Clever or Lucky?

[SuperDave]

It's been on my mind for some time, but MurriFlower motivated me to finally put it up for a vote.

I've heard it said that the Ramseys were extremely clever to successfully fool LE. The counter argument is that LE was not fooled (unless they wanted to be) and the Rs were lucky to have a spineless DA, clumsy cops and money to buy powerful lawyers and heavy-hitter "experts."

Judge for yourselves.

[Mastermind]

Lucky.

Lucky to have found the right police jurisdiction to commit this crime in.

[SuperDave]

Originally Posted by Mastermind

Lucky.

Lucky to have found the right police jurisdiction to commit this crime in.

I think the Midyettes would agree.

[cynic]

Originally Posted by SuperDave

I think the Midyettes would agree.

For those looking for more evidence that ML is an incompetent buffoon, (if more evidence is indeed needed,) there is no need to look further than the Midyette debacle.
For those unfamiliar with the case, I would strongly suggest they take a look as it sheds a great deal of light into the Boulder “justice” system.
I agree with this bloggers view:

The lucky couple
Molly and Alex Midyette should get on their knees every night and thank whatever providential power they might believe in for having the good fortune to live in Boulder County. In almost any other jurisdiction, at least one of them would very possibly be in jail.
Rather than traipsing about the Erie community while being monitored by an ankle bracelet, the suspect would be counting stale hours from the confines of a cell.
But the Midyettes are lucky. They live in a county where the district attorney is the feckless Mary Lacy, engineer of last year’s fiasco involving John Mark Karr as well as other assorted public travesties. And so, when a grand jury under the care and feeding of her office finally got around this week to indicting the two with child abuse for the death early last year of their infant son, Jason, the most serious charge was a Class 2 felony.
Now maybe you think that eight to 24 years, the normal range for a Class 2 conviction, minus “good time” of course, is a punishment fit for the crime. If so, you should read the grand jury’s indictment.
There you will discover that at his death, 10-week-old Jason had more than 20 broken bones “in various stages of healing,” including breaks in his arms, legs, ribs, hands and feet. His skull had been fractured, too, with a “complete loss of gray-white interface involving the cerebrum,” which is as bad as it sounds. And he had “contusions on the right and left temporal lobes of his brain” that were “older than other hemorrhages found in Jason’s brain.”
You will learn, too, from the testimony of an expert at The Children’s Hospital, that while many such injuries are fairly common in serious child abuse because of “abusive squeezing,” “violent shaking” or “twisting or pulling forces applied near the end of a bone,” the “hand and foot fractures are very uncommon, and are likely the result of a direct blow.”
Only one conclusion fits this sickening set of allegations: Jason was not dropped or bumped and thus bruised and broken by accident, or even in a single violent fit of quickly regretted rage. He was roughed up repeatedly, brutally, and without anyone reporting a single incident either to a doctor or a cop.
The only question is, by whom?
The grand jury thinks it knows. It indicted Alex Midyette, among other things, on a charge of knowingly or recklessly causing injury to his son. Molly Midyette was indicted essentially for standing by and failing to act. So why isn’t the father facing a count of first-degree murder, for which bail could easily be denied?
Perhaps only the prosecutors from Lacy’s office who presented evidence to the grand jury know for sure, but here’s what Colorado law says: “When a person knowingly causes the death of a child who has not yet attained 12 years of age and the person committing the offense is one in a position of trust with respect to the child, such person commits the crime of murder in the first degree.”
Former Denver prosecutor Craig Silverman, who’s provided first-rate commentary on this case for KHOW radio’s Caplis & Silverman Show as well as other venues, tells me that “knowingly” in legal parlance does not mean intentionally, let alone after deliberation. It’s a lower standard. Which makes the failure to recommend the more serious charge even more mysterious.
Meanwhile, in Denver, prosecutors waited only four days this week to file first-degree murder charges against a couple who allegedly starved a boy confined to a closet. The final torment of 7-year-old Chandler Grafner must have been indescribable.
But then, so was Jason Midyette’s.
http://blogs.rockymountainnews.com/o...ky_couple.html

[madeleine]

I can't vote,If RDI,one was clever ,the other one was lucky.

