Peculiar letters from the RN

[BBB167893]

"How do you figure? The head blow came in a fit of rage. Everything else was a desperate cover-up, IMO."

I think if she were a quite normal mother who loved her children, then after a fit of rage and an accidental (stronger than intended) head blow the rage would have vanished and she would have become desperate alright, about JB`s wellbeing and she would have called the ambulance or something- isn`t it so that JB was still alive during the strangulation?

Good, good. Let's take this one step at a time, of that's okay.

1) I like how you emphasize the "if" she was a quite normal mother. I've often wondered just how "normal" she was. And I have no doubt that she loved her children. For me (and as far as I know, me alone) the question is "was her kind of love a healthy kind?"

2) I do believe that her fit did vanish.

3) Desperate about JB's wellbeing? Well, this may surprise you, but I have often thought that she wanted to do as you suggest. But either a) she figured JB was beyond help, or b) circumstances made it so that by the time anyone could think to do anything for her, they figured it was too late.

Which leads me to

4) As for being alive during the strangulation, several pathologists have agreed that she was only barely alive when the strangulation took place, so much so that to a layperson (especially a panicked one), she would appear quite dead.

The RN contains cruel language, so to me she must have been out of her mind for quite some time.

A lot of professionals have said that the "cruel" language was just someone trying to sound like a real bad-*.

Now it is possible that she was in a desperate cover up state of mind, but I just mean that this is all speculation.

Maybe so, but a lot of times that's all you have to fill in the gaps left by the evidence.

No. In that rubric, he didn't "turn pedophile." He became what is called a situational molester. I've tried to explain the difference here several times, yet I never seem to make a dent.

I wouldn`t mind understanding your differentiation. But isn`t it only pedophiles who are sexually attracted to children, even occasionally when their spouse is not "available"?

I'd like to answer both of those at once.

Here goes: a pedophile is a person who is organically attracted to children because they're children. I'm not really sure why they have this attraction; probably crosswiring of the brain. A situational molester is not attracted to children per se, but turns to a child as a sexual outlet because other outlets are either not available or because their victim still allows some kind of connection to that which is unattainable. The classic example is the parent who molests their child because their spouse walked out on them. So yes, only pedophiles are attracted to children in the true sense, but you don't have to be one to be a child molester.

John could have pursued grown women also.

True, but think of what he'd be stepping into. Don't forget, that's how he ruined his first marriage. Add to that one of his daughters from his first marriage had died in an accident. Just spitballing here, but JB was the perfect victim--she looked enough like PR to allow a vicarious thrill (JR has said that JB was pure PR), she wasn't old enough to get ovarian cancer, she wasn't old enough to drive and get killed in an accident, she was very obedient (PR and Nedra saw to that) and easy to manipulate. I could go on about how children make good victims if you like, but I believe my point is made.

Again, just spitballing.

Well, no need to go elsewhere. This place is one of the best, if not the best.

Alrighty then. I do already have a question about the Bonita Papers, but I`ll post it on the Fibers thread. (I just think I should read much more and not ask silly questions whenever I`m too lazy to find out for myself)

Well, I've always said that I'm here to answer questions if people have them.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

A very admirable summation.



I'm game.



Let's say.



Excuse me? How did you figure that?

We already knew the elements that were common to filicide, before JBR was murdered. We then maximized a parent with these elements: a known heavy drinking situational molester that skipped their anti-depressants at the holiday.

Lets throw in that they refused to cooperate with police.

Just because a person perfectly fits your idea of what filicidal parents are like doesn't mean they are a filicidal parent. Its putting the carriage before the horse.

Assuming putting the carriage before the horse is the correct way to go, RDI even still finds itself having to explain why the R's don't have the same elements filicidal parents have. 80% of filicidal parents have socioeconomic problems and/or psycholocial problems that don't affect the R's. RDI's handy explanation as to why the R's don't seem like filicidal parents is that they snapped "like people sometimes do".

Unfortunately, those of us who want to use logic can't use generalizations and stereotyping like that. We need to look at things more rationally. If after the investigation it was found that RDI, then and only then do we know that the elements were even related to the murder. Uhtil then, all these elements do is raise and lower suspicion.

