Patsys Clothes?

[Eagle1]

Regarding the dictionary and the word incest - could
JR have been molesting JB, and caught by PR?

Could Burke have heard PR acusing JR of incest, and wanted to know the meaning of the word? It seems to me this would be a logical explanation to this. He could have been wondering what it meant, if PR was really accusing John - and we know, when angry, she could really get carried away.

It's a long shot, imo, because Burke seemed to have this tactic of pretending to be asleep, and said he heard the house creaking that night. If he took a stealthy peek, not wanting anyone to know he was up, I don't think he would have made that big dog-ear pointing to the word and left the dictionary open. More likely he'd have slammed it shut, as I've speculated before, and would have run to his room. His curiosity would have been satisfied. Why would he want to look at it again, and why would it be harder for him to find a second time? Why would ST be so surprised as to gasp?

Some possible reasons, (1) nobody at BPD had mentioned this picture, (2) Very obviously the Ramseys were way too smart to even have to look up the word incest, much less leave the dictionary open, and (3) They wouldn't have had access to the police files, to put the picture in there. Evidently ST had heard about all the other evidence, or imo he wouldn't have gasped. It was so obviously "evidence of an intruder" that I wish we'd all stop saying rashly that there was no such evidence. It just wasn't formally called that or discussed much if any besides that tidbit in the book.

AngryWolf, hang in there; you're not alone. Since someone's reply to you mildly accuses FS's and IDI's of not doing things according to Hoyle, (I can't remember what) there's one example about the RDI's for you, the "no evidence of an intruder" saying, just so, you'll feel better, right? No offense to whoever that was. I bet you can't find one example of any of us reacting.

 

[Dru]

Ok, I know this is pretty far-fetched. But regarding the dictionary being opened to the page with 'incest' on it, does anyone know whether, in this dictionary, the word 'individual' was on the same page?

'Cause I just looked at the RN, and it seems like the spacing of the word 'individual' is odd--too much room after the 'du' and then the 'al' sort of squeezed together. Almost as though the RN writer had started the note (for the second or third time, possibly) and had gotten stuck on that word--maybe writing 'd' 'u' 'l' and then realizing something was missing?

 

[Eagle1]

So the note writer was looking up how to spell that? Good one. Fantastic. I love it when people think of something new.

But did he look up any of the other words, like bussines, which I probably just mis-spelled myself. If you ask yourself how to walk, you might not be able to, momentarily, they say. Worrying how to spell something maybe makes you mis-spell it.

And did he plan to have to come back for another look? I'm not being sarcastic, I promise, just going along. You're a true sleuth.

 

[Dru]

...but I tend to picture (in my constitutionally-protected free speech right to have an opinion for purposes of intellectual exercise, etc. etc.) PR writing the ransom note.

In that picture, I can see her getting frustrated as she makes the two or three attempts that LE thinks the RN writer made, judging from the torn-out sheets in PR's notebook.

So, if for some reason she stumbled on the word 'individuals,' she might have gone to check it in the middle of writing the word, rather than tear up yet another false start.

But time is running by fast, and she maybe realizes that it doesn't really matter if things are misspelled. In fact, she thinks, maybe having words spelled wrong will make it seem like some foreign faction/uneducated person is writing the note--so she throws in a few misspelled-on-purpose words for good measure.

As to why the stumble on 'individuals' which isn't a terribly hard word to spell? Dialect, maybe--sometimes we spell words the way we say them, and I've heard people in the south pronounce this word so it sounds more like 'indivigil' (or maybe 'individuyl').

Probably not what happened, but the dictionary bothers me. If RDI, which I tend to believe, why leave such an obvious clue? But if IDI, the open dictionary is worthless.

 

[icedtea4me]

Ok, I know this is pretty far-fetched. But regarding the dictionary being opened to the page with 'incest' on it, does anyone know whether, in this dictionary, the word 'individual' was on the same page?

'Cause I just looked at the RN, and it seems like the spacing of the word 'individual' is odd--too much room after the 'du' and then the 'al' sort of squeezed together. Almost as though the RN writer had started the note (for the second or third time, possibly) and had gotten stuck on that word--maybe writing 'd' 'u' 'l' and then realizing something was missing?

So, you noticed something unusual about "individuals", too, Dru? It is the only word containing an "al" that was written like that. I isolated the "al" of "individuals" and saw a little picture clue of the side profile of a nude male. The straight line and then the curved line of the "l" forms the back and buttocks. The cap of the "a" forms the penis, whereas the thin oval forms the scrotum.


-Tea

 

[Ames]

...

<snipped>
Probably not what happened, but the dictionary bothers me. If RDI, which I tend to believe, why leave such an obvious clue? But if IDI, the open dictionary is worthless.

I am RDI, too. Funny how I have NEVER heard an IDI mention that dictionary.

 

[Eagle1]

I am RDI, too. Funny how I have NEVER heard an IDI mention that dictionary.

I'm about the only one, an FS leaning toward IDI, who makes a big thing of the dictionary, from either side, right? Can't get most to even notice.

I'm only making a big thing of it, as a declared FS because in my book it's glaring EVIDENCE of....if not an intruder, at least someone outside the family.Because, quoting Dru:

["Probably not what happened, but the dictionary bothers me. If RDI, which I tend to believe, why leave such an obvious clue?"]

Exactly. Don't some of us get awfully tired of the rash statement over and over habitually that "There's no evidence of an intruder,"? In my book it's glaring evidence. Judging by what we already know about Burke, I sure don't think he would have dog-eared that dictionary and left it there. For one thing, even if he didn't know police would be searching the house, he would have had to fear his father seeing it and knowing he'd been questionning his father's actions. And I really think he probably hid in bed the whole night, said he could hear the house creaking. Probably he heard some voices too, but was afraid to mention it, if the creaking woke him.

Nobody said anyone didn't have constitutionally-protected free speech, btw. I've used that myself, and just in case anyone plans to in the future, just be extra careful because I think there's a sticky that this site is privately owned and can make its own rules. Obviously I don't mean that in an unfriendly way, just the opposite. I think it's very good thinking, your coming up with the word individual. Also your noticing that their leaving such an obvious clue when they'd (possibly) cleaned up every other clue would not be logical.

In my book it's a clue for the IDI's to latch onto big time. There ya go. I do wish you'd get the point across that there is indeed "evidence of an intruder". And its getting into the police files just MAY mean a BPD intruder was somehow involved. Maybe just trying to shortcut to a solving of the case by evidence tampering-planting, or, maybe more for all we know.

Any ideas about why ST would "gasp" at seeing the picture? He'd had no time to think about it and what it could mean. Why gasp???