Something that has been bugging me... (WARNING: GRAPHIC CONTENT)

[otg]

RDI really hinges on the prior sexual abuse.
Take that away, then there is no motivation to do everything else.
Now I understand why it is believed beyond dispute.

Not all RDI theories are based on the prior sexual abuse. And I wouldn’t go so far as to say that any RDI theory “hinges on” prior sexual abuse. But ignoring the sexual nature of what happened would be looking at it with blinders. Same with ignoring any other element of what we know happened. If you ignore the strangulation, if you ignore the head wound, if you ignore any single part of what happened... Well, you know that “ignore” is the root word of “ignorance”.

You might choose to dispute the prior part of the sexual abuse. But if you read and understand the AR, and if you trust the opinion of the only medical experts who actually saw all of the evidence presented to them from the ME, you have to consider the probability that she had been molested on other occasions. That is why I believe she was molested on other occasions prior to her death -- not because my theory “hinges on” it. In fact, take away anything that happened (in theory, or in actuality) prior to Christmas Day, 1996, and you still have (IMO) a crime that was committed because of its sexual aspect.

 

[Anti-K]

But, would it be fair to say that most RDI theories incorporate the prior abuse? After all, this is the reason RDI give for the Ramseys not reporting an accident; this is the reason RDI give for the sexual assault that occurred at or near point of death (to cover up prior). it is central to BDI theories, and even JDI theories; etc.
.

The problem as previously stated: no one has been able to say what form that abuse took (innocent play by children; sexual abuse by mother and/or father; or other; corporal punishment by mother and/or father; etc), no one has even been able to show who might have known about it, and no one has ever presented a reasonable argument for connecting the abuse to the child’s murder.

If we view evidence through theory (BAD reasoning) then we can find ways to incorporate prior abuse into the crime; but if we go at it evidence-first, then prior abuse becomes less certain and it’s connection to the crime is lost.
...

AK

 

[inspector rex]

It seems that the majority of RDI have a theory that includes inappropriate sexual contact with one of the three members of the family PRIOR to the night she died.

This being the reason that what was an accident or unintentional strangle/headbash led to the deliberate strangle/headbash.

This being the reason Patsy decided to write the RN, so that suspicion would be cast elsewhere.

And despite this, the body of the child supposedly kidnapped for ransom, was left wrapped in her blanket in the basement of her own house, presumably based on their desire for her not to be damaged by exposure.

And despite their own RN which told them not to call the Police but instead to wait a call regarding delivering the ransom, they immediately did, supposedly because they didn't want to miss their other appointments.

So I think for most RDI theories (not all probably) the sexual assualt, by one of these three prior to the night of her death, is the catalyst for what came afterwards.

 

[BBB167893]

They just needed a little doubt on their side, and their money and stature would take care of the rest. The more elaborate they stage, the more opportunity for evidence to use against them (like, say, a mistake of cutting a screen for staging from the inside instead of from the outside). Even the letter ended up a big risk- you have to believe the kidnapper sat and wrote a 3 page letter in their home with their supplies.

BBM

For my money, InstantProof, SOME people are looking for a deeper meaning than there is. I think a lot of these inconsistencies are due to nothing more than two highly agitated, under-the-gun people, with no real understanding of how real criminals operate, throwing whatever they could at the wall and seeing how many of those s**tballs would stick.

As I've said a hundred times: they didn't need to fool the cops, the DA, the FBI or the experts. They need to fool ONE person out of twelve.

 

[BBB167893]

RDI really hinges on the prior sexual abuse.
Take that away, then there is no motivation to do everything else.
Now I understand why it is believed beyond dispute.

That's HARDLY the only reason. (Although, you happen to be right.)

 

[Anti-K]

What is being discussed here is EVIDENCE, and, if RDI is true, then much of the evidence is contradictory. To say that this is the result of agitation, etc is a rationalization not supported by that evidence.

However, this rationalization is a pretty good example of a complex explanation. To rationalize the contradictions (inconsistencies, if you like) one has to say that they were panicked, confused, stupid, working against each other, inexperienced, uneducated, and so on.

