Was Burke involved?

[otg]

On the issue of Hunter’s affidavit being written originally by Wood, this is not that unusual in cases where a judgment has been issued in a civil case, and the judge in the case doesn’t want to have to sit down and write out the order, so one of the attorneys (usually the one who has won the case) writes it for the parties involved. After writing, it is submitted to the opposing counsel who either agrees to it as written, or suggests changes to reflect the judge’s opinion as they each understand it. If they can’t agree on certain points, they each submit an order to be read and decided on by the judge. The judge can then agree on either one of them as being what his judgment was, or he can even edit one of them before he signs it.

This is what I know about from my own experience. But I am not an attorney, and I claim no special knowledge. Ginja is a poster at FFJ who is a lawyer, and she explains this same thing from her legal training and experience. Her post on the subject can be read [ame="http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showpost.php?p=55630&postcount=16"]here[/ame] (http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showpost.php?p=55630&postcount=16). (Also on a side note, if you read some of the other posts at FFJ and didn’t know, EasyWriter is Delmar England who died May 29, 2010.)

But the above is in a civil case judgment, which this was not, and Hunter was not part of any the civil suits brought by Wood on behalf of Burke. My opinion about the circumstances, knowing what was going on at the time (and with the added knowledge of what happened afterwards), is this:

Wood wanted to sue the media sources who reported that Burke was being looked at by investigators as being involved in JonBenet’s death. But he had no case to pursue if it was true (and there should be no doubt, it was). So he did a little sleight of hand by getting Hunter (who by this time had had enough and was ready to retire -- he was also having family problems himself) to agree to confirm certain “facts” about the investigation. One fact that has to be considered is that, because of his age, Burke could not be considered responsible for any criminal act because of the way Colorado law is written. According to their statutes, a child under the age of 10 does not have the ability to form “criminal intent”. And without “criminal intent”, there is no “crime” -- simply something that happened. So while investigators could look at whether or not he might have caused the result (a death), he could never be considered a “suspect” of having committed “murder”, or any other “criminal act” (manslaughter, negligent homicide, wrongful death, etc.).

Wood knew this, and that’s the reason for his asking Hunter to sign an affidavit to that effect. Hunter was under no obligation to do so since he was not involved in any civil litigation. Maybe he told Wood he didn’t have the time to do something like that, and Wood said, “No problem -- I’ll write it out for you and all you have to do is sign it.” Again, Hunter was under no obligation to do it, but for some reason (???) he agreed -- probably with the understanding that he would edit the statement so it only conceded what he was able to state. Consider that his doing this was just a “favor” for another lawyer who had a great deal to gain by suing for compensation. Did Hunter get anything in return for this “favor”? Were any of his subsequent trips to Hawaii paid for or furnished by someone else? Was his early retirement nest egg “enhanced” in some way at just the opportune moment? I wouldn’t think to suggest such a thing. Not me (but some might). Is Hunter’s doing it questionable? Absolutely. Is it legal malfeasance? Only if it had been challenged -- and it wasn’t, except by some in forum chatter.

BTW, Hunter signed the affidavit in October, 2000. He had already announced in March of the same year that he would not be seeking reelection, and would retire at the end of his current term. Lacy was elected November, 2000, and began “serving” on January 9, 2001. The lawsuits against different media outlets began getting “settled” in the first part of 2001. I’m certain Hunter’s affidavit contributed to making some of them fold.

Now with all this background in perspective, go back and read the “marked up” version of what Hunter signed (I’ll post links at the bottom for reference here on WS). Pay attention to what is said, what is crossed out, and what was crossed out and then okayed. When you do this, pay particular attention to the use of the words murder(ed), homicide, involvement, suspect/witness, and plea bargain negotiations, and remember that according to Colorado statutes as a child under the age of 10, he could never be considered capable of a criminal act even if he caused the result.

Oh, and just one more comment: I'm not trying to say that this in itself lends credence to the BDI theory. I'm simply passing on actual real information to show why it is incorrect to say that his "involvement" was never even considered by investigators because of Hunter's affidavit.