[SuperDave]

Originally Posted by madeleine

I can't vote,If RDI,one was clever ,the other one was lucky.

I knew there was a category I was forgetting.

[joeskidbeck]

Originally Posted by madeleine

I can't vote,If RDI,one was clever ,the other one was lucky.

ITA Madeleine.

[MurriFlower]

Originally Posted by SuperDave

It's been on my mind for some time, but MurriFlower motivated me to finally put it up for a vote.

I've heard it said that the Ramseys were extremely clever to successfully fool LE. The counter argument is that LE was not fooled (unless they wanted to be) and the Rs were lucky to have a spineless DA, clumsy cops and money to buy powerful lawyers and heavy-hitter "experts."

Judge for yourselves.

Unlucky to have their daughter killed in their own home, while they slept totally unaware that she was being tortured and murdered in their basement.

Lucky they were people of 'substance' and 'influence' so they were not ridden over roughshod by the BPD (thrown in jail until one of them 'confessed').

Clever that they engaged skilled counsel at the outset, to save them from being blamed for murdering their child by the incompetent LE.

Unlucky that the murderer of their child has not yet been found.

[SuperDave]

Originally Posted by MurriFlower

Unlucky to have their daughter killed in their own home, while they slept totally unaware that she was being tortured and murdered in their basement.

Lucky they were people of 'substance' and 'influence' so they were not ridden over roughshod by the BPD (thrown in jail until one of them 'confessed').

Clever that they engaged skilled counsel at the outset, to save them from being blamed for murdering their child by the incompetent LE.

Unlucky that the murderer of their child has not yet been found.

I appreciate what you say, MurriFlower, but that's not what was meant. You said that RDI confused you. This poll was an attempt to clarify.

[Mastermind]

Clever that they engaged skilled counsel at the outset,

That actually may have been an unwise move on their part.

The decision to "lawyer up" brought more suspicion on them and impeded the investigation even more.

[MurriFlower]

Originally Posted by SuperDave

I appreciate what you say, MurriFlower, but that's not what was meant. You said that RDI confused you. This poll was an attempt to clarify.

Ok, maybe I did say they confused me. What I meant was that what RDI says is confusing. The fact that RDI is confused doesn't mean that I am confused as well. Clear?

[SuperDave]

Originally Posted by MurriFlower

Ok, maybe I did say they confused me. What I meant was that what RDI says is confusing. The fact that RDI is confused doesn't mean that I am confused as well. Clear?

Like glass. My point in starting this poll was to show that RDI is not confused. I just wanted to make sure you appreciated the effort I went to for you.

[MurriFlower]

Originally Posted by SuperDave

Like glass. My point in starting this poll was to show that RDI is not confused. I just wanted to make sure you appreciated the effort I went to for you.

Appreciated?? Goodness me, man, I think this means I will now be forever in your debt LOL. I might have to slew a dragon to even the score!

So far 100% reckon they're just lucky, no one has voted for clever. Let's see, can we make a list of their luck in order of importance? I'll start....

1. Incompetent Cops
2. Corrupt DA
3. Stupid Coroner
4. Superhero Attorney(s)
5. Useless Experts
6. ????

[madeleine]

Question
How much does wearing gloves alter your handwriting?

[SuperDave]

Originally Posted by madeleine

Question
How much does wearing gloves alter your handwriting?

Depending on what kind of gloves they are, anywhere from a little to a lot. (I tried that particular experiment.)

[madeleine]

Originally Posted by SuperDave

Depending on what kind of gloves they are, anywhere from a little to a lot. (I tried that particular experiment.)

If RDI,PR wore gloves right cause there are no prints on the RN (only on the pad and it's normal for her prints to be there).
And if she wore gloves that must have altered her handwriting.Doesn't this mean that the handwriting "sample" is "contaminated" now and all analysis in the world won't be able to tell us the truth?

[SuperDave]

Originally Posted by madeleine

If RDI,stupid,for writing it in the first place.And I repeat myself,the R's weren't stupid people.

