Peculiar letters from the RN

[BBB167893]

Herrnstein and Murray argued that the effect of IQ on crime, as well as other social problems, is so strong that "much of the attention now given to problems of poverty and unemployment should be shifted to . . . coping with cognitive disadvantage"

Read more: http://law.jrank.org/pages/1364/Intelligence-Crime-R-20-meaningful-correlation-size.html#ixzz0LfmzeSPX

You have GOT to be kidding me.

 

[BBB167893]

The coroner on the case NEVER said JB had prior ABUSE. Where do you get this stuff?

I know where! From Linda Arndt. She was present at the autopsy. She said in an interview that the coroner told her that JB's vaginal injuries were consistent with digital penetration and that not all of them appeared to be recent.

"Anyone is capable of violence". OK.

Damn right.

Anyone is capable of avoiding violence too. Talking things out before letting it get out of hand. Using 'cooling off' techniques.

Maybe they TRIED. Or maybe they grew up in an environment that wasn't conducive to emotional health.

I've found that violence is inversely proportional to intelligence, and I believe there is more evidence of the R's being intelligent than them being violent.

Psychopaths are some of the most intelligent, cunning people on the planet. What's your point?

Was there something I missed?

Most likely.

Was there something that happened in the R's past that would indicate to you that they are violent?

You REALLY don't want to go down that road.

The DNA can't get there innocently if there are two types of DNAfound on two separate articles of clothing.

Like you said: if there are two different types.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

This is a great almost usable profile of the ransom note author, TY again claudicci:

From: The Criminal, His Personnel, and Environment

By August Drähms, Cesare Lombroso

The Intelligence of the conventional criminal is of a low order, and verges rather upon the cunning of the savage, the simplicity of the child, and the instinctiveness of the animal. His mental grasp is narrow and feeble, and its range confined to immediate surroundings. His thoughts and groupings of ideas are illogical, as a rule; his knowledge is confined chiefly to passing events and desultory facts, with a superficial dabbling of historical and geographical data, the latter acquired usually through personal contact, for he is a great traveller. His philosophy is crude, running chiefly into quasi-political and socialistic themes (...not the country that it serves, Victory!), his ar- 7 guments bristling with sophistry and half truths, and / aimed chiefly against the rich (you're not the only fat cat...), with a recklessness of prophecy and dogmatic felicity only equalled by his ignorance of fundamental principles. The sense of right being rudimentary, and intensely unipersonal, his legal notions are held together by the straw of self- interest, and nothing will provoke a sneer so quickly as the bare mention of concrete justice. Patriotism is not a spontaneous sentiment with him. How can he love a country whose laws have been so manifestly unjust? Both his literary tastes and attainments are extremely meagre, being chiefly confined to a limited familiarity with flashy novels and such as savor of the erotic and the sanguinary (violent action movies). History, poetry, and the higher fields of literature are wholly unexplored; though there have , been exceptions among the more intelligent criminals, like Wainwright, Eugene Aram, the boy Pomeroy, and the New York murderer, Thorn, all omnivorous readers; and Rulof, who was profoundly versed in the Greek and Latin classics.

Maybe PR read up on how to write like a stupid conventional criminal? I'm sold.

 

[BBB167893]

Maybe PR read up on how to write like a stupid conventional criminal? I'm sold.

1) I hardly think that anyone would say that there's ANYTHING conventional about this case!

2) You may be more right than you know.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

You REALLY don't want to go down that road.

I don't think you can come up with even a jaywalking on that road, criminally speaking.

Then suddenly the criminality floodgates opened on Dec 25 and then closed right back up again? Super-violent child beheading fat cat killing sexual assaulting and strangling criminal for a day?

 

[BBB167893]

I don't think you can come up with even a jaywalking on that road, criminally speaking.

Who says I WAS speaking criminally?

Then suddenly the criminal floodgates opened on Dec 25 and then closed right back up again?

Not unlike a person who catches their spouse in bed with someone else. (IMO, that comparison is an apt one.)

Super-violent child beheading fat cat killing sexual assaulting and strangling criminal for a day?

HOTYH, if you want to have a serious discussion, you know I'll accomodate you. But this is not the way to get it.