 

[bettybaby00]

On the issue of Hunter’s affidavit being written originally by Wood, this is not that unusual in cases where a judgment has been issued in a civil case, and the judge in the case doesn’t want to have to sit down and write out the order, so one of the attorneys (usually the one who has won the case) writes it for the parties involved. After writing, it is submitted to the opposing counsel who either agrees to it as written, or suggests changes to reflect the judge’s opinion as they each understand it. If they can’t agree on certain points, they each submit an order to be read and decided on by the judge. The judge can then agree on either one of them as being what his judgment was, or he can even edit one of them before he signs it.

This is what I know about from my own experience. But I am not an attorney, and I claim no special knowledge. Ginja is a poster at FFJ who is a lawyer, and she explains this same thing from her legal training and experience. Her post on the subject can be read here (http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showpost.php?p=55630&postcount=16). (Also on a side note, if you read some of the other posts at FFJ and didn’t know, EasyWriter is Delmar England who died May 29, 2010.)

But the above is in a civil case judgment, which this was not, and Hunter was not part of any the civil suits brought by Wood on behalf of Burke. My opinion about the circumstances, knowing what was going on at the time (and with the added knowledge of what happened afterwards), is this:

Wood wanted to sue the media sources who reported that Burke was being looked at by investigators as being involved in JonBenet’s death. But he had no case to pursue if it was true (and there should be no doubt, it was). So he did a little sleight of hand by getting Hunter (who by this time had had enough and was ready to retire -- he was also having family problems himself) to agree to confirm certain “facts” about the investigation. One fact that has to be considered is that, because of his age, Burke could not be considered responsible for any criminal act because of the way Colorado law is written. According to their statutes, a child under the age of 10 does not have the ability to form “criminal intent”. And without “criminal intent”, there is no “crime” -- simply something that happened. So while investigators could look at whether or not he might have caused the result (a death), he could never be considered a “suspect” of having committed “murder”, or any other “criminal act” (manslaughter, negligent homicide, wrongful death, etc.).

Wood knew this, and that’s the reason for his asking Hunter to sign an affidavit to that effect. Hunter was under no obligation to do so since he was not involved in any civil litigation. Maybe he told Wood he didn’t have the time to do something like that, and Wood said, “No problem -- I’ll write it out for you and all you have to do is sign it.” Again, Hunter was under no obligation to do it, but for some reason (???) he agreed -- probably with the understanding that he would edit the statement so it only conceded what he was able to state. Consider that his doing this was just a “favor” for another lawyer who had a great deal to gain by suing for compensation. Did Hunter get anything in return for this “favor”? Were any of his subsequent trips to Hawaii paid for or furnished by someone else? Was his early retirement nest egg “enhanced” in some way at just the opportune moment? I wouldn’t think to suggest such a thing. Not me (but some might). Is Hunter’s doing it questionable? Absolutely. Is it legal malfeasance? Only if it had been challenged -- and it wasn’t, except by some in forum chatter.

BTW, Hunter signed the affidavit in October, 2000. He had already announced in March of the same year that he would not be seeking reelection, and would retire at the end of his current term. Lacy was elected November, 2000, and began “serving” on January 9, 2001. The lawsuits against different media outlets began getting “settled” in the first part of 2001. I’m certain Hunter’s affidavit contributed to making some of them fold.

Now with all this background in perspective, go back and read the “marked up” version of what Hunter signed (I’ll post links at the bottom for reference here on WS). Pay attention to what is said, what is crossed out, and what was crossed out and then okayed. When you do this, pay particular attention to the use of the words murder(ed), homicide, involvement, suspect/witness, and plea bargain negotiations, and remember that according to Colorado statutes as a child under the age of 10, he could never be considered capable of a criminal act even if he caused the result.

Oh, and just one more comment: I'm not trying to say that this in itself lends credence to the BDI theory. I'm simply passing on actual real information to show why it is incorrect to say that his "involvement" was never even considered by investigators because of Hunter's affidavit.

Great post...ITA, it's all in the specific language. Even more interesting to me was the line that read...

"6. From December 26th, 1996, to the date of this affidavit, no evidence has ever been developed in the investigation to justify elevating Burke Ramsey's status from that of witness to suspect."