Really, for RDI it would be up to the investigation to show that a parent intended to kill JBR. Thats because her death was determined by the coroner to be the result of asphyxiation, and there was a garrote ligature found embedded in a deep groove around her neck. Thats unmistakable evidence that SOMEONE intended to kill JBR. SOMEONE placed a cord around JBR's neck, and then fully tightened it causing petechial hemorrhages. These only happen if JBR was alive at the time.

These are the facts.

The oft-purported story that someone thought JBR was already dead when they strangled her exposes a certain naivety.

 

[BBB167893]

We already knew the elements that were common to filicide, before JBR was murdered.

More or less.

We then maximized a parent with these elements: a known heavy drinking situational molester that skipped their anti-depressants at the holiday.

Hypothetically.

Lets throw in that they refused to cooperate with police.

Yes! That cannot be forgotten.

Just because a person perfectly fits your idea of what filicidal parents are like doesn't mean they are a filicidal parent. Its putting the carriage before the horse.

I see what you're saying, HOTYH (at least I think I do). You don't have to explain that to me. Danielle Van Dam's parents showed that the hard way.

But what I'm saying is that those guidelines (or whatever term you may use) have come down to us because they tend to be true.

Assuming putting the carriage before the horse is the correct way to go,

I'm not comfortable phrasing it quite that way, HOTYH. Your characterization is the story Team R would have us believe. What I'm saying is that they help keep someone's mind focused.

RDI even still finds itself having to explain why the R's don't have the same elements filicidal parents have. 80% of filicidal parents have socioeconomic problems and/or psycholocial problems that don't affect the R's.

One, what about that other 20%? Two, how do you know those problems didn't affect them?

RDI's handy explanation as to why the R's don't seem like filicidal parents is that they snapped "like people sometimes do".

Dismiss it if you like, HOTYH. Experience has shown me that you will. But what you forget is that the statistics you just gave (80% of filicidal parents) apply primarily to premeditated murder. Legally, if what I think happened did happen, it wasn't premeditated.

Unfortunately, those of us who want to use logic can't use generalizations and stereotyping like that.

You actually had me in your corner up to that. So, without making it too personal, let me say this:

1) I don't know where you get the idea that I don't want to use logic.

2) Much more importantly than that, they're not generalizations and they're not stereotyping. They're patterns, and patterns form the basis for logical conclusions.

We need to look at things more rationally.

That's what I've been saying.

If after the investigation it was found that RDI, then and only then do we know that the elements were even related to the murder. Until then, all these elements do is raise and lower suspicion.

I suppose in court, that's true. But what about the investigation itself? I'm asking you seriously: what would you have done? If you were one of the investigators, and you had those elements, what would YOU do?

On a separate note, HOTYH, I've often said that if the standards you demand in this case were the law of the land, we'd have to scrap the entire legal system because no one would ever be arrested, much less convicted. How would you respond to that? It's not a trick; I just want to know.

Really, for RDI it would be up to the investigation to show that a parent intended to kill JBR.

Damn. You're serious. You have seriously piqued my interest. Are you saying that this HAD to be premeditated murder? Again, I'm just asking.

Thats because her death was determined by the coroner to be the result of asphyxiation, and there was a garrote ligature found embedded in a deep groove around her neck. Thats unmistakable evidence that SOMEONE intended to kill JBR. SOMEONE placed a cord around JBR's neck, and then fully tightened it causing petechial hemorrhages. These only happen if JBR was alive at the time.

These are the facts.

I don't believe I've ever said otherwise. But as I've said many times, just because all of that happened doesn't mean that they intended to kill her. Legally, you can't intend to kill someone if you think they're already dead. That's not just my opinion.

The oft-purported story that someone thought JBR was already dead when they strangled her exposes a certain naivety.

I'll probably regret it, but I have to ask just what you mean by that.

(A very good exchange, I think.)

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

More or less.



Hypothetically.



Yes! That cannot be forgotten.



I see what you're saying, HOTYH (at least I think I do). You don't have to explain that to me. Danielle Van Dam's parents showed that the hard way.

But what I'm saying is that those guidelines (or whatever term you may use) have come down to us because they tend to be true.



I'm not comfortable phrasing it quite that way, HOTYH. Your characterization is the story Team R would have us believe. What I'm saying is that they help keep someone's mind focused.



One, what about that other 20%? Two, how do you know those problems didn't affect them?



