The actual vs. desired outcome

[JMO8778]

There's no basis in truth, reality, evidence to support 'painting slings,' 'hadn't used it yet,' 'used up the roll,' or 'had a friend take it out.' Its all an invention, a rationalization, and not an explanation, as to why the cord was not found to be a household item.

an item of the same price and type of cord,from the same store,was found to be on a receipt among Patsy's purchases...cord is used for slings on paintings...Patsy was a painter.It's not hard to deduce the truth,it really isn't.
Not to mention JR asks for PP to retrieve his golf bag...do you have an explanation for that?you keep avoiding the tough questions..

If an intruder killed JBR, then the fact that the cord was not found to be a household item has an explanation: an intruder is able to bring it with him.

an intruder could bring anything with him,so why not bring the RN,already written? it was over 3 pages long...he wouldn't have wanted to scramble thru a house he wasn't familiar with,in hopes he might find enough ppr..the kids were out of school for the holidays,perhaps they wouldn't have had any ppr either.and how would he even know he would have time to write one?
and last but not least...why place the RN,such an important document to him,on the stairs,where it could be stepped on? (and it says 'listen carefully' ..an intruder wouldn't have placed it there so carelessly).It wouldn't have been placed there b/f going to get JB;he'd have to step over it,while carrying her.He wouldn't have placed it there *after getting her;he'd have to put her down for that.It doesn't add up,either way.Same way with not going out the door right there,and going to the basement instead...you're trying to make the puzzle pieces of different puzzles fit together,and it isn't working.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

an item of the same price and type of cord,from the same store,was found to be on a receipt among Patsy's purchases...cord is used for slings on paintings...Patsy was a painter.It's not hard to deduce the truth,it really isn't.

OK fine, an item of the same price and type. But it would be nice for the accident/coverup scenario to have some corroborating evidence to go along with that. Any paint sling made with the cord, the rest of the new cord roll, since the ligatures didnt use it up. Testimony from the store clerk, testimony from a friend or relative ("yeah they typically use that same type of cord for such and such a purpose"), any actual paint sling made with similar cord, anything at all actually made with any similar cord. The list of possible corroborating evidence goes on and on.

An item of the same price and type needs corroborating evidence to go along with it. Without it there's not even an indication that the cord was among household items the night of the murder. While it was blatantly obvious the pen, paper, and paintbrush were.

Not even the cord roll wrapper?

 

[JMO8778]

An item of the same price and type needs corroborating evidence to go along with it. Without it there's not even an indication that the cord was among household items the night of the murder. While it was blatantly obvious the pen, paper, and paintbrush were.

Not even the cord roll wrapper?

it's a pretty darn good indication PR bought it,and considering it's obvious the R's removed the package of size 12 underwear,then they did remove evidence,and they likely hid the wrapper as well.
but you didn't answer why JR would want his golf clubs in the middle of winter?
and what about the tape? you keeping focusing on the cord,but the tape didn't match anything either,correct?
and just how would JR KNOW there was any cord left over? he specifically makes this claim in DOI,so he must have known there was some left,and I have never seen where Thomas or any of the others have added up how much cord was on the roll that matched what he found at the store (and for the same price on PR's receipt,at that),and then said that there was x amount left over.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I'm not confused about anything, Holdon. No one can know the desired outcome of an improbable or probable Intruder so the topic is a poorly worded one, in my opinion. In this case, it is highly unlikely there even was an Intruder.

I sure don't know the desired outcome.

Its possible it was an intruder's desired outcome to take JBR alive permanently, or sadistically kill her. Its also possible it was the parents desired outcome to kill JBR, and write a fake note and add staging to make it look like intruders did it.

Its very unlikely the parents accidentally killed JBR, because there's zero indication the cord was available among household items on the night of the murder. There's many many ways the cord could've been found to be available among household items that night. Not one was found.

 

[JMO8778]

since the ligatures didnt use it up.

is there a source for this?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

is there a source for this?

If the ligatures were cut from a new roll recently purchased at the store and not yet used for the innocent purpose, as RDI rationalizes, then there would be cord left on the roll. How can there be a source for cord left on a roll that RDI invented?

As far as I'm concerned, an intruder probably only brought the cord needed for the garrote and 2nd ligature with him.

 

[JMO8778]

Its very unlikely the parents accidentally killed JBR, because there's zero indication the cord was available among household items on the night of the murder.

what about Patsy's fiber evidence,and all the other evidence as well? (the pineapple,for starters) ..that pales in comparison,and not only that,the cord just happens to match an item for the same price from the same store on one of Patsy's recent receipts? I don't believe it's coincidence.Simply saying the R's didn't do it b/c the cord wasn't proven to be there (yet it appears to have been clearly purchased recently),isn't a very strong argument.
from Proverbs 1:22: the simpleminded love simplicity,scorners delight in scorning,and fools hate knowledge.
all three describe the Ramsey Spin Team to a T.

