The ransom note & Patsy Ramsey, letter by letter.

[Charterhouse]

Your right Aunti-K, it was reasonable to believe that there was no true bill because no charges were filed.

That is what makes this so particularly heinous. That was AH plan the whole time.
No, no covering for the Ramseys here. (lol)

JMO

 

[Tawny]

The ransom note doesn’t explain why she is dead, it explains why she is absent from the home: she was kidnapped (except, she wasn’t!). Not only is the ransom note NOT an explanation for why the victim is dead, it is CONTRADICTED because the victim is dead and still in the house.
AK

RSBM

I beg to differ. The RN explicitly states that if you even tell a "stray dog", then the child will be brutally murdered.

They then proceeded to call in the cavalry with lights and sirens, and then called everyone they know to come over.

If the RN says to not tell anyone, you're going to at LEAST be discreet in who you talked to, but they chose to make it glaringly obvious that they called erryone.

"Oh no, we have called in the entire world and now tragically and unpredictably, our child has been murdered. My oh my." -Ramsey's*.

*dramatization, not an actual quote.

 

[ZBob]

RSBM

I beg to differ. The RN explicitly states that if you even tell a "stray dog", then the child will be brutally murdered.

They then proceeded to call in the cavalry with lights and sirens, and then called everyone they know to come over.

If the RN says to not tell anyone, you're going to at LEAST be discreet in who you talked to, but they chose to make it glaringly obvious that they called erryone.

"Oh no, we have called in the entire world and now tragically and unpredictably, our child has been murdered. My oh my." -Ramsey's*.

*dramatization, not an actual quote.

Well said.

Calling 911 in an out of control way where you didn't indicate that you were told not to call them never made sense. Calling 911 can be understood, just not without telling them to be stealthy.

Calling the friends and clergy immediately never made any sense, but in the context of justification for why she might end up dead it makes perfect sense. What other logic is there for calling in all the friends so quickly? I can see wanting some support, but that would in most any rational sense be after the cops came or sometime later in the day while you were waiting on the kidnappers to call. That is if it were a real kidnapping.

 

[Anti-K]

RSBM

I beg to differ. The RN explicitly states that if you even tell a "stray dog", then the child will be brutally murdered.

They then proceeded to call in the cavalry with lights and sirens, and then called everyone they know to come over.

If the RN says to not tell anyone, you're going to at LEAST be discreet in who you talked to, but they chose to make it glaringly obvious that they called erryone.

"Oh no, we have called in the entire world and now tragically and unpredictably, our child has been murdered. My oh my." -Ramsey's*.

*dramatization, not an actual quote.

The problem with this explanation is that the victim was dead hours and hours before the Ramseys called 911. If they wanted people to believe that it was the call to police that caused their daughter’s death, then the death would have to come AFTER the call to police.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Well said.

Calling 911 in an out of control way where you didn't indicate that you were told not to call them never made sense. Calling 911 can be understood, just not without telling them to be stealthy.

Calling the friends and clergy immediately never made any sense, but in the context of justification for why she might end up dead it makes perfect sense. What other logic is there for calling in all the friends so quickly? I can see wanting some support, but that would in most any rational sense be after the cops came or sometime later in the day while you were waiting on the kidnappers to call. That is if it were a real kidnapping.

Supposedly, the Ramseys panicked and they called 911 without reading the ransom note all the way through.

The ransom note is three pages. Read the first page, please: http://tinyurl.com/kwnn2hn

See? No threats.

Some people might think that after the first page they’ve read enough to know that they need help. Some people might stop right there and make that call. Some people wouldn’t get past “we have you daughter in our possession.” I have no idea what I would do, but what I would do – or what you would do - has no meaning here.

Re: calling other people. I’ve encountered a fair number of people over the years who claim that they would do exactly as the Ramseys. I don’t know why, but it is the sort of thing that one does when they are acting without thinking – panicked. I know some think that they did this because the arrival of others would help to destroy or confuse the crime scene. If this were the case, then they needed to call those other people FIRST, and then call the police. Otherwise, the police show up first (they did!) and, possibly, the police don’t let anyone else into the home (they shouldn’t have!).
...

AK

 

[gramcracker]

"supposedly" being the operative word. and someone other than PR/JR having created the note being the operative assumption

I've encountered a fair number of people over the years who claim that knowing the threats follow the first page made it a no-brainer for the guilty parties to aver that they read only the first page

I've encountered a fair number of people over the years who claim that, because there was another child in the house, they would have read the entire note to see if the other child was mentioned in any way

but since the only actions/reactions that matter are those of PR/JR, their behavior (given the eventual outcome) is just one strand in the rope of circumstantial evidence. losing one strand doesn't weaken a rope of numerous strands

YMMV (your mileage may vary) :wink:

 

[Nom de plume]

“I think that counsels’ problem is that they misconceive what circumstantial evidence is all about. Circumstantial evidence is not, as they claim, like a chain. You could have a chain spanning the Atlantic Ocean from Nova Scotia to Bordeaux, France, consisting of millions of links, and with one weak link that chain is broken.