And I'll re quote myself

"No evidence has ever been developed" is not the same as "there is no evidence."

Again, just like his statement at the conclusion of the GJ, he appears to be saying one thing specifically, yet upon closer inspection he's not really saying it at all, IMO

Also, much like MLs exoneration, LW was then able to waive these documents around
and claim...."See, we told you, I even have "official proof."

:banghead::banghead::banghead:

I also found very interesting the quote from CW that another poster linked to in the CW theory thread.

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10339129&postcount=141"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - Cyril Wecht's theory of the murder[/ame]

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

The thing is that even if Burke was under age if they thought he did it he would still be a suspect and the case would have been solved. The end.

It has nothing to do with his age but that he did not commit the crime. There was no evidence of him committing the crime.

Just like recently the case where the 8 yr old killed his grandmother. He can't be charged but it was solved because he did it.

There is no evidence of Burke committing the crime. Especially with some of the intricate scenarios that are bantered about. IMO


Forgive the autocorrect. Tapatalk has a mind of its own.

 

[Mama2JML]

The thing is that even if Burke was under age if they thought he did it he would still be a suspect and the case would have been solved. The end.

It has nothing to do with his age but that he did not commit the crime. There was no evidence of him committing the crime.

Just like recently the case where the 8 yr old killed his grandmother. He can't be charged but it was solved because he did it.

There is no evidence of Burke committing the crime. Especially with some of the intricate scenarios that are bantered about. IMO

You're right. IMHO.

BDIs, If we are wrong, PLEASE share with us, the forensic evidence that implicates Burke Ramsey. Physically, is it likely a 9 (OR 10) year old, could have dealt the fatal blow? Where is his DNA? (Aside from the nightgown's TDNA.) Where are his prints? ...fibers? ...handwriting? AND, how should we reconcile the unsourced human hair, DNA, fibers, and prints?

 

[UKGuy]

You're right. IMHO.

BDIs, If we are wrong, PLEASE share with us, the forensic evidence that implicates Burke Ramsey. Physically, is it likely a 9 (OR 10) year old, could have dealt the fatal blow? Where is his DNA? (Aside from the nightgown's TDNA.) Where are his prints? ...fibers? ...handwriting? AND, how should we reconcile the unsourced human hair, DNA, fibers, and prints?

Mama2JML,
mmm, your protestation makes the case itself! If its BDI and the parents wish to hide this from you, then they will invent some scenario that distances BR, simples.

Your error in reasoning, well a compound one, is to assert that an absence of forensic evidence is evidence of complete absence!

How can you demonstrate that the wine-cellar was not staged to eliminate BR from the proceedings?

Answers on a postcard to the Ramsey charity for neglected children.


.

 

[DeDee]

On the issue of Hunter’s affidavit being written originally by Wood, this is not that unusual
<RSBM>

Wood wanted to sue the media sources who reported that Burke was being looked at by investigators as being involved in JonBenet’s death. But he had no case to pursue if it was true (and there should be no doubt, it was). So he did a little sleight of hand by getting Hunter (who by this time had had enough and was ready to retire -- he was also having family problems himself) to agree to confirm certain “facts” about the investigation. One fact that has to be considered is that, because of his age, Burke could not be considered responsible for any criminal act because of the way Colorado law is written. According to their statutes, a child under the age of 10 does not have the ability to form “criminal intent”. And without “criminal intent”, there is no “crime” -- simply something that happened. So while investigators could look at whether or not he might have caused the result (a death), he could never be considered a “suspect” of having committed “murder”, or any other “criminal act” (manslaughter, negligent homicide, wrongful death, etc.).

