intruder did it.

In fear of sounding like a broken record, the note is not meant to explain the body, it is meant to explain that the parents didn't do it. It gives the parents breathing room and it worked. For all of IDI's protesting that it makes no sense, it certainly did what RDI claims it was intended to do. The police came into that house looking for a kidnapper not looking for signs that someone in the family murdered a little girl. By the time they changed their minds it was too late. Just about everything was compromised and the water was severely muddied.

 

[BBB167893]

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).

That's my argument, as well. Only I would add that it wasn't just to distract police, but a future jury as well.

 

[Detective Pinkie]

Not really. (At least not to me.) Patsy claimed to have found the note on the 3rd step of the spiral staircase. Think about it. The number 3. A threesome. A triangulation.

Actually the easiest explanation is that this where stuff was left all the time by family members in the house. If you wanted it taken upstairs you theft at the bottom of the stairs. Patsy said that is where she found it because that is where she often found and left things.

 

[BBB167893]

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 realizing all the ways they could leave evidence for the police.

It's not that hard, is it?

 

[Detective Pinkie]

Breaks over.

It seems to me that if the Ramseys called people over so that they could serve some purpose than they should have done so before calling the police. You want your friends to already be there when the police arrive in case the police don’t let them in; don’t you?
...

AK

Nope you call the police first or you look guilty.

Maybe they wanted those people in the house, but maybe that wasn't the reason to ring all those people. Maybe it was for drama and sympathy and "look at me". They didn't need the extra people there to muck up the crime scene, but they helped. Maybe they were as surprised as anyone that the police let the other people stay in the house. They did need someone to take Burke away.

 

[Detective Pinkie]

The objection here is that the Ramseys are being said to have created evidence to point away from themselves that actually (according to RDI) points towards themselves. I’m adopting the RDI position as I understand it – that the note is RDI evidence because it was written in the house, etc. I don’t agree with the RDI position.
...

AK

How didn't it point away from the Ramseys? When the police showed up they were looking for a kidnapper. The parents were seen as victims and treated as such. It worked.

After the body was found it looked worse for them but by that stage it had done its job. Also I have explained before (and you keep ignoring the point, which is frustrating) I don't think they thought that they could be tied to the note through the note pad and pen. I think they were surprised that the police traced it to them.

 

[Detective Pinkie]

Evidence that is exculpatory is, in essence, intruder evidence. If the Ramseys didn’t do it, someone (an intruder) did. For example, IMO, the force and brutality committed is exculpatory because extensive investigation into the Ramseys failed to show that they were capable of using such force and brutality. They might have anyway, but the evidence is not for it. The evidence is that they were loving, doting parents.

The argument goes on.
...

AK

That is not evidence that they did or did not not do it. It is evidence of prior behaviour that was seen by people from the outside. That is ALL the evidence tells us. If you rationalise that they couldn't have done it because no one else had seen them do anything like that before, that is up to you. Also, there is a first time for everything.

There is also no (or nearly no) evidence of an intruder. Explain that.

 

[BBB167893]

The objection here is that the Ramseys are being said to have created evidence to point away from themselves that actually (according to RDI) points towards themselves. I’m adopting the RDI position as I understand it – that the note is RDI evidence because it was written in the house, etc. I don’t agree with the RDI position.

Yeah, you've made it clear you don't agree with it. Which is puzzling to me.

To me, that's not an objection; that's what you'd expect. Unless they were able to stage a scene perfectly, which would require abilities far beyond those of mortal man, it was always going to point back at them. This was amateur night, and you could tell.

 

[BBB167893]

With the Ramseys money, connections, lawyers, friends, etc; their supposed sense of entitlement or superiority or what have you, I think it reasonable to believe that they would think that they could get by with claiming an accident, bypassing the police, calling their lawyers and getting out of dodge.

Don't forget: they DID bypass the police, call their lawyers and try to get out of Dodge.

But, really, the point is that this is simply what people in these situations do – they report an accident, etc; but, they never, ever report a kidnapping. It just doesn’t happen because kidnappings explain an absence of a body, not the presence.

Explaining the body wasn't the purpose. Saying "THIS person did it" was the purpose.

For example, IMO, the force and brutality committed is exculpatory because extensive investigation into the Ramseys failed to show that they were capable of using such force and brutality. They might have anyway, but the evidence is not for it. The evidence is that they were loving, doting parents.

Oh, God, don't even waste my time with THAT bulls**t! I don't care how loving someone is; ANYONE is capable of ANYTHING. That's a hard lesson for a hard world, and we all had damn well better learn it.

Villainy wears many masks, and the mask of virtue is the most dangerous one.

 

[BoldBear]

There is also no (or nearly no) evidence of an intruder. Explain that.

Actually, there's no evidence of an intruder in the basement. There was too much evidence of people in the house on the 1st floor and possibly on the 2nd floor because of the bathrooms. They had a party. Go to a church that's just had a party of 30 or so people and look for evidence of an intruder. You'll have fingerprints and touch evidence everywhere. One of the Ramsey's first floor bathrooms is on the way to the basement so you've got a forensic mess. I think I even remember that JBR wanted to show Santa Claus every part of the house including the basement, but I don't remember what Christmas that was.

Sorry, I'm not trying to promote the IDI argument. If the Ramsey's kept to themselves and hardly had anyone in their home, the forensic investigation would have been easier.