I agree they weren't, but this "stupid to write it" argument is an old one, and it just doesn't do it for me. They created a crime, so they needed a criminal to go with it. The RN does that. Obviously, it's not very clever, but that's why I started this poll in the first place.

Unless, as you seem to have suggested earlier (and correct me if I'm wrong), one of them was smarter than the other and was setting them up for a fall.

So they staged the scene,the crime,got rid of all the incriminating evidence,panties,tape,cord,but wrote a 3 pg RN and left the pad&pen AND evidence of a practice note right there.

Something like that.

Something's not right with this scenario.

Something's not right with every scenario, Maddy. But you knew that.

If RDI,PR wore gloves right cause there are no prints on the RN (only on the pad and it's normal for her prints to be there).
And if she wore gloves that must have altered her handwriting.Doesn't this mean that the handwriting "sample" is "contaminated" now and all analysis in the world won't be able to tell us the truth?

That's a very sobering thought, maddy. You may very well be right.

[MurriFlower]

Originally Posted by SuperDave

Depending on what kind of gloves they are, anywhere from a little to a lot. (I tried that particular experiment.)

Less painful than the stun gun experiment LOL

[joeskidbeck]

Suppose for a moment that you believe one of the R's killed JB (you don't have to really believe it, just try to think as if you did). Her body is in the basement, there are no signs of a break-in and you know there is no evidence of an intruder in the house. Without that ransom note there is no way you can call the police (or anyone else). There will be no doubt that someone in the home that night killed her. It would only take a little while for the police (no matter how inept they were) to dedeuce who killed her. One of the Ramseys would have ratted out the other. You may think they weren't very clever but the rn saved someone's neck. In hindsight, that rn is the smartest thing they could have done. Now pretend that you believe an intruder did it. Why in the world did he leave a ransom note? He had to know there would be no money coming since she was dead in the home and why in the world would he risk evidence of his being there after being soooo careful to not leave any other evidence? It makes no sense.

[DeeDee249]

I have to say that I have looked at that RN many, many times. And I am not going to say this because I am RDI but rather I am RDI because of this, but the handwriting comparisons I have seen, to me, match Patsy's without a doubt. I have a feeling the DA's office thought it did, too. I am thinking of Assistant DA Pete Hofstrom making this comment: " So what if she wrote the note- it doesn't mean she killed her kid." He was right- it doesn't. But it means she knows who killed her kid.

[madeleine]

Originally Posted by joeskidbeck

Suppose for a moment that you believe one of the R's killed JB (you don't have to really believe it, just try to think as if you did). Her body is in the basement, there are no signs of a break-in and you know there is no evidence of an intruder in the house. Without that ransom note there is no way you can call the police (or anyone else). There will be no doubt that someone in the home that night killed her. It would only take a little while for the police (no matter how inept they were) to dedeuce who killed her. One of the Ramseys would have ratted out the other. You may think they weren't very clever but the rn saved someone's neck. In hindsight, that rn is the smartest thing they could have done. Now pretend that you believe an intruder did it. Why in the world did he leave a ransom note? He had to know there would be no money coming since she was dead in the home and why in the world would he risk evidence of his being there after being soooo careful to not leave any other evidence? It makes no sense.

It would have been smarter to break a window or mess with a door,make some money "dissapear",etc.The RN (if they were stupid enough to write it,which I don't believe anymore) leads right back to them.
Better,dispose of the body,they had money,connections,a plane,why risk so much.

[SuperDave]

Originally Posted by madeleine

It would have been smarter to break a window or mess with a door,make some money "dissapear",etc.The RN (if they were stupid enough to write it,which I don't believe anymore) leads right back to them.
Better,dispose of the body,they had money,connections,a plane,why risk so much.

Maddy, I'd expect those thoughts to occur to a hardened criminal, not a highly agitated amateur.

[WHITEFANG]

Originally Posted by SuperDave

Maddy, I'd expect those thoughts to occur to a hardened criminal, not a highly agitated amateur.

