You, the jury

[nobull]

I vote for a moment of parental rage over bedwetting, a very tired mother, a push or other such abuse which ends in JBR bashing her head (bedpost, furniture, corner of wall, stairs) and ending in "oh my God, what have I done?"

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I vote for a moment of parental rage over bedwetting, a very tired mother, a push or other such abuse which ends in JBR bashing her head (bedpost, furniture, corner of wall, stairs) and ending in "oh my God, what have I done?"

I would vote with you if...

1. ...the ransom note either didn't exist or was made from magazine cutouts, and
2. ...there was no male DNA on JBR's clothes, and
3. ...we knew where the cord or tape came from, and
4. ...the BPD-hired analysts stated PR's handwriting matched, and
5. ...previous injury was reported on the autopsy, and
6. ...JR or PR had a history of abuse.

Oh well, I guess I won't be voting with you.

 

[WHITEFANG]

Funnily enough, although LHP has a 'big gold star' next to her name, she's not the only possibility. Through her own stupidity and desire for fame, she's the only one we know very much about. She has contradicted herself and lied about various things, so she seems to be more likely than anyone else. Certainly I'd never dismiss her as being too stupid or kind or naive.

BUT the killer is not the person who set this 'sting' up. I call it a 'sting' because I don't believe it was ever intended to be a killing. These simpletons just wanted to extort some money from the rich folks, by taking their precious baby and hiding her long enough to collect the ransom. If the R's had been childless and had a dog they were very fond of then it would have been the subject of this extortion attempt. Sadly the dog wasn't in the loop, but poor little JBR was.

Would a dog have fared any better? Doubtful.

Whoever set this up, engaged as their accomplice someone who was very sick. He (I say 'he' only because this is what it appears due to the DNA evidence, although a 'she' is not completely ruled out) was to take care of JBR and keep her quiet until the ransom was paid. But instead, JBR ended up dead!!

So this person is the killer and sick though he/she was/is and should never have been left in charge of a child, but the person who organised it is just as much, if not more to blame for what happened.

What do we have to identify this person, and by association, the 'principal' person in this crime??

There appears to be a military background, real or imagined.
I believe there is a hand gun (possibly a Glock 19) involved
This person probably has no previous for child molestation.
There may be an aversion to blood.
There may be an aversion to adult females (molested by mother figure?).
There may be a fear of germs or of touching other people.
I think this person may be a 'hunter' or 'woodsman'.
This person would be considered 'slow' or 'dumb' by others.

Is there someone in or around Boulder that fits this description or someone associated with the Rs who has a husband/father/son/brother who would?

That's all I have at present.

'
Cool. Why do you believe this? I bet you have some pretty interesting ideas. Talk to us.

 

[nobull]

I would vote with you if...

1. ...the ransom note either didn't exist or was made from magazine cutouts, and
2. ...there was no male DNA on JBR's clothes, and
3. ...we knew where the cord or tape came from, and
4. ...the BPD-hired analysts stated PR's handwriting matched, and
5. ...previous injury was reported on the autopsy, and
6. ...JR or PR had a history of abuse.

Oh well, I guess I won't be voting with you.

HOTYH, I wouldn't think for a moment that you would agree. We've gone 'round about the ransom note, and there are experts that do believe it is PR. And, as someone adroitly observed, it doesn't take a particularly bright person to figure out that you can't get ransom money from a family AFTER you kill their child in their own home and LEAVE THE BODY THERE. And these IDIs (which, according to you number 4 or 5, one of whom wears army boots and whose group is not comprised of "full sized men" with a van sitting around the corner) are supposed to represent a "small foreign faction" that can spell attache and make fat cat references? Either they're colossally ignorant yet know how to use a dictionary, or quickly and desperately trying to conjure a motive.

I'm not overly concerned about the cord/tape. Considering Pam came in after the fact and went shopping in the crime scene, the likely scenario is it walked out under the noses of police. They gave her a wide berth, whether spoken or implied due to shoddy documentation and the intimidation of junior LEO on the scene.

As far as the DNA, we've gone around about that too. Regarding trace DNA it's all about which came first, the chicken or the egg. Maybe inspector 9 had a coughing fit or simply scratched their arm while working on the packaging line. Also, let's not forget that most garments are constructed overseas (Vietnam, Bangladesh, Thailand for example) where labor is cheap and cities are rife with sweat shops with child laborers packed in unclean, unsafe conditions.