Wood knew this, and that’s the reason for his asking Hunter to sign an affidavit to that effect. Hunter was under no obligation to do so since he was not involved in any civil litigation. Maybe he told Wood he didn’t have the time to do something like that, and Wood said, “No problem -- I’ll write it out for you and all you have to do is sign it.” Again, Hunter was under no obligation to do it, but for some reason (???) he agreed -- probably with the understanding that he would edit the statement so it only conceded what he was able to state. Consider that his doing this was just a “favor” for another lawyer who had a great deal to gain by suing for compensation. Did Hunter get anything in return for this “favor”? Were any of his subsequent trips to Hawaii paid for or furnished by someone else? Was his early retirement nest egg “enhanced” in some way at just the opportune moment? I wouldn’t think to suggest such a thing. Not me (but some might). Is Hunter’s doing it questionable? Absolutely. Is it legal malfeasance? Only if it had been challenged -- and it wasn’t, except by some in forum chatter.

BTW, Hunter signed the affidavit in October, 2000. <RSBM>

Now with all this background in perspective, go back and read the “marked up” version of what Hunter signed (I’ll post links at the bottom for reference here on WS). Pay attention to what is said, what is crossed out, and what was crossed out and then okayed. When you do this, pay particular attention to the use of the words murder(ed), homicide, involvement, suspect/witness, and plea bargain negotiations, and remember that according to Colorado statutes as a child under the age of 10, he could never be considered capable of a criminal act even if he caused the result.

<tiny snip> I'm simply passing on actual real information to show why it is incorrect to say that his "involvement" was never even considered by investigators because of Hunter's affidavit.

Keywords in Italics were helpful. Also of note, after hearing two years of testimony, the GJ reached a conclusion soon after BRs video interviews were shown. AH was chicken chit. Lin Wood and RST was a force to be reckoned with. Whether AH believed BR was a killer, nah. Prob not. Did AH want to wash his hands of the whole case? Yea. Prob so.

Although the GJ never knew it was there, BRs tDNA on JBRs Barbie nightgown kinda needs to be accounted for. When did she last wear it? Dec. 22nd? 23rd? Would the white blanket get washed on the 23rd and did LHP not realize the pink gown was clinging w/the blanket in the basement dryer when she departed on the 23rd after the party? Then, explain BRs tDNA on the pk gown if it's fresh and clean from the clothes dryer.

Furthermore, otg, I will go so far as to meet your theory in the house with PR, BR and JBR together in one space at one time between 10:00 and 1:30. Prob on the 1st floor during the nibbling of pineapple at the breakfast table. I say JR takes BR to bed. PR goes to the second floor to pretend to pack for all of them and their trips. They had their own jet, you know. Yes, PR was a braggart. And a killer. And she's dead. And so is her daughter. JR, BR and so forth, live on. Karma. C'est la vie.

JR spent his fortune buying PR and himself freedom and, just as costly, to secrete the truth from being shouted from the mountain tops. From JRs pot of gold to the silver lined pockets of the legal brigade led by Wood; 'twas what kept the Rs out of jail. Wood once boasted to Darnay Hoffman that he made more money from the Ramsey case in a couple of months than Darnay would earn during a lifetime of defense work or words similar. Ouch. Later, DH COD was ruled suicide.

Do you have an opinion of if BR left his Hi-Tech shoeprints on the moldy floor in the WC concrete room hellhole? IIRC, shoe print measured size 8 1/2.

Is the reason the head blow occurs, in your theory, because 9yo Burke wishes to quieten her scream(s) as he is about to rape his sister whom he has placed in binds? Or they are playing doctor but accidentally the cord chokes JBR. BR tells the parents, who do, what they did.

I cannot yet leap to BR initially placing the cord in a knot around JBRs neck and an accident occurring. That forces the alarmed parents into the CS picture within minutes and no later. The knots. I can envision BR fashioning knots. It is what guys do in Boulder when they climb rock. Evidence of knot practicing is the wire found outside the basement windows of the room next to the WC concrete hellhole. And another wire was discovered in the WC near the body.

OMO

 

[Mama2JML]

Mama2JML,
mmm, your protestation makes the case itself! If its BDI and the parents wish to hide this from you, then they will invent some scenario that distances BR, simples.

Where's the science, UKGuy?

Your error in reasoning, well a compound one, is to assert that an absence of forensic evidence is evidence of complete absence!

We all acknowledge Burke was present, in his home, 12.25/6.96, right? Yet, there exists no forensic evidence linking him to the victim. Sooo, why is there forensic evidence indicating the presence of someone other than a Ramsey? (Someone who would have difficulty selling an innocent explanation to the general public.)