But, everyone knows that kidnappers kidnap; etc. No degree of criminal sophistication or experience is required to understand this.

However, if you substitute IDI, the contradictions virtually disappear (the note/body will always be contradictory; but in IDI there are several simple explanations; ex.: kidnapper had nowhere to take victim).

There are many flavors of RDI, and BDI have no problem disproving JDI, and PDI have no problem discounting BDI, and then there’s J+PDI and... There just isn’t one scenario that satisfies and explanations become more and more complex the deeper one delves into any single possible theory. This should be telling us something. At the very least, the specter of doubt should be risen.
...

AK

 

[BBB167893]

The RDI argument that prior abuse played a role in this crime can only be made by using theory to determine the meaning and value of evidence; it’s theory-first.

Speaking for myself, you got it exactly backwards: I don't believe it because of my theory; I believe my theory because of it.

Unfortunately, no one has been able to say what form that abuse took (innocent play by children; sexual abuse by mother and/or father; or other; corporal punishment by mother and/or father; etc), no one has even been able to show who might have known about it, and no one has ever presented a reasonable argument for connecting the abuse to the child’s murder.

Actually, and forgive me if my memory is faulty, I think it was Robert Kirschner who said that, once the vaginal damage was discovered, any attempt to claim an accident would crumble.

Of course, this another thing that bugs me: if the Ramseys committed the sexual assault at or near point of death to cover up prior abuse, then why would they turn around and cover up that sexual assault? Another very clear, b & w contradiction.

IMO, the same reason Jeffrey MacDonald could give his infant daughter a bottle after he'd just butchered her. The same reason she was lovingly wrapped up afterward. The same reason the FBI told the cops: to "undo" the crime in their minds. It's psychological, Anti-K: "I didn't do it. The BAD PERSON did it."

You read me, pilgrim? Or am I just talking to myself?

 

[BBB167893]

It seems that the majority of RDI have a theory that includes inappropriate sexual contact with one of the three members of the family PRIOR to the night she died.

This being the reason that what was an accident or unintentional strangle/headbash led to the deliberate strangle/headbash.

This being the reason Patsy decided to write the RN, so that suspicion would be cast elsewhere.

And despite this, the body of the child supposedly kidnapped for ransom, was left wrapped in her blanket in the basement of her own house, presumably based on their desire for her not to be damaged by exposure.

And despite their own RN which told them not to call the Police but instead to wait a call regarding delivering the ransom, they immediately did, supposedly because they didn't want to miss their other appointments.

So I think for most RDI theories (not all probably) the sexual assault, by one of these three prior to the night of her death, is the catalyst for what came afterwards.

I don't know about the majority of RDI, but that's me, all right.

 

[Anti-K]

Speaking for myself, you got it exactly backwards: I don't believe it because of my theory; I believe my theory because of it.



Actually, and forgive me if my memory is faulty, I think it was Robert Kirschner who said that, once the vaginal damage was discovered, any attempt to claim an accident would crumble.



IMO, the same reason Jeffrey MacDonald could give his infant daughter a bottle after he'd just butchered her. The same reason she was lovingly wrapped up afterward. The same reason the FBI told the cops: to "undo" the crime in their minds. It's psychological, Anti-K: "I didn't do it. The BAD PERSON did it."

You read me, pilgrim? Or am I just talking to myself?

Robert Kirschner said that once the vaginal damage was discovered, any attempt to claim an accident would crumble. So what? Seriously.

Are we to believe that children who have been abused never fall down stairs? That their abuse somehow protects them from accidental, even critical harm? Nonsense (and, it doesn’t serve as intruder kryptonite, either).

Now, one might say that claiming an accident would not necessarily prevent discovery of prior abuse; that it could still be discovered by autopsy but this would not, could not, have any negative impact on any claim of accident.

If true, then this is just a ridiculous statement by Kiirschner.
.

To connect prior abuse to the crime we have to establish the nature of that abuse (FAIL), who was responsible for the abuse (FAIL), who knew about the abuse (FAIL); etc.
.