Most importantly, I've personally tended to many children who don't have a previous DOCUMENTED history of broken bones or bruises that have still been abused by their parents. Child abuse is all about overpowering an innocent, telling them "don't tell our secret or else." Abusers are equal opportunity offenders, young/old, wealthy/poor, crack addicts/lawyers. Abusers are particularly adept at pinching, hitting or kicking where it doesn't show...on the head (under the hair), upper legs and upper arms which are easy to cover with long pants, long sleeved shirts, etc. Let's not forget verbal abuse such as "you little , all I do for you and you do this to me?! (example)" And there was that picture, as I recall, of JBR with a bruise on her face months before this happened. And that's notwithstanding the finding of ongoing sexual abuse.

Just because they were wealthy doesn't mean they didn't smack their kids. Just as it doesn't automatically mean they were fantastic parents. If anything, it gives more incentive not to tell, with overconcern about social status, etc. Oh, wait...Patsy was observed whacking JBR with a hairbrush...

 

[nobull]

**Deleted double post**

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

HOTYH, I wouldn't think for a moment that you would agree. We've gone 'round about the ransom note, and there are experts that do believe it is PR. And, as someone adroitly observed, it doesn't take a particularly bright person to figure out that you can't get ransom money from a family AFTER you kill their child in their own home and LEAVE THE BODY THERE. And these IDIs (which, according to you number 4 or 5, one of whom wears army boots and whose group is not comprised of "full sized men" with a van sitting around the corner) are supposed to represent a "small foreign faction" that can spell attache and make fat cat references? Either they're colossally ignorant yet know how to use a dictionary, or quickly and desperately trying to conjure a motive.

I'm not overly concerned about the cord/tape. Considering Pam came in after the fact and went shopping in the crime scene, the likely scenario is it walked out under the noses of police. They gave her a wide berth, whether spoken or implied due to shoddy documentation and the intimidation of junior LEO on the scene.

As far as the DNA, we've gone around about that too. Regarding trace DNA it's all about which came first, the chicken or the egg. Maybe inspector 9 had a coughing fit or simply scratched their arm while working on the packaging line. Also, let's not forget that most garments are constructed overseas (Vietnam, Bangladesh, Thailand for example) where labor is cheap and cities are rife with sweat shops with child laborers packed in unclean, unsafe conditions.

Most importantly, I've personally tended to many children who don't have a previous DOCUMENTED history of broken bones or bruises that have still been abused by their parents. Child abuse is all about overpowering an innocent, telling them "don't tell our secret or else." Abusers are equal opportunity offenders, young/old, wealthy/poor, crack addicts/lawyers. Abusers are particularly adept at pinching, hitting or kicking where it doesn't show...on the head (under the hair), upper legs and upper arms which are easy to cover with long pants, long sleeved shirts, etc. Let's not forget verbal abuse such as "you little , all I do for you and you do this to me?! (example)" And there was that picture, as I recall, of JBR with a bruise on her face months before this happened. And that's notwithstanding the finding of ongoing sexual abuse.

Just because they were wealthy doesn't mean they didn't smack their kids. Just as it doesn't automatically mean they were fantastic parents. If anything, it gives more incentive not to tell, with overconcern about social status, etc. Oh, wait...Patsy was observed whacking JBR with a hairbrush...

First, you're imagination is running off with you. Not just a little, but a lot. Your imagination is running WILD. The sweeping generalizations don't help, either.

Second, as far as the unknown male DNA goes, just because you've 'gone around about it' doesn't mean it went away. Its still there, on the inside crotch of JBR's underwear. Then, ML discovered MORE genetic material from the same male two locations of the waistband of the longjohns. That renders the factory worker argument moot.

Where is RDI's discovery? Where's your argument?

 

[madeleine]

I vote for a moment of parental rage over bedwetting,

Proof?

a very tired mother,

Proof?And yeah there could be people saying she "looked" tired to me,does this mean anything?Does this make her capable of crime?I am tired too,pls call my partner and warn him.

a push or other such abuse which ends in JBR bashing her head (bedpost, furniture, corner of wall, stairs) and ending in "oh my God, what have I done?"

Proof?

 

[Mysteeri]

SuperDave

But don't you think we'd have heard that those fibers were on her body and not just the areas I described? I've looked, and I can't find one source, pro- or anti- that says they were.

I`ve been wondering about the fibers on JB`s clothes and body. The body was wiped clean, but I`d assume there would be fibers from the killer on JB`s clothes. Were PR/JR fibers found on the pajamas? Assuming that, for example, Patsy killed her, dressed her and handled her body wearing the red sweater, there should be fibers on JB`s clothes (yes, Patsy also threw herself on JB`s body, but I`m not sure which parts of the body were covered, or if she moved the covers).

 

[nobull]

Proof?

Proof of Patsy's propensity for rage? Sure, check out the hairbrush incidents.