Dismiss it if you like, HOTYH. Experience has shown me that you will. But what you forget is that the statistics you just gave (80% of filicidal parents) apply primarily to premeditated murder. Legally, if what I think happened did happen, it wasn't premeditated.



You actually had me in your corner up to that. So, without making it too personal, let me say this:

1) I don't know where you get the idea that I don't want to use logic.

2) Much more importantly than that, they're not generalizations and they're not stereotyping. They're patterns, and patterns form the basis for logical conclusions.

That's what I've been saying.



I suppose in court, that's true. But what about the investigation itself? I'm asking you seriously: what would you have done? If you were one of the investigators, and you had those elements, what would YOU do?

On a separate note, HOTYH, I've often said that if the standards you demand in this case were the law of the land, we'd have to scrap the entire legal system because no one would ever be arrested, much less convicted. How would you respond to that? It's not a trick; I just want to know.



Damn. You're serious. You have seriously piqued my interest. Are you saying that this HAD to be premeditated murder? Again, I'm just asking.



I don't believe I've ever said otherwise. But as I've said many times, just because all of that happened doesn't mean that they intended to kill her. Legally, you can't intend to kill someone if you think they're already dead. That's not just my opinion.



I'll probably regret it, but I have to ask just what you mean by that.

(A very good exchange, I think.)

You misunderstood. According to the evidence, JBR was alive when strangled. That is the logical conclusion based on the fact there were petechial hemorrhages. The idea that whomever placed the cord around JBR's neck believed she was dead at the time is only a logical conclusion if we already knew RDI. We don't. Therefore, the idea that someone believed she was dead is a STORY deduced from a preconceived notion of guilt (circular reasoning). NOT a fact.

When we stick with the facts, the evidence shows us that JBR was strangled with a ligature while she was alive. This indicates intent on the part of someone AT THE TIME. Logically we don't know who the someone was, but we can conclude from the evidence that there was intent.

Someone had intended to kill JBR with the ligature. To come up with another conclusion is to go against core evidence.

 

[Mysteeri]

SuperDave wrote:
A lot of professionals have said that the "cruel" language was just someone trying to sound like a real bad-*.

Perhaps, but if you just accindentally killed your child and afterwards tried to sound like a bad , it seems of course disturbed.

Ok, enough of that.

(Now I`ve been thinking about the garrote and the broken paintbrush. If RDI, why use Patsys paintbrush in staging? If IDI, perhaps killing JB was not intended (the cord was for tieing), but was done because something went wrong in the kidnapping plan. She did scream, right? The killer made sure JB was dead with the headblow and the garrote made extempore in the basement. Just speculating again...)

 

[madeleine]

You misunderstood. According to the evidence, JBR was alive when strangled. That is the logical conclusion based on the fact there were petechial hemorrhages. The idea that whomever placed the cord around JBR's neck believed she was dead at the time is only a logical conclusion if we already knew RDI. We don't. Therefore, the idea that someone believed she was dead is a STORY deduced from a preconceived notion of guilt (circular reasoning). NOT a fact.

When we stick with the facts, the evidence shows us that JBR was strangled with a ligature while she was alive. This indicates intent on the part of someone AT THE TIME. Logically we don't know who the someone was, but we can conclude from the evidence that there was intent.

Someone had intended to kill JBR with the ligature. To come up with another conclusion is to go against core evidence.

I agree that strangulation came first.
Re intent,what if dr.Wecht is right and it was a sex game that went wrong.We don't know if it was intentional or not.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I agree that strangulation came first.
Re intent,what if dr.Wecht is right and it was a sex game that went wrong.We don't know if it was intentional or not.

Uh, yes we do. Its the best conclusion given the evidence. The idea that JBR's head blow or strangulation weren't deliberate are more sugar coating. Dumbing down the violence to make it seem like parents accidentally got in over their heads. Unfortunately, there's an adequate supply of evidence of the use of deadly force at the crime scene to show an intent to kill.

The coroner stated that JBR's cause of death was asphyxiation. There was a ligature found around her neck. She was alive when she was strangled. If we allow the evidence to direct us to the most obvious conclusion, then we know someone had intent to kill JBR at the time. Any other conclusion is not the most obvious.

This conclusion leads to another conclusion: Someone was knowingly using deadly force on JBR.