I am familiar with the concept of “undoing.”

If the sexual assault that occurred at or near point of death was motivated by something, anything, other than an attempt to cover up prior abuse then we could look at undoing as a possible explanation. But, if this assault was planned – yes, if it was cover up, than it was planned, it was considered, it was decided – then undoing no longer remains a viable explanation.
...

AK

 

[BBB167893]

What is being discussed here is EVIDENCE, and, if RDI is true, then much of the evidence is contradictory.

That was one of the giveaways, according to the FBI.

To say that this is the result of agitation, etc is a rationalization not supported by that evidence. However, this rationalization is a pretty good example of a complex explanation. To rationalize the contradictions (inconsistencies, if you like) one has to say that they were panicked, confused, stupid, working against each other, inexperienced, uneducated, and so on.

WHAT!?!?

Did I just read that?! You're the guy who seems hung up on finding simple explanations. How much simpler can you GET than that one?! It also happens to be the most likely. In case you haven't noticed, Anti-K, there are a lot of people in prison right now who did themselves in through their own mistakes.

I give you the simple explanation and you tell me it's an example of a complex explanation???

However, if you substitute IDI, the contradictions virtually disappear

HA!

There are many flavors of RDI, and BDI have no problem disproving JDI, and PDI have no problem discounting BDI, and then there’s J+PDI and... There just isn’t one scenario that satisfies and explanations become more and more complex the deeper one delves into any single possible theory. This should be telling us something. At the very least, the specter of doubt should be risen.[/QUOTE]

It has. But I blew it away long ago.

 

[BBB167893]

Robert Kirschner said that once the vaginal damage was discovered, any attempt to claim an accident would crumble. So what? Seriously.

Are we to believe that children who have been abused never fall down stairs? That their abuse somehow protects them from accidental, even critical harm? Nonsense (and, it doesn’t serve as intruder kryptonite, either).

Now, one might say that claiming an accident would not necessarily prevent discovery of prior abuse; that it could still be discovered by autopsy but this would not, could not, have any negative impact on any claim of accident.

If true, then this is just a ridiculous statement by Kirschner.

You're not reading me, Anti-K. I realize perfectly well that prior abuse and an accident are not mutually exclusive from a physical standpoint. What I and Kirschner and Wecht are saying, in Wecht's words, "If she had been taken to a hospital emergency room, and doctors had seen the genital evidence, the father would have been arrested."

I am familiar with the concept of “undoing.”

Could have fooled me!

 

[Anti-K]

That was one of the giveaways, according to the FBI.



WHAT!?!?

Did I just read that?! You're the guy who seems hung up on finding simple explanations. How much simpler can you GET than that one?! It also happens to be the most likely. In case you haven't noticed, Anti-K, there are a lot of people in prison right now who did themselves in through their own mistakes.

I give you the simple explanation and you tell me it's an example of a complex explanation???



HA!

There are many flavors of RDI, and BDI have no problem disproving JDI, and PDI have no problem discounting BDI, and then there’s J+PDI and... There just isn’t one scenario that satisfies and explanations become more and more complex the deeper one delves into any single possible theory. This should be telling us something. At the very least, the specter of doubt should be risen.

It has. But I blew it away long ago.[/QUOTE]

I’m not trying to find simple explanations. I am merely pointing out that, if RID is true, then much of the evidence is contradictory. As an aside, I am noting that these contradictions disappear when we consider IDI.

Also, I am noting that contradictions require explanations that are more complex than that required by no contradictions.
.

It is true that there are people in prison who did themselves in by their own mistakes. This is exactly what one should expect of someone who acts because they are panicked, or confused, stupid, working against each other, inexperienced, uneducated, and so on.

People say they couldn’t claim an accident because the prior abuse would be discovered (it was anyway, and nothing became of it). So what? As you say, there are people in prison who did themselves in by their own mistakes. And, there is nothing special about these people.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

You're not reading me, Anti-K. I realize perfectly well that prior abuse and an accident are not mutually exclusive from a physical standpoint. What I and Kirschner and Wecht are saying, in Wecht's words, "If she had been taken to a hospital emergency room, and doctors had seen the genital evidence, the father would have been arrested."