 

[nobull]

ML discovered MORE genetic material from the same male [/SIZE][/B]two locations of the waistband of the longjohns?

Moot? Nope. Depends on what this mystery "genetic material" is. Pretty vague description. Mucous? Blood? Dandruff? Makes a huge difference regarding transferability.

 

[BBB167893]

As I've often said, all you need is evidence.

You weren't in too big a hurry to address the 20 points I DID give you.

 

[BBB167893]

They were not, never have been and show no tendencies or proclivities that becoming criminals is in the cards.

If I had a nickel for everytime someone said that about a killer, I'd be a rich man.

There is no evidence they perpetrated these unspeakable crimes against their own flesh and blood six year old daughter.

Oh, no???

Remember, you are arguing with someone who will not acknowledge "love" as a viable component in this debacle. It is a non-factor.

That's not it. I acknolwedge it quite extensively. I simply don't let it prejudice my thinking. This is, or should be, an intellectual issue, not an emotional one. Your attempts to play on our emotions are part of a tried-and-true strategy that the Rs & CO have been using since Day One. "Oh, we're such loving parents. How could you think we could do this?" They're not the first to ply that tack, and they won't be the last.

So I have hardened myself against such things and do my best to stick to things like reason. There's a BIG difference between THAT and what you're suggesting.

 

[BBB167893]

SuperDave

I`ve been wondering about the fibers on JB`s clothes and body. The body was wiped clean, but I`d assume there would be fibers from the killer on JB`s clothes. Were PR/JR fibers found on the pajamas? Assuming that, for example, Patsy killed her, dressed her and handled her body wearing the red sweater, there should be fibers on JB`s clothes (yes, Patsy also threw herself on JB`s body, but I`m not sure which parts of the body were covered, or if she moved the covers).

Mysteeri, I'm glad you asked this question, because for my money, it goes right to the point of it.

Yes, you would assume that PR/JR fibers would be found on her body an clothes. The problem is, they were not. No report, from the police, the DA's office, the Rs' experts, etc., exists which claims that parental fibers were found on the body or clothing. THUS, the logical conclusion is that the reason those fibers ended up on the tape, blanket, paint tote, panties and cord is because those items came into direct contact with the parents' clothing, which should not (and to hear them tell it, COULD not) have happened if they not involved.

 

[WHITEFANG]

Mysteeri, I'm glad you asked this question, because for my money, it goes right to the point of it.

Yes, you would assume that PR/JR fibers would be found on her body an clothes. The problem is, they were not. No report, from the police, the DA's office, the Rs' experts, etc., exists which claims that parental fibers were found on the body or clothing. THUS, the logical conclusion is that the reason those fibers ended up on the tape, blanket, paint tote, panties and cord is because those items came into direct contact with the parents' clothing, which should not (and to hear them tell it, COULD not) have happened if they not involved.

They didn't examine everything else, what do you think about that? Logical conclusion? "No report exists," is your statement of fact, and it is preposterous.

 

[WHITEFANG]

You weren't in too big a hurry to address the 20 points I DID give you.

If there had been something to address, I would have raced over to respond.

 

[WHITEFANG]

Remember, you are arguing with someone who will not acknowledge "love" as a viable component in this debacle. It is a non-factor.

"That's not it. I acknolwedge it quite extensively."

Extensively? Okay, have it your way. Go ahead, list away.

 

[WHITEFANG]

If I had a nickel... a killer, I'd be a rich man.

If I had a dime for every time you said, "if I had a nickle," I would be twice as rich as you.

That's not it. I acknolwedge it quite extensively. I simply don't let it prejudice my thinking.

Well, you got me there. It is true. Your acknowledgment overfloweth endlessly.

This is, or should be, an intellectual issue, not an emotional one.

Oh, is that right? The brutal murder of a six year old child, "should be an intellectual issue..." But, wait. What about your pain? Doesn't that prove otherwise?

Your attempts to play on our emotions

For example?

are part of a tried-and-true strategy that the Rs & CO have been using since Day One

.

This strategy was conceived and hatched the day she was murdered? Plus the "Marilyn Monroe comparison and acknowledgment" promo; the "preserve her princess-like beauty, angle," the "worship me/her story-book Greek Tragedy ending she was entitled to after all," concoction and their "dissociation," too?

"Oh, we're such loving parents. How could you think we could do this?" They're not the first to ply that tack, and they won't be the last.

This piece of their impromptu strategy was obviously based on nonsense, IYO, because you knew them personally and witnessed behaviors proving otherwise. Well, you can't fight eyewitness testimony like that. Give us several samples of exactly what you saw them do.