How can you demonstrate that the wine-cellar was not staged to eliminate BR from the proceedings?

How can you demonstrate the remainder of the home was not staged to eliminate an intruder from the proceedings???

Answers on a postcard to the Ramsey charity for neglected children.


.

Sounds good to me.

 

[Anti-K]

BBM

Where's the science, UKGuy?

We all acknowledge Burke was present, in his home, 12.25/6.96, right? Yet, there exists no forensic evidence linking him to the victim. Sooo, why is there forensic evidence indicating the presence of someone other than a Ramsey? (Someone who would have difficulty selling an innocent explanation to the general public.)

How can you demonstrate the remainder of the home was not staged to eliminate an intruder from the proceedings???

Sounds good to me.

We could argue that this is what happened: the intruder staged a scene to eliminate his presence from the scene.
...

AK

 

[bettybaby00]

Mama2JML,
mmm, your protestation makes the case itself! If its BDI and the parents wish to hide this from you, then they will invent some scenario that distances BR, simples.

Your error in reasoning, well a compound one, is to assert that an absence of forensic evidence is evidence of complete absence!

How can you demonstrate that the wine-cellar was not staged to eliminate BR from the proceedings?

Answers on a postcard to the Ramsey charity for neglected children.


.

I don't get the BBM :blushing:

As for evidence, there has been plenty of things documented in this thread, I'm not going to rehash it all.

I will say, however, that an important aspect for BDI, for me anyway, is that given the evidence we do have, coupled with the Rs behavior(s) Kolar's theory makes sense. IMO

It's also important to consider that having the access he did, he knows a hell of a lot more then we do. In addition Kolar notes...

My review of the investigation revealed that little attention had been paid to Burke Ramsey’s possible involvement in the events of December 25th and 26th.
From the outset of this investigation, the Ramsey family appeared to have gone to great lengths to distance Burke from Boulder Police investigators.

All he wanted was the support to examine this angle (Burke/family) more fully...
Especially given how he had shown that the LS intruder theory didn't really stand up under close scrutiny...but instead, he came to fully realize how entrenched the DAs office was in their convictions of IDI...

I believed wholeheartedly that this was a viable investigative lead that deserved pursuit. If nothing came of it, then at least we could say that we had covered all of our bases. Mary Lacy’s response is something that I will have difficulty ever forgetting. She told me that she was unwilling to pursue that lead because she ‘didn’t want to harm her relationship with the Ramsey family.’

If that one singular statement by ML doesn't convince people that there was/is something seriously wrong with the way this investigation was handled, nothing will.

All MOO, Etc., etc.

 

[UKGuy]

Where's the science, UKGuy?

We all acknowledge Burke was present, in his home, 12.25/6.96, right? Yet, there exists no forensic evidence linking him to the victim. Sooo, why is there forensic evidence indicating the presence of someone other than a Ramsey? (Someone who would have difficulty selling an innocent explanation to the general public.)

How can you demonstrate the remainder of the home was not staged to eliminate an intruder from the proceedings???

Sounds good to me.

Mama2JML,
Science, what science, do you require confirmatory or discomfirmatory science?

Sooo, why is there forensic evidence indicating the presence of someone other than a Ramsey?

Presence as in a spectral being or a real live human being? Now what forensic evidence do you know about that places someone other than a Ramsey at the crime-scene?

Hopefully its not the touch-dna, which could have arrived there by multiple routes, i.e. the touch-dna could have arrived on the longjohns by secondary transfer then fallen into the longjohns as she was being redressed.

Have you read the report outlining all the touch-dna found on her longjohns that was matched to the Ramseys, along with that of her size-12's?

We have BR's fingerprints on the breakfast bar artifacts which place him there that night.

Thats no different from your touch-dna, so why dont you accept that?

Then there is BR's touch-dna found on the Pink Barbie Nightgown which was deposited into the wine-cellar.

Also we have the R's themselves conceding that BR was awake and present during the 911 call, and that subsequently he faked being asleep.