 

[JMO8778]

If the ligatures were cut from a new roll recently purchased at the store and not yet used for the innocent purpose, as RDI rationalizes, then there would be cord left on the roll. How can there be a source for cord left on a roll that RDI invented?

you forgot the cord used in making the garrote.

As far as I'm concerned, an intruder probably only brought the cord needed for the garrote and 2nd ligature with him.

not what you said earlier,and how would he know how much to bring?

 

[DeeDee249]

As you mention, Holdon, if it is possible that an intruder removed the remaining cord/tape out with him, then you must concede that such small items could just as easily have been removed from the home by the Rs, when they left, violating standard LE procedure for residents of a home in which a murder victim is found. They should have been required to hand over the clothes they were wearing that day, as well as Christmas day, and been searched (including their coat pockets, boots, shoes, etc.) before they left. BR also should not have been allowed to leave without being searched, especially if he was bringing anything with him (like a toy or clothes) to stay at the White's. This does not imply that I belive BR had anything to do with the murder, but that such small items could easily have been hidden in his things or coat that morning when he was hurried out of the house.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

As you mention, Holdon, if it is possible that an intruder removed the remaining cord/tape out with him, then you must concede that such small items could just as easily have been removed from the home by the Rs, when they left, violating standard LE procedure for residents of a home in which a murder victim is found. They should have been required to hand over the clothes they were wearing that day, as well as Christmas day, and been searched (including their coat pockets, boots, shoes, etc.) before they left. BR also should not have been allowed to leave without being searched, especially if he was bringing anything with him (like a toy or clothes) to stay at the White's. This does not imply that I belive BR had anything to do with the murder, but that such small items could easily have been hidden in his things or coat that morning when he was hurried out of the house.

The R's could have secretly moved the cord out, and purchased the cord and brought it in. They could've purchased it for a painting sling or to kill JBR.

This isn't the problem.

The problem is that the cord cannot be factually established to be among the household items that were available on the night of the murder. In order for an accident/coverup scenario, all items had to be among household items.

The fact is that the cord cannot be shown to be among the household items. This fact drastically reduces the possibility of accident/coverup scenario.

 

[JMO8778]

The problem is that the cord cannot be factually established to be among the household items that were available on the night of the murder. In order for an accident/coverup scenario, all items had to be among household items.

says who? is this written in stone somewhere? of course they took any remaining cord and wrapper out...it was the murder weapon,unlike the pen and ppr.as far as the brush,Patsy had a those in her tote,she was an known painter,she took a class,and they were hard to deny being there..she had more than one,I'm sure.
where do you suppose the tape came from though?

 

[DeeDee249]

The R's could have secretly moved the cord out, and purchased the cord and brought it in. They could've purchased it for a painting sling or to kill JBR.

This isn't the problem.

The problem is that the cord cannot be factually established to be among the household items that were available on the night of the murder. In order for an accident/coverup scenario, all items had to be among household items.

The fact is that the cord cannot be shown to be among the household items. This fact drastically reduces the possibility of accident/coverup scenario.

No, it doesn't. If it was either all used up, or removed from the house by one of the Rs. It simply can't be stated as FACT that just because the remainder (if there was any) of those items was not found that they never were in the house before the crime. The size 12 panties weren't found either, but the R "found" them months later and sent them in to LE. So obviously they were in the house before the crime.
You'll never have a meeting of the minds on this point. Because the truth is that neither side (RDI, IDI) can prove that the tape/cord came and/or went with either one of the Rs or an intruder. BUT there is the FACT that a R receipt from a local store that carried BOTH items exists. That is enough for me to feel beyond a reasonable doubt that one of the Rs bought it. And one of them carried it out.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

No, it doesn't. If it was either all used up, or removed from the house by one of the Rs. It simply can't be stated as FACT that just because the remainder (if there was any) of those items was not found that they never were in the house before the crime.

I never said the cord wasn't in the house before the crime. The fact I stated is this: unlike the pen, paper, and paintbrush, the cord was never shown to be among the on hand household items.

 

[DeeDee249]

I never said the cord wasn't in the house before the crime. The fact I stated is this: unlike the pen, paper, and paintbrush, the cord was never shown to be among the on hand household items.