If someone was using deadly force on JBR already, then the most obvious conclusion for the head blow is that it was more deadly force and not an accident. These 'most obvious' conclusions seem to have a domino effect, don't they?

The ideas that someone presumed JBR to be dead when they strangled her, or that it was a accidental strangulation during a sex game, are NOT the most obvious conclusions. They are more obscure conclusions originally made up in the interests of RDI.

Justice for JBR might come more quickly if obvious conclusions are drawn from the evidence. It might be worth it at least once. After all, we've been hearing plenty about the obscure explanations for 12 years. Its very peculiar that the most obvious conclusions aren't discussed by those who claim to be interested in justice.

 

[madeleine]

Uh, yes we do. Its the best conclusion given the evidence. The idea that JBR's head blow or strangulation weren't deliberate are more sugar coating. Dumbing down the violence to make it seem like parents accidentally got in over their heads. Unfortunately, there's an adequate supply of evidence of the use of deadly force at the crime scene to show an intent to kill.

The coroner stated that JBR's cause of death was asphyxiation. There was a ligature found around her neck. She was alive when she was strangled. If we allow the evidence to direct us to the most obvious conclusion, then we know someone had intent to kill JBR at the time. Any other conclusion is not the most obvious.

This conclusion leads to another conclusion: Someone was knowingly using deadly force on JBR.

If someone was using deadly force on JBR already, then the most obvious conclusion for the head blow is that it was more deadly force and not an accident. These 'most obvious' conclusions seem to have a domino effect, don't they?

The ideas that someone presumed JBR to be dead when they strangled her, or that it was a accidental strangulation during a sex game, are NOT the most obvious conclusions. They are more obscure conclusions originally made up in the interests of RDI.

Justice for JBR might come more quickly if obvious conclusions are drawn from the evidence. It might be worth it at least once. After all, we've been hearing plenty about the obscure explanations for 12 years. Its very peculiar that the most obvious conclusions aren't discussed by those who claim to be interested in justice.

Next you'll say that there is no way that these parents were violent parents.
Why are you always saying that everything experts said before are things made up by RDI's?
There are always more versions and everybody is free to chose the one that sounds more credible to them.
If that dna is enough for you to say that it was 100% IDI,fine.Maybe I need much more in order to start believing that the R's are sweet little innocent angels .
Some people are watching movies,I prefer documentaries.In 99 out of 100,when it comes to a crime scene,when there is no evidence of an intruder then LE starts investigating family&friends.
Yeah you have that male DNA which I agree raises serious questions.But it doesn't prove who killed (or didn't kill) Jonbenet.It can't tell us if there was one killer,two ,three or 10.It doesn't tell us if the killer had accomplices or not and if it belongs to the one or other.
It doesn't tell us that the one who assaulted her is also the one who killed her.
Actually this dna raises more questions than it gives us answers.
And yes,maybe all the dna charade makes people like me even more suspicious re this "investigation".I would call it sometimes more a cover-up than an investigation.
You wanna make it so simple,there's some unknown dna(being paranoid again and thinking......is it really unknown to some?!),bingo,we know who killed her,an intruder.I don't think it works that way.

JMO

 

[madeleine]

Everybody from A-Z thinking or tending to believe it was RDI is making things up,from Dr.Wecht to Dr.Spitz to Steve Thomas ,profilers,FBI,talking heads,journos,handwriting experts,cops,the ones saying it was prior sexual abuse and everybody else,right?

The Ramsey's ,their lawyers,Smit and M.Lacy must be the only ones NOT making anything up,right?

Good.

 

[BBB167893]

You misunderstood. According to the evidence, JBR was alive when strangled. That is the logical conclusion based on the fact there were petechial hemorrhages.

Yes, we've established that. Just what part of that am I supposed to have misunderstood?

The idea that whomever placed the cord around JBR's neck believed she was dead at the time is only a logical conclusion if we already knew RDI.

I have to disagree. I can tell you from personal experience that it's the other way around.

We don't. Therefore, the idea that someone believed she was dead is a STORY deduced from a preconceived notion of guilt (circular reasoning). NOT a fact.

I can't agree with that, HOTYH. I could give a few reasons as to how I got there. But even leaving that aside for a moment, do you really expect me to believe that all of these pathologists were already on the RDI train?