Also we have Fleet White spiriting BR out of the house early that morning, why so? I reckon it was to avoid any leading questions and BR slipping up, he knew too much!

So BR was sidelined, next up was PR who was medicated and then sent off to the Stine's.

This is a damage limitation exercise, once it was completed JR needed to fly interstate on some important business matters.

There is a lot of behavioural science in the above examples, granted no smoking gun, but to date nobody has ever been linked the touch-dna found on JonBenet.

This case is not IDI, a preliminary review of the evidence confirms this, so we are left with RDI.


.

 

[UKGuy]

I don't get the BBM :blushing:

As for evidence, there has been plenty of things documented in this thread, I'm not going to rehash it all.

I will say, however, that an important aspect for BDI, for me anyway, is that given the evidence we do have, coupled with the Rs behavior(s) Kolar's theory makes sense. IMO

It's also important to consider that having the access he did, he knows a hell of a lot more then we do. In addition Kolar notes...



All he wanted was the support to examine this angle (Burke/family) more fully...
Especially given how he had shown that the LS intruder theory didn't really stand up under close scrutiny...but instead, he came to fully realize how entrenched the DAs office was in their convictions of IDI...


If that one singular statement by ML doesn't convince people that there was/is something seriously wrong with the way this investigation was handled, nothing will.

All MOO, Etc., etc.

bettybaby00,
The BBM is simply a rhetorical flourish. I use the postcard when I assume everyone knows no reply is required.

Well this case has everything: its unsolved, there is crime-scene staging, there is the politics between the DA and the R's, there are all the secondary participants, e.g. Stines, Whites etc who clearly know something, yet the silence is deafening.

I agree with what you said, for me this case is RDI, but not just one. All three R's contributed, in different measures, to the death of JonBenet.

It could be PDI, with PR faking a sexual assault and JR tweaking the rest to look like a psychotic intruder?

The chronic or prior sexual injuries are open to interpretation, they may have absolutely nothing to do with the death of JonBenet, i.e. are they incidental?

If its BDI why did BR whack JonBenet on the head, what motivated this behaviour, did he sexually assault JonBenet, and was it PR who asphyxiated JonBenet?

Its difficult to show who knew what when and how, but a BDI seems like the most consistent explanation, PDI less so, and JDI minimal since he starts off telling LE its an inside job not very clever when there has been a sexual assault.

.

 

[bettybaby00]

bettybaby00,
The BBM is simply a rhetorical flourish. I use the postcard when I assume everyone knows no reply is required.


.

Ha,ha. Gotcha!

 

[renah]

I have a question: Do we know if Burke's intelligence has ever been evaluated? Ive read that he got along ok in class at the time of his sister's death, but I havent found anything more specific. IIRC it was also noted in passing that at times he could appear distracted during lessons. I'd like to know how his grades were afterwards, including college level achievement.

I am NOT looking to bash Burke. Im working on a new theory, one I havent seen (yet?) that requires this evaluation.

I realize we're not going to be privy to purely factual info like school transcripts -- a degree of personal interpretation will be required. That's why I hope that BOTH sides, RDI & IDI, can offer input -- Id be alot more comfortable in my own assessment of 2nd & 3rd hand assessments, if that makes any sense?

Thanks in advance

 

[bettybaby00]

I have a question: Do we know if Burke's intelligence has ever been evaluated? Ive read that he got along ok in class at the time of his sister's death, but I havent found anything more specific. IIRC it was also noted in passing that at times he could appear distracted during lessons. I'd like to know how his grades were afterwards, including college level achievement.

I am NOT looking to bash Burke. Im working on a new theory, one I havent seen (yet?) that requires this evaluation.

I realize we're not going to be privy to purely factual info like school transcripts -- a degree of personal interpretation will be required. That's why I hope that BOTH sides, RDI & IDI, can offer input -- Id be alot more comfortable in my own assessment of 2nd & 3rd hand assessments, if that makes any sense?

Thanks in advance

I'm not aware of anything ever being specifically reported re: BRs "intelligence," but he did finish school, and graduated from college. That of course is not necessarily indicative of "intelligence." As my dad used to say, "somebody had to graduate at the bottom of their class."