Yes, I agree, it wasn't there. But I still don't get your point. Let me try: You feel that because there was no cord and tape found in the house that it can't be linked to the house. Yet you concede that it could have been in the house before the crime.
If it was already in the house, one of the Rs bought it. The fact that it is gone afterwards means one of 2 things- all the material was used up in the crime. OR the perp brought it out of the house afterwards. It is IDI-RDI neutral. It's absence doesn't point one way or the other. It's PURCHASE points to RDI.
Keep in mind that the tape could have been taken from something else.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Yes, I agree, it wasn't there. But I still don't get your point. Let me try: You feel that because there was no cord and tape found in the house that it can't be linked to the house. Yet you concede that it could have been in the house before the crime.
If it was already in the house, one of the Rs bought it. The fact that it is gone afterwards means one of 2 things- all the material was used up in the crime. OR the perp brought it out of the house afterwards. It is IDI-RDI neutral. It's absence doesn't point one way or the other. It's PURCHASE points to RDI.
Keep in mind that the tape could have been taken from something else.

OMG

Last time, guys.

The cord was the murder weapon, right? Not the tape, pen, paper, paintbrush, or fiber, right? The cord is a very important piece of evidence. It would be Exhibit A.

Along comes accident/coverup theory. The achilles heel of this theory is that all evidence needs to be on hand the night of the murder. Pen, paper, paintbrush all shown to be on hand, so far so good. But when it comes to the important Exhibit A, the materials used to make it cannot be shown to be on hand. Its like the theory has doors, windows, tires and wheels, but no motor.

 

[Squishified]

OMG

Last time, guys.

The cord was the murder weapon, right? Not the tape, pen, paper, paintbrush, or fiber, right? The cord is a very important piece of evidence. It would be Exhibit A.

Along comes accident/coverup theory. The achilles heel of this theory is that all evidence needs to be on hand the night of the murder. Pen, paper, paintbrush all shown to be on hand, so far so good. But when it comes to the important Exhibit A, the materials used to make it cannot be shown to be on hand. Its like the theory has doors, windows, tires and wheels, but no motor.

Ahhh, I get where you're coming from. Of course me being RDI I would just sat John or Auntie Pam got rid of the cord. But you make a point. Why was the pad, pen etc. put back in it's normal place?
I'm glad you're here Holdon. You're giving me things to think about.

 

[JMO8778]

The cord was the murder weapon, right? Not the tape, pen, paper, paintbrush, or fiber, right?

I wouldn't exclude paintbrush;it was tied to the garrote.
fibers themsleves don't kill,but fiber evidence does tie Patsy to the murder scene.

Along comes accident/coverup theory. The achilles heel of this theory is that all evidence needs to be on hand the night of the murder. Pen, paper, paintbrush all shown to be on hand, so far so good. But when it comes to the important Exhibit A, the materials used to make it cannot be shown to be on hand. Its like the theory has doors, windows, tires and wheels, but no motor.

not quite.as a juror,it would convince me that: A-it matched the same type of cord found in the same store that Patsy shopped in B- it matched an item of the same price on her receipt from that same store, purchased not long before the murder,(that same month,in fact) C- cord is used for making slings for paintings D-Patsy was a known painter E- she'd recently painted F- she likely had some paintings she was going to give away for Christmas.and maybe even G-I think LHP said she'd seen the cord in the basement,not long before the murder.(someone correct me if I'm wrong).

 

[JMO8778]

Along comes accident/coverup theory. The achilles heel of this theory is that all evidence needs to be on hand the night of the murder. Pen, paper, paintbrush all shown to be on hand, so far so good. But when it comes to the important Exhibit A, the materials used to make it cannot be shown to be on hand. Its like the theory has doors, windows, tires and wheels, but no motor.

if the car was used for murder,don't you think the first thing they'd get rid of is the engine? then they could say,'hey,look.it couldn't have killed her..it doesn't even run'.
but yes,leave the pen and ppr in the car;the doors,windows and tires on..they didn't actually kill her.

 

[DeeDee249]

Last time for me, too...the cord was bought at McGuckin's just before the murder, along with the tape. Just because there was none found AFTER the crime does not mean that it wasn't ON HAND to be used in the crime. It was there. If it was removed that night by a R, that is as good an explanation as any as to why it was not found. The RN was just one page from the pad. The pad wasn't seen as important. The Rs would never have thought that any one would question why it was there. They also never thought the INK on the sharpie pen would be tested to see if it matched the ink on the note. They felt it was plausible that the "intruder" would find handy materials to write the note (as opposed to bringing a note with him, as a REAL kidnapper would). Just as it was plausble that an "intruder" could commit the crime with materials that were handy.

You feel the cord is exihibit A. Yes. But I feel your logic is flawed. The pen and pad are used multiple times in the home. The cord is used just this once to strangle a child (though bought for another, as YET unused purpose). To say that because the rest of the cord was never found that it did not belong to the home and therefore had to be brought in by someone else just is not an absolute. It could very well have been there in the paint tote.

 

[JMO8778]

Dee,yes,I agree.Holdon reminds me of my ex,in that he keeps talking like he thinks we were all born yesterday..same way JR does in DOI.