When we stick with the facts, the evidence shows us that JBR was strangled with a ligature while she was alive.

For the 100th time, I'm not arguing with that.

This indicates intent on the part of someone AT THE TIME. Logically we don't know who the someone was, but we can conclude from the evidence that there was intent.

There was intent to strangle, certainly. I'm not so keen on intent to kill.

You know, you and I aren't as far apart as you make us out to be.

Someone had intended to kill JBR with the ligature.

Maybe. Maybe not.

To come up with another conclusion is to go against core evidence.

I would actually be bold enough to say that it was the core evidence that led me to my conclusion.

 

[BBB167893]

SuperDave wrote:
A lot of professionals have said that the "cruel" language was just someone trying to sound like a real bad-*.

Perhaps, but if you just accindentally killed your child and afterwards tried to sound like a bad , it seems of course disturbed.

Ok, enough of that.

That's one way of looking at it, I suppose.

(Now I`ve been thinking about the garrote and the broken paintbrush. If RDI, why use Patsys paintbrush in staging?

What else was there?

If IDI, perhaps killing JB was not intended (the cord was for tieing), but was done because something went wrong in the kidnapping plan. She did scream, right?

No one's really sure, Mysteeri. The only person who claims to have heard the scream now claims she thinks it was the "negative energy" of JB's death.

But let me ask you this: if there WAS a scream, do you really think that the killer wouldn't just clobber her and get the he** out of there?

The killer made sure JB was dead with the headblow and the garrote made extempore in the basement. Just speculating again...)

Mmm.

 

[BBB167893]

Why are you always saying that everything experts said before are things made up by RDI's?

Because that's all he has.

Everybody from A-Z thinking or tending to believe it was RDI is making things up, from Dr.Wecht to Dr.Spitz to Steve Thomas, profilers, FBI, talking heads, journos, handwriting experts, cops, the ones saying it was prior sexual abuse and everybody else,right?

The Ramsey's ,their lawyers,Smit and M.Lacy must be the only ones NOT making anything up,right?

Good.

That's the impression I get!

Justice for JBR might come more quickly if obvious conclusions are drawn from the evidence. It might be worth it at least once.

Just how do you think I went from IDI to RDI in the first place?

Its very peculiar that the most obvious conclusions aren't discussed by those who claim to be interested in justice.

Yes, I've OFTEN thought that myself. (That's all I can say without making it too personal.)

 

[Sophie]

The point about the ligature is that it some believe it may have been applied to cover up something else - for example, more than one expert thought that in view of the relatively minor injury to the throat and neck (ie. hyoid bone wasn't broken), maybe someone was trying to cover up the marks made by someone having literally lifted JBR up by her shirt. Someone also came up with the theory of that mark on JBR's face being from a ring and therefore consistent with someone twisting JBR's shirt and his or (more likely) her ring coming into contact with JBR's face. This isn't necessarily a theory to which I subscribe but take the nearest ring with jewels in and press it lightly against your hand (doesn't need that much pressure or to cause any pain) then look at an enlarged pic of that mark on JBR's face - the former will look almost like a negative of the latter.

 

[Mysteeri]

What else was there?

Well was it even necessary to use a garrote in the staging?


No one's really sure, Mysteeri. The only person who claims to have heard the scream now claims she thinks it was the "negative energy" of JB's death.

Great..

But let me ask you this: if there WAS a scream, do you really think that the killer wouldn't just clobber her and get the he** out of there?

Perhaps JB was supposed to be silenced, but instead screamed and the scream might have alerted people in the house or outside, and he panicked and made sure she wouldn`t scream again, so he struck her hard. Perhaps he got scared of carrying her outside, realized it was too risky or something like that, I don`t know. If IDI, to me it just seems that the garrote was not planned, but then again, the RN was written in the house with the R`s paper/pen, too.

Oh, and the marks on her skin-could the double marks be from a stun gun or not?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

The coroner stated that JBR's cause of death was asphyxiation. There was a ligature found around her neck. She was alive when she was strangled. If we allow the evidence to direct us to the most obvious conclusion, then we know someone had intent to kill JBR at the time. Any other conclusion is not the most obvious.

All I'm saying is that the most obvious conclusion is there was intent to kill. Importing other ideas from other aspects of the crime amounts to an override of this most obvious conclusion. Why override?