 

[madeleine]

The garrote fabricated and then tied tightly around JBR's neck, combined with coroners statement that JBR asphyxiated, adequately establish intent to kill, but only to rational people capable of intelligent argument. JBR was murdered. Thats why they call it an unsolved murder, not an unsolved accident (LOL). Of course you can type almost anything else you want.

Where did I say it was an accident.The problem with you is you don't have an open mind for other possibilities.And you really don't impress me by questionning my capabilities.Being sarcastic and acting superior all the time won't do it either.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Where did I say it was an accident.The problem with you is you don't have an open mind for other possibilities.And you really don't impress me by questionning my capabilities.Being sarcastic and acting superior all the time won't do it either.

Maybe you're just missing the point.

The MAIN possibility, the one that is MOST obvious, is someone intended to kill JBR at the moment they tied the garrote tight around her neck. This possibility is fully supported by the coroner statement that she died by asphyxiation. Had the coroner instead stated she did not die by asphyxiation, RDI would actually have some weight behind the staging claim.

I have an open mind for other possibilities, they just aren't as obvious or as fully supported as the main one. Even if RDI, the idea that someone intended to kill JBR is not only the most obvious but is also fully supported by the core evidence.

Staged strangulation is contradicted by petechial hemorrhaging.

Sex games is contradicted because the garrote was tied tight and knotted around her neck, which is more consistent with an intent to kill than a sex game method.

 

[Tadpole12]

This is a great almost usable profile of the ransom note author, TY again claudicci:

From: The Criminal, His Personnel, and Environment

By August Drähms, Cesare Lombroso

The Intelligence of the conventional criminal is of a low order, and verges rather upon the cunning of the savage, the simplicity of the child, and the instinctiveness of the animal. His mental grasp is narrow and feeble, and its range confined to immediate surroundings. His thoughts and groupings of ideas are illogical, as a rule; his knowledge is confined chiefly to passing events and desultory facts, with a superficial dabbling of historical and geographical data, the latter acquired usually through personal contact, for he is a great traveller. His philosophy is crude, running chiefly into quasi-political and socialistic themes (...not the country that it serves, Victory!), his ar- 7 guments bristling with sophistry and half truths, and / aimed chiefly against the rich (you're not the only fat cat...), with a recklessness of prophecy and dogmatic felicity only equalled by his ignorance of fundamental principles. The sense of right being rudimentary, and intensely unipersonal, his legal notions are held together by the straw of self- interest, and nothing will provoke a sneer so quickly as the bare mention of concrete justice. Patriotism is not a spontaneous sentiment with him. How can he love a country whose laws have been so manifestly unjust? Both his literary tastes and attainments are extremely meagre, being chiefly confined to a limited familiarity with flashy novels and such as savor of the erotic and the sanguinary (violent action movies). History, poetry, and the higher fields of literature are wholly unexplored; though there have , been exceptions among the more intelligent criminals, like Wainwright, Eugene Aram, the boy Pomeroy, and the New York murderer, Thorn, all omnivorous readers; and Rulof, who was profoundly versed in the Greek and Latin classics.

Maybe PR read up on how to write like a stupid conventional criminal? I'm sold.

Hi Hotyh.

Thank you for posting that excerpt, providing so much to consider, and really takes me back to the base of the IDI scenarios.
What kind of individual would be responsible for so much crime at one scene ..... it wasn't a hit and run crime, and IMO no militaristic precision cr then Snafued beyond all imagination,. Either way .. if we operate on the premise that the rn was written post crime, or not.

For sure, there's so much variation between the given profiles, feminine, ethnic .....
wordy and heady, at the least, something perhaps, we can agree upon.?
A criminal mind.

As far as your tit for tat with SD, I love reading your reparte; enjoy it most when there is concession or an elimination concerning what might be a concrete fact.

There is no doubt that any RDI scenario has perfect plausibility, but given the mutual points, upon which each scenario is based, and almost superimposed, I find it difficult to pinpoint which one could be the 'true scenario'.

I know I'm missing something. My personal logic leads me to believe that 'a Ramsey did it!' (ie handwriting analysis) could be the possibility, but that's where all that I've read has lead me; to that very inexact point where the touch dna evidence negates all my assuptions.

Also I missed all the immediate and sensational coverage of JBR's murder ... and I think that's what mighta filled in allotta gaps.