“Circumstantial evidence to the contrary, is like a rope. And each fact is a strand of that rope. And as the prosecution piles one fact upon another we add strands and we add strength to that rope. If one strand breaks – and I’m not conceding for one moment that any strand has broken in this case – but if one strand does break, the rope is not broken. The strength of the rope is barely diminished. Why? Because there are so many other strands of almost steel-like strength that the rope is still more than strong enough to bind these two defendants to justice. That’s what circumstantial evidence is all about.”
-Vincent Bugliosi

 

[Mama2JML]

Circumstantial evidence is based upon fact. What facts prove RDI?

 

[Linda7NJ]

Circumstantial evidence is based upon fact. What facts prove RDI?

The more important question at this stage is what fact proves they didn't?

There are countless people here that know more about this case than I ...a ton of evidence has been discussed to death. It's my opinion that until you've sifted through the majority of it....an opinion of an IDI should be left open. IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Mama2JML]

The more important question at this stage is what fact proves they didn't?

Good point, but the U.S. justice system doesn't require proof of innocence.

There are countless people here that know more about this case than I ...a ton of evidence has been discussed to death.

The facts don't prove RDI.

It's my opinion that until you've sifted through the majority of it....an opinion of an IDI should be left open. IMO

Likewise, RDI opinions should be flexible. Theories should accommodate the facts. Facts can't be adjusted, but theories are intended to be tested & to evolve...

 

[Linda7NJ]

Good point, but the U.S. justice system doesn't require proof of innocence.

The facts don't prove RDI. Likewise, RDI opinions should be flexible. Theories should accommodate the facts. Facts can't be adjusted, but theories are intended to be tested & to evolve...

Lucky for us this isn't a court of law and we need not burden ourselves with anything other than a search for the truth. We don't need to carry the burden.

Unfortunately nothing has been officially proven in court. I can't settle on which Ramsey did what & when. That was and remains to be their great accomplishment.

Unfortunately ...for the Ramsey's the IDI theory IMO is built on a house of cards that crashed long ago.

All IMO

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tezi]

Lucky for us this isn't a court of law and we need not burden ourselves with anything other than a search for the truth. We don't need to carry the burden.

Unfortunately nothing has been officially proven in court. I can't settle on which Ramsey did what & when. That was and remains to be their great accomplishment.

Unfortunately ...for the Ramsey's the IDI theory IMO is built on a house of cards that crashed long ago.

All IMO

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, it did, about January 1, 1997 when they went on CNN.

JMO

 

[DeeDee249]

The problem with this explanation is that the victim was dead hours and hours before the Ramseys called 911. If they wanted people to believe that it was the call to police that caused their daughter’s death, then the death would have to come AFTER the call to police.
...

AK

Why? No one else knew she was dead. The Rs were certainly not thinking about forensics- rigor mortis arcs, algor mortis, etc. It has no bearing on the fact she was already dead. If her death had come after the 911 call, she would have been in a very different state of rigor. When her death occurred had no bearing on what they wanted people to believe. She was DEAD. End of story. And they had no way to explain why. They could not say what really happened, so they cooked up a kidnapping. But- a real Kidnapper does not leave victims behind- even a body can be ransomed. She was in the basement dead- they could not or would not take her somewhere else and dump her and at some point she had to be "found". The note gives the perfect excuse why she was killed- because they disobeyed the note.

 

[Anti-K]

“I think that counsels’ problem is that they misconceive what circumstantial evidence is all about. Circumstantial evidence is not, as they claim, like a chain. You could have a chain spanning the Atlantic Ocean from Nova Scotia to Bordeaux, France, consisting of millions of links, and with one weak link that chain is broken.

“Circumstantial evidence to the contrary, is like a rope. And each fact is a strand of that rope. And as the prosecution piles one fact upon another we add strands and we add strength to that rope. If one strand breaks – and I’m not conceding for one moment that any strand has broken in this case – but if one strand does break, the rope is not broken. The strength of the rope is barely diminished. Why? Because there are so many other strands of almost steel-like strength that the rope is still more than strong enough to bind these two defendants to justice. That’s what circumstantial evidence is all about.”
-Vincent Bugliosi

This is a nice quote and all, and Bugliosi is dead-on, but, the circumstantial evidence against the Ramseys is nothing like the sort of circumstantial evidence Bugliosi refers to.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Lucky for us this isn't a court of law and we need not burden ourselves with anything other than a search for the truth. We don't need to carry the burden.

Unfortunately nothing has been officially proven in court. I can't settle on which Ramsey did what & when. That was and remains to be their great accomplishment.

Unfortunately ...for the Ramsey's the IDI theory IMO is built on a house of cards that crashed long ago.

All IMO

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Truth cannot be found, or, at least, it cannot be demonstrated without meeting the burden of proof.
...