It does seem to appear, based on R statements, that BR was involved in some type of therapy post JRBs mruder. However, we don't know whether or not that was happening prior to 12/96. I don't think it would be uncommon for "testing" to have been done to determine if any type of disorder(s) was present. But again, we just don't know. Your question does however, emphasize what was being hidden in the medical records.

Lastly, I do know that it has been speculated that he had asperger's, but I believe that was just speculation.

Don't know if any of that helps. Looking forward to hearing your theory.

 

[Tadpole12]

I would never in my wildest dreams imagine coming across a note, in my home, put on my private back staircase, which someone had placed in the middle of the night, unbeknownst to me, and not. read. every. word. of. said. note.

Heyya Frigga

You're a voice of reason.
digg it.
Good to read your postings.

 

[Anyhoo]

Heyya Frigga

You're a voice of reason.
digg it.
Good to read your postings.

I'm not so sure. Not that I believe the parents are innocent but if this had really happened, the note would be the first indicator of something bad happening to my daughter. As soon as I understood the gist of it, which might require reading just a few lines, and then checked to verify that my daughter actually was missing, then I can see someone being so panicked at that point that they would call 911 before they read every word of the note. I can see myself doing it. So IMO this part of it is believable. PR may even have scanned down to the bottom to see who it was from to see SBTC, so again it is believable. You cannot project what you would do in a certain situation to everyone else.

 

[Frigga]

I'm not so sure. Not that I believe the parents are innocent but if this had really happened, the note would be the first indicator of something bad happening to my daughter. As soon as I understood the gist of it, which might require reading just a few lines, and then checked to verify that my daughter actually was missing, then I can see someone being so panicked at that point that they would call 911 before they read every word of the note. I can see myself doing it. So IMO this part of it is believable. PR may even have scanned down to the bottom to see who it was from to see SBTC, so again it is believable. You cannot project what you would do in a certain situation to everyone else.

I suppose we can agree to disagree.

We have NO STATISTICS to go by, when it comes to this. To my knowledge there has never been a ransom note more than one page long. In that, I suppose you are correct, to some degree.

It would be important... no imperative to me, to know exactly what was being said to me, about my child's disappearance. I couldn't leave the note until I knew exactly what was being said to me. That is just me. I think more than a few people would agree with me... as in every mother I know that I have ever posed this question to.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I would never in my wildest dreams imagine coming across a note, in my home, put on my private back staircase, which someone had placed in the middle of the night, unbeknownst to me, and not. read. every. word. of. said. note.

You think that,But I don't know. I think I would read the first few lines get the gist and be just gone. Freaking out and screaming. I would not care about much after that.

JMO

 

[bettybaby00]

I suppose we can agree to disagree.

We have NO STATISTICS to go by, when it comes to this. To my knowledge there has never been a ransom note more than one page long. In that, I suppose you are correct, to some degree.

It would be important... no imperative to me, to know exactly what was being said to me, about my child's disappearance. I couldn't leave the note until I knew exactly what was being said to me. That is just me. I think more than a few people would agree with me... as in every mother I know that I have ever posed this question to.

IA with the sentiment that most of us don't know exactly how we'd act, b/c thankfully not many of us have had this exact personal experience.

The rub for me on this particular issue is that it's one of many instances where the Rs actions/reactions cause a raised eyebrow. As a singular incident, and contemplated in a vacuum, I think everyone can agree that it's hard to say definitively how we would act, or how PR should have acted. Her reaction --how much of the note she reads before looking for her daughter & then dialing
911--along with her subsequent blurting out how the note was signed raises a red flag when put together with all her other behavior(s) and the inconsistencies of her statements surrounding the events of that night/morning.

 

[Frigga]

Very well said babybetty.

I also understand Scarlett, Anyhoo etc.

This is very subjective to personal tendencies and behaviors. I am an entirety of information person- I would have to read every last word. I would have to understand what I was facing... who I was dealing with. I would have to know exactly what was expected of me. EXACTLY. The note, in my mind would be the only tendril... link... to my child. That is just me.

But as you said- in the entirety of things with the Ramsey's this adds one more layer.