Could have fooled me!

Yeah, well that’s one opinion. I’m not impressed by it, and I don’t think it is relevant or meaningful. Its’ sort of funny. What would they arrest Mr Ramsey for? Based on what? Good grief.

Here’s the thing. The genital evidence was discovered. No one was arrested.
...

AK

 

[BBB167893]

I’m not trying to find simple explanations.

Yes, that's rather obvious at this point!

I am merely pointing out that, if RDI is true, then much of the evidence is contradictory.

Fine. Whatever.

As an aside, I am noting that these contradictions disappear when we consider IDI.

And I'm saying that's bulls**t!

It is true that there are people in prison who did themselves in by their own mistakes. This is exactly what one should expect of someone who acts because they are panicked, or confused, stupid, working against each other, inexperienced, uneducated, and so on.

RIGHT! Now we're getting somewhere.

People say they couldn’t claim an accident because the prior abuse would be discovered (it was anyway, and nothing became of it). So what? As you say, there are people in prison who did themselves in by their own mistakes. And, there is nothing special about these people.

Oh, but there is:

MONEY!

http://weknowmemes.com/tag/coyote-paying-sonic/

 

[BBB167893]

Yeah, well that’s one opinion. I’m not impressed by it, and I don’t think it is relevant or meaningful.

I'm sure YOU don't.

Its’ sort of funny. What would they arrest Mr Ramsey for? Based on what? Good grief.

How about involuntary sexual battery?

Here’s the thing. The genital evidence was discovered. No one was arrested.

There are a number of reasons for that, other than what you're implying.

 

[inspector rex]

I don't know about the majority of RDI, but that's me, all right.

Ok, you'll do if no one else wants to claim it.

So, if the prior sexual abuse is eliminated as evidence, (and let's face it, it's by no means proven) what then do you have as the beginning or motivation for RDI?

 

[BBB167893]

Ok, you'll do if no one else wants to claim it.

I don't think I like the implications of that statement. Time will tell if I'm right to be wary or not.

So, if the prior sexual abuse is eliminated as evidence, (and let's face it, it's by no means proven) what then do you have as the beginning or motivation for RDI?

Rex, I have to confess, I'm reluctant to go down this path, if for no other reason than that, at least for me, it's been proven as much as it CAN be proven.

But, for the sake of argument, let's say that it's taken out of the equation. After the head injury, I guess one scenario (and it's a limited field) is PR's theatrical nature taking over, giving her daughter (and herself, by extension) one last big pageant as a tragic victim.

 

[inspector rex]

I don't think I like the implications of that statement. Time will tell if I'm right to be wary or not.



Rex, I have to confess, I'm reluctant to go down this path, if for no other reason than that, at least for me, it's been proven as much as it CAN be proven.

But, for the sake of argument, let's say that it's taken out of the equation. After the head injury, I guess one scenario (and it's a limited field) is PR's theatrical nature taking over, giving her daughter (and herself, by extension) one last big pageant as a tragic victim.

Hmm. Not much there.

 

[InstantProof]

For me, the fact that this family cared so much about showing off and what the outside world thought about them- all the while being dysfunctional- is a huge piece of the puzzle. I think JB died as the result of their dysfunction- even if somehow by accident- and they could not bring themselves to admit to this. Add sexual abuse to the mix, and all the more reason to blame someone else. I think this is why friends were called over, to hear about the kidnapping and how they had nothing to do with what happened to JB.

 

[InstantProof]

Now, one might say that claiming an accident would not necessarily prevent discovery of prior abuse; that it could still be discovered by autopsy but this would not, could not, have any negative impact on any claim of accident.


AK

If strangulation was not part of staging then they can't claim accident. If they claim head bash was from a fall and the autopsy says it did not happen that way and there is also evidence of sexual abuse, wouldn't that lead to an arrest? For poor/ middle class parents, at least?