AK

 

[Anti-K]

Why? No one else knew she was dead. The Rs were certainly not thinking about forensics- rigor mortis arcs, algor mortis, etc. It has no bearing on the fact she was already dead. If her death had come after the 911 call, she would have been in a very different state of rigor. When her death occurred had no bearing on what they wanted people to believe. She was DEAD. End of story. And they had no way to explain why. They could not say what really happened, so they cooked up a kidnapping. But- a real Kidnapper does not leave victims behind- even a body can be ransomed. She was in the basement dead- they could not or would not take her somewhere else and dump her and at some point she had to be "found". The note gives the perfect excuse why she was killed- because they disobeyed the note.

I’m not sure which flavor of RDI you are, but most of the RDI that I’ve “chatted” with all claim that the Ramseys performed certain acts because they somehow knew that an autopsy would reveal certain things and these were things they didn’t want known, or needed to explain. So, if you are one of those, than your argument that the Ramseys would not have considered that an autopsy would show that the child was dead hours before the 911 call rings false.
...

AK

 

[Nom de plume]

This is a nice quote and all, and Bugliosi is dead-on, but, the circumstantial evidence against the Ramseys is nothing like the sort of circumstantial evidence Bugliosi refers to.
...

AK

Your opinion, which is not shared by the vast majority of this forum, or the country.

 

[Anti-K]

Your opinion, which is not shared by the vast majority of this forum, or the country.

Bugliosi is talking about a circumstantial case of sufficient strength to establish guilt. In this case, there isn’t even a circumstantial case strong enough to support a charge, never mind establish guilt!
...

AK

 

[Mama2JML]

I haven't found a more recent poll. This data was collected prior to the 10 marker + amel DNA profile's CODIS submission and WELL before discovery of the two matching TDNA profiles. I imagine the evidentiary DNA had an impact on public opinion. FWIW, I only feel like I'm in the minority @ WS/FFJ & Topix. :dunno:

"FOX News/Opinion Dynamics Poll.
Latest: Dec. 12-13, 2001.
N=900 registered voters nationwide.
MoE ± 3.

"On December 26, 1996, the body of six-year-old JonBenet Ramsey was found in the basement of the family's home. Do you think her parents were involved in her murder?"
12/01 10/99 2/99 11/98 8/97 3/97
% % % % % %
Yes 53 49 56 60 51 54
No 14 15 9 13 13 14
Not sure 33 36 35 27 36 32

.

"Do you think we will ever know what happened to JonBenet Ramsey?"
12/01 10/99 2/99 11/98 4/98 12/97
% % % % % %
Yes 15 23 15 21 25 29
No 72 62 73 68 64 59
Not sure 13 15 12 11 11 12


The Gallup Poll. Latest: March 17-19, 2000. N=1,024 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
.

"Do you think the case involving the murder of JonBenet Ramsey will ever be solved, or not?"
3/00 12/97 11/97
% % %
Will be 24 31 32
Will not be 66 58 56
No opinion 10 11 12
.

"Do you, personally, have an opinion about who murdered JonBenet Ramsey?"
%
Yes 33
No 65
No opinion 2
.

Asked of those who answered "Yes" to preceding question (N=337; MoE +/- 6):
"Just your opinion: Who do you think killed JonBenet Ramsey?"
%
Both parents 30
Mother 17
Father 11
Brother 9
Total stranger 5
Disgruntled employee 1
Other 19
No opinion 8"​

Source: http://www.pollingreport.com/news4.htm

Tawny, are you aware of more recent national polls?

 

[borndem]

“I think that counsels’ problem is that they misconceive what circumstantial evidence is all about. Circumstantial evidence is not, as they claim, like a chain. You could have a chain spanning the Atlantic Ocean from Nova Scotia to Bordeaux, France, consisting of millions of links, and with one weak link that chain is broken.

“Circumstantial evidence to the contrary, is like a rope. And each fact is a strand of that rope. And as the prosecution piles one fact upon another we add strands and we add strength to that rope. If one strand breaks – and I’m not conceding for one moment that any strand has broken in this case – but if one strand does break, the rope is not broken. The strength of the rope is barely diminished. Why? Because there are so many other strands of almost steel-like strength that the rope is still more than strong enough to bind these two defendants to justice. That’s what circumstantial evidence is all about.”
-Vincent Bugliosi

bbm

That's it, Nom de plune, that's IT!! Ever since I saw/read/heard that from Bugliosi, I have never forgotten it. So simple, yet so very important.

That is my mantra whenever I read a book about a true crime or follow one on here. The PT must make a rope using each piece of evidence as a piece of rope. Build it, build it, build it, until it can attach the crime to the defendant in an unbreakable way. Each juror may have a strand or two that he/she discards due to this or that, but in the end, a good solid case can withstand a few strands being discarded.

How I wish every judge in every courtroom would simply say this to every jury out there at the beginning of the trial & in closing arguments -- I really think this would help them understand what "circumstantial evidence" is & how it must be considered.

Thanks for reminding us!