Half way through ST's book, as he describes how associates of the Ramsey were reluctant 'to cooperate' and most lawyered up and gave interviews in front of witnesses, entered the interview under duck and cover in the back seat of a car ...
Shared paranoia .... plus ST abrasive approach.

Thus far, ST's book is held together by a decade of criticisms of the BPD, but his quotes from the Ramseys are brief and he is subjective, in how he applies these little blips to his hypothesis. There's not as much weight in the book as I expected, but then what did I really expect, given the realities of this case. For sure, the book's ladened with grievences.

 

[Sophie]

I know what you mean, HOTYH, but the ligature wasn't a 'garrote.' I don't know whether you have ever read Delmar English's analysis of the knots etc (available in ACandyRose) but it puts another view forward on the construction of the ligature.

The problem with premeditation and intent is that there are so many conflicting aspects of the case. The RN, alleged stun gun, tying of hands,covering of mouth and feeding with pineapple might suggest intent to kidnap. If you prove intent to kidnap, can you still prove intent to kill? Maybe. However you probabably can't prove premeditation since the death in a kidnap scenario would have to be accidental or done in a fleeting panic. And it has to be said that this points away dramatically from your SFF scenario.

Regarding the criminal floodgates opening and closing on the same day, the same argument applies to whoever killed JBR: they haven't felt the need to show their superiority over LE by repeating the offence or writing taunting letters or getting their DNA on CODIS for any other offence.

 

[BBB167893]

Had the coroner instead stated she did not die by asphyxiation, RDI would actually have some weight behind the staging claim.

Just a quick point: he came close to that, HOTYH. He said that either one would have killed her.

Staged strangulation is contradicted by petechial hemorrhaging.

Not at all, from where I am.

Sex games is contradicted because the garrote was tied tight and knotted around her neck, which is more consistent with an intent to kill than a sex game method.

Agreed. Although that rules out sex game on both sides.

HOTYH, you've given me an idea. I don't know if it's a good one, but I'm going forth anyway.

As far as your tit for tat with SD, I love reading your reparte; enjoy it most when there is concession or an elimination concerning what might be a concrete fact.

It would be nicer if I wasn't doing all the conceding!

Regarding the criminal floodgates opening and closing on the same day, the same argument applies to whoever killed JBR: they haven't felt the need to show their superiority over LE by repeating the offence or writing taunting letters or getting their DNA on CODIS for any other offence.

:clap::clap:

 

[DeeDee249]

I know where! From Linda Arndt. She was present at the autopsy. She said in an interview that the coroner told her that JB's vaginal injuries were consistent with digital penetration and that not all of them appeared to be recent.



Damn right.



Maybe they TRIED. Or maybe they grew up in an environment that wasn't conducive to emotional health.



Psychopaths are some of the most intelligent, cunning people on the planet. What's your point?



Most likely.



You REALLY don't want to go down that road.



Like you said: if there are two different types.

Thanks for taking this one, SD. I get tired of dealing with him/her. Time to use the "ignore" button.

 

[BBB167893]

Thanks for taking this one, SD.

Well, it wasn't my intent to "take" it, DeeDee. Just to pitch in.

I get tired of dealing with him/her.

I know the feeling. But I don't give up.

Time to use the "ignore" button.

Your choice, I guess.

 

[DeeDee249]

You're right. I am not one to back away from an argument. I won't give up either.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Just a quick point: he came close to that, HOTYH. He said that either one would have killed her.

Maybe you misread the autopsy report?? Because the coroner never 'came close' to stating she did not die by asphyxiation. He also did not state anywhere on the report that 'either one would have killed her'. It says:

'Cause of death of this six year old female is asphyxia by strangulation with associated craniocerebral trauma'.

What that means is JBR died from one AND the other, not one OR the other.

 

[Sophie]

Maybe you misread the autopsy report?? Because the coroner never 'came close' to stating she did not die by asphyxiation. He also did not state anywhere on the report that 'either one would have killed her'. It says:

'Cause of death of this six year old female is asphyxia by strangulation with associated craniocerebral trauma'.

What that means is JBR died from one AND the other, not one OR the other.

Actually, it says 'associated with.' Sort of minor semantic point a decent lawyer could milk from here to Kingdom Come....

 

[Mysteeri]

HoldOnToYourHat wrote:

Maybe PR read up on how to write like a stupid conventional criminal? I'm sold.