So I have hardened myself against such things and do my best to stick to things like reason. There's a BIG difference between THAT and what you're suggesting.

Sorry. I'm a little embarrassed here. I can't recall any more. Could you remind me, specifically, what am I suggesting?

 

[BBB167893]

They didn't examine everything else, what do you think about that? Logical conclusion? "No report exists," is your statement of fact, and it is preposterous.

PROVE it! THAT is what I think of it!

If there had been something to address, I would have raced over to respond.

Really? Because were it not for my faulty memory, I would recall you saying that the 20 points I posted would keep us occupied for quite some time. I would also recall YOU PERSONALLY using those twenty points to start a poll thread. Which thread was that again? Oh, yes...THIS one. This was your idea, and now you don't want to do it anymore? Why?

Extensively? Okay, have it your way. Go ahead, list away.

What would you like me to list? I honestly don't know another way to say that they loved her the very best that they knew how.

 

[BBB167893]

If I had a dime for every time you said, "if I had a nickle," I would be twice as rich as you.

I have to admit, that got a chuckle out of me.

Well, you got me there. It is true. Your acknowledgment overfloweth endlessly.

You have no idea. But like I said, there's a difference between acknowledging it and letting it prejudice me. Which, I sorry to say, it DID, at one time.

Oh, is that right? The brutal murder of a six year old child, "should be an intellectual issue..."

From a law enforcement perspective, yes. I'm not a fool; I understand that such a thing will bring up some very strong emotions. It certainly does here. But we have to move PAST them.

But, wait. What about your pain? Doesn't that prove otherwise?

YOU keep bringing that up, not me. I only even mentioned it because there seems to be this notion that because I don't automatically roll over for sob stories about parental love, I'm a heartless b*****d.

For example?

"For example?" Every other post of yours is all about the saintly Ramseys, how they weren't the "type" to commit a crime, how no parent could ever do this to a beloved child, how the big bad cops wanted them to hang, how ordinary Americans vented their class anger against them. Don't think I haven't noticed.

This strategy was conceived and hatched the day she was murdered?

Perhaps I did overstate the matter. Either way, they had OJ to copy from.

Plus the "Marilyn Monroe comparison and acknowledgment" promo; the "preserve her princess-like beauty, angle," the "worship me/her story-book Greek Tragedy ending she was entitled to after all," concoction and their "dissociation," too?

I would say those all happened at different times for different reasons.

This piece of their impromptu strategy was obviously based on nonsense, IYO, because you knew them personally and witnessed behaviors proving otherwise. Well, you can't fight eyewitness testimony like that. Give us several samples of exactly what you saw them do.

I didn't say that. You're twisting my words again. My POINT is that just about EVERY killer parent uses that dodge, because people believe it. They want to believe it, nonsense or not. Being a loving parent doesn't make you incapable of killing. And it's not PROOF, either.

Sorry. I'm a little embarrassed here. I can't recall any more. Could you remind me, specifically, what am I suggesting?

Well, the way I took it was that you were suggesting I had no feelings, no heart.

 

[WHITEFANG]

You have no idea. But like I said, there's a difference between acknowledging it and letting it prejudice me. Which, I sorry to say, it DID, at one time.

No. That is not what you said. Not at all. You said you acknowledge it quite extensively. When I asked for examples, then you change the topic and say there is a difference between acknowledging it and letting it prejudice you.

That's not it. I acknolwedge it quite extensively. I simply don't let it prejudice my thinking.

So, spend at least several pages acknowledging it extensively, please. Go into detail, splurge, have a ball.

Next.

I didn't say that. You're twisting my words again. My POINT is that just about EVERY killer parent uses that dodge, because people believe it. They want to believe it, nonsense or not. Being a loving parent doesn't make you incapable of killing. And it's not PROOF, either.

Supe, are you capable of comprehending the not so subtle differences? Answer this the best you can.

See, just in case this hasn't occurred to you, I will spell it out. Follow this carefully, okay? Although just about every "killer parent" "uses that dodge," it does not mean that parents who make that statement are lying. Right? So, just because the Rs said they didn't do it, (and just because they appear to most of us with some common sense and to those who knew them well) that they were wonderfully good parents, doesn't necessarily make them child killers. Okay? With me, so far?

Do you understand the importance of this? You cannot condemn them for being good parents! You cannot reach a logical, sane opinion-based on their good parenting-that they were automatically guilty of killing their daughter.

Here is what we have learned from this little lesson. 1.) We, you, me, all, cannot make a sound argument that they killed their daughter just because they said they didn't. 2.) Just because they were loving, warm, caring parents does not necessarily make them child killers. Comprehend?

Let's work on these two points, okay?