No matter what theory you prescribe to or even if you are still sitting on the fence like me, let's find common ground and then perhaps see clearly where this diverges.
For instance:
1. I think the garrote came first or at the same time or immediately after the head wound. That implies premeditation or very smart cover up.
2. The RN was bogus, the writer knew the Ramsays, and the writer knew alot about or had immediate access to kidnap crime movies. (I would think again that implies premeditation or very smart cover up, but, I also know that BlueCrab thinks it is evidence that it was written by a juvenile. This might be an interesting point of divergence.)
3. The perp had intimate knowledge about the Ramsays. ("Mr. and Mrs. I", "John"). That implies insidious premeditation (going after his precious daughter) or coverup.
4. ?
Argue please, but refer to the number. Thanks, maybe it will help me and others with some resolution.
For instance:
1. I think the garrote came first or at the same time or immediately after the head wound. That implies premeditation or very smart cover up.
2. The RN was bogus, the writer knew the Ramsays, and the writer knew alot about or had immediate access to kidnap crime movies. (I would think again that implies premeditation or very smart cover up, but, I also know that BlueCrab thinks it is evidence that it was written by a juvenile. This might be an interesting point of divergence.)
3. The perp had intimate knowledge about the Ramsays. ("Mr. and Mrs. I", "John"). That implies insidious premeditation (going after his precious daughter) or coverup.
4. ?
Argue please, but refer to the number. Thanks, maybe it will help me and others with some resolution.