Again, it exposes a naivety to believe that there was no intent to kill JBR, what with all the lethal injuries. It truely does go against the core evidence, and for no apparent reason. Now with the unknown male DNA it really comes into question as to why anyone would still be considering that.

Because that's all he has.

What, using the most obvious conclusions when nobody else is? Thats enough for me. I don't have to speculate or invent stuff, and I wind up with a better solution.

 

[BBB167893]

What else was there?

Well was it even necessary to use a garrote in the staging?

My answer to that is two-layered.

1) Something was necessary to show an obvious cause of death (regardless of whether or not there were prior marks on the neck). A garrote makes sense in that a) it allows the killer to kill the victim with a minimum of physical contact; b) it allows them to kill without looking the victim in the face (that's a BIG one with me); and c) it kills without making a bloody mess.

2) It doesn't matter what I think was necessary. What matters is what a person in the grip of mortal fear with a pronounced fondness for theatrical dramatics would think.

No one's really sure, Mysteeri. The only person who claims to have heard the scream now claims she thinks it was the "negative energy" of JB's death.

Great..

Tell me about it!

But let me ask you this: if there WAS a scream, do you really think that the killer wouldn't just clobber her and get the he** out of there?

Perhaps JB was supposed to be silenced, but instead screamed and the scream might have alerted people in the house or outside, and he panicked and made sure she wouldn`t scream again, so he struck her hard.

Isn't that what I said?

Perhaps he got scared of carrying her outside, realized it was too risky or something like that, I don`t know. If IDI, to me it just seems that the garrote was not planned, but then again, the RN was written in the house with the R`s paper/pen, too.

Mm-hmm.

Oh, and the marks on her skin-could the double marks be from a stun gun or not?

No way. 1) Test after test has been done, and none of them were able to match the marks exactly. 2) More importantly, I OWN a stun gun. I've had myself zapped several times (BOY, the things I do for this case!) and they never looked anything like that.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

No way. 1) Test after test has been done, and none of them were able to match the marks exactly. 2) More importantly, I OWN a stun gun. I've had myself zapped several times (BOY, the things I do for this case!) and they never looked anything like that.

Wow. You ARE serious. I would never do that.

"The chance of dying after being shot by a taser or stun gun is about one in 870."

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071002073827AAmE3Gm

 

[BBB167893]

All I'm saying is that the most obvious conclusion is there was intent to kill. Importing other ideas from other aspects of the crime amounts to an override of this most obvious conclusion. Why override?

It's not overriding. It's that "holistic approach" I keep talking about.

Again, it exposes a naivety to believe that there was no intent to kill JBR, what with all the lethal injuries.

Naivete, my eye.

It truly does go against the core evidence,

I'd be more than happy to explain how it doesn't.

and for no apparent reason.

I get the feeling any reason I gave wouldn't be apparent. Makes me wonder why I bother.

What, using the most obvious conclusions when nobody else is?

Look again, HOTYH. Look at what I was referring to:

Why are you always saying that everything experts said before are things made up by RDI's?

Which is essentially the same question I asked a few posts back. I was saying that you always say those things because you haven't got any other explanation.

Granted, my response was a very petty shot below the belt, and for that I apologize. But my point remains: why not answer the lady's question?

Thats enough for me. I don't have to speculate or invent stuff, and I wind up with a better solution.

Not your best side, HOTYH. Just so you know.

 

[BBB167893]

Wow. You ARE serious. I would never do that.

"The chance of dying after being shot by a taser or stun gun is about one in 870."

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071002073827AAmE3Gm

Please, HOTYH: don't rub it in, okay? Yeah, I'm serious, all right.

 

[Becky319]

My answer to that is two-layered.


No way. 1) Test after test has been done, and none of them were able to match the marks exactly. 2) More importantly, I OWN a stun gun. I've had myself zapped several times (BOY, the things I do for this case!) and they never looked anything like that.

Snipped by me...
SD why did some folks want the body exhumed to check to see if it was taser marks if they had already done testing? Could adult skin react differently (mark differently) than a child's skin? I have read where JR had a stun gun so I always figured if it was a stun gun mark it is just another "overkill" by the Ramsey's trying to throw everyone off. As always I am interested in your opinion. Thanks.