If she wrote it, that might be the case. She wrote like she thought a criminal/kidnapper would write. She chose a "foreign faction" who doesn`t like America, and is familiar with things such as executing and beheading. Did Patsy have reservations and stereotypes about foreigners? Was she very patriotic?
(Edit. OMG, I used present tense, R.I.P Patsy.)

I`m torn right now. I can understand that the big picture (and lots of details) points to RDI. When I look at some interviews of the R`s, it`s just hard to see them as murderers or staging the crime.

The DNA for me is at least enough to create reasonable doubt.

PS. About crime and intelligence, remember that correlation does not imply causation- a basic thing to remember in scientific statistical analysis. Social reality is complicated and different factors are involved in crime.

 

[madeleine]

HoldOnToYourHat wrote:

Maybe PR read up on how to write like a stupid conventional criminal? I'm sold.

If she wrote it, that might be the case. She wrote like she thought a criminal/kidnapper would write. She chose a "foreign faction" who doesn`t like America, and is familiar with things such as executing and beheading. Does Patsy have reservations and stereotypes about foreigners? Is she very patriotic?

I`m torn right now. I can understand that the big picture (and lots of details) points to RDI. When I look at some interviews of the R`s, it`s just hard to see them as murderers or staging the crime.

The DNA for me is at least enough to create reasonable doubt.

PS. About crime and intelligence, remember that correlation does not imply causation- a basic thing to remember in scientific statistical analysis. Social reality is complicated and different factors are involved in crime.

@bold
I agree,if there would be a trial right now based only on the evidence we've heard about so far I THINK I would vote R NG.But what if Henry Lee would take the stand for the prosecution explaining how that dna could have gotten there innocently?Mmm,dunno.
Until we have a face matching that dna ,a face that has NO connection whatsoever to the R's,I won't scream intruder.

 

[BBB167893]

Maybe you misread the autopsy report?? Because the coroner never 'came close' to stating she did not die by asphyxiation. He also did not state anywhere on the report that 'either one would have killed her'. It says:

'Cause of death of this six year old female is asphyxia by strangulation with associated craniocerebral trauma'.

What that means is JBR died from one AND the other, not one OR the other.

Everyone agrees that either one would have killed her, HOTYH.

 

[BBB167893]

HoldOnToYourHat wrote:

Maybe PR read up on how to write like a stupid conventional criminal? I'm sold.

If she wrote it, that might be the case. She wrote like she thought a criminal/kidnapper would write.

That's what I and a lot of other people have said.

She chose a "foreign faction" who doesn`t like America, and is familiar with things such as executing and beheading.

It's possible the writer didn't know how to spell Hizbollah or Al Qaeda or those kinds of names. The bold part refers to things that middle Americans often associate with Islamic militants. Don't forget: it was August of that year that Osama bin Laden's name and face became widely known here in the States.

Did Patsy have reservations and stereotypes about foreigners?

From what I know of her, I'd say that's likely. At least, the kind of stereotypes that a lot of people take for granted. Also, in one of her interviews, she said how odd it was for black kids to come around the neighborhood.

And the RN just happens to contain very stereotypical images of foreign terrorists. Coincidence?

Was she very patriotic?

Again, from what I know of her, she was very patriotic. And there's not a darn thing wrong with that.

I`m torn right now. I can understand that the big picture (and lots of details) points to RDI.

I seem to recall someone saying that. Darned if I can remember who it was...

When I look at some interviews of the R`s, it`s just hard to see them as murderers or staging the crime.

I understand that.

The DNA for me is at least enough to create reasonable doubt.

madeleine had something to say about that:

But what if Henry Lee would take the stand for the prosecution explaining how that dna could have gotten there innocently?Mmm,dunno.

I don't know either. Lee MIGHT make a good argument, or he might do more harm than good.

For my part, I've always believed that if the Rs were arrested, it would end in a plea-bargain. I believe that now.

PS. About crime and intelligence, remember that correlation does not imply causation- a basic thing to remember in scientific statistical analysis. Social reality is complicated and different factors are involved in crime.

It's not just that, Mysteeri. There's a difference between being intelligent and knowing what you're doing. I define it as the difference between knowledge and wisdom, and I encourage everyone to respect that difference.