Are you sure they weren't semi-hardened? Define the difference. Don't you get it? How are you qualified to figure out what they should or shouldn't be thinking? And, BTW, if you look closely, you hand them all kinds of credit with hardened criminal capabilities. You need to step back and take a good, hard and very long look at what you offer here. If you will, and you won't, you could end up learning some important things.

[SuperDave]

Originally Posted by WHITEFANG

Are you sure they weren't semi-hardened?

How do you mean?

Define the difference.

Okay. To my mind, what separates a hardened criminal from a first-timer is exactly that: experience. A hardened criminal is inured to committing crimes. Very little remorse. No real desire to make an attempt at honest life. Has been in prison at least once before, and has no real desire to go back, yet has no appreciable fear of it.

Contrast that with an amateur, especially one with no real forethought about it. They rush. They make mistakes.

Don't you get it?

Just WHAT am I supposed to get?

How are you qualified to figure out what they should or shouldn't be thinking?

I'm not. I'm just going by what those more qualified have said.

And, BTW, if you look closely, you hand them all kinds of credit with hardened criminal capabilities.

I realize it must seem that way. You're not telling me anything I don't know.

You need to step back and take a good, hard and very long look at what you offer here. If you will, and you won't, you could end up learning some important things.

What makes you think I haven't? I wish other people would take a good look at what I have to offer.

Fang, I'll level with you: I'm well aware the limitations of my theory. I just happen to think that my theory is LESS ridiculous than the alternative. Some time ago, I quoted Arthur Conan-Doyle's Sherlock Holmes. I shall do so again:

"When you eliminate the impossible, that which remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

I'd also like to say that when you and MurriFlower decide to get serious, you do very well for yourselves. And if it turns out that I'm wrong, I'd have to say that your ideas seem like the best ones. In fact, let me go a bit further.

My mother, RIP, seemed to think similarly to how you do, to a degree. Except her suspect was someone nobody's thought of: Pam Paugh. Any thoughts?

How did Pat reach the stick that locked the wine-cellar door?

I thought it wasn't that high off the ground. No?

Oh kind lord and Master, thou art full of mercy and knowledge. We thank thee for thine most kind admission of our mere existence and especially for thine kinds words as to our humble strivings to offer something non-offensive to thee, the Great One. Amen and amen.

Come off it, man. Don't embarrass yourself.

[MurriFlower]

Originally Posted by joeskidbeck

Suppose for a moment that you believe one of the R's killed JB (you don't have to really believe it, just try to think as if you did). Her body is in the basement, there are no signs of a break-in and you know there is no evidence of an intruder in the house. Without that ransom note there is no way you can call the police (or anyone else). There will be no doubt that someone in the home that night killed her. It would only take a little while for the police (no matter how inept they were) to dedeuce who killed her. One of the Ramseys would have ratted out the other. You may think they weren't very clever but the rn saved someone's neck. In hindsight, that rn is the smartest thing they could have done.

Ok, well I can try this. Now I've just killed my daughter, whom I loved, but I could not tolerate her bed wetting. Urine just made me so mad I threw or pushed her so hard that she had her head bashed in. I didn't mean to do it, but honestly, she was just so intolerably incontinent! I therefore decided that rather than call for help I really needed to do something to cover up for my mistake in smashing her skull. So, I took her to the basement and lay her on the floor near the door to the winecellar. I then looked around for something to kill her with. So, I found some cord stored down there and cut off a length. Oh, that's right, I had to go back upstairs and find that Swiss Army knife that LHP had taken off Burke (now where did she say she put it?) oh yes, in the closet. Back down to the basement, cut off a length of cord and put it around my daughter's neck. Pull it tight, that should do it. Oh dear, that hurts my hands, so I'd better find something to tie it around. Well, that's lucky, here's my paint tote and I'll just use this old paintbrush, first break off the brush then the pointy end. Oh gosh how about first I shove this broken end up her vagina, to make it look like a sexual pervert did this, I'm brilliant. Now, to wrap it around the paintbrush/stick, and pull as tightly as I can. Ok, well that's done, she seems to be dead at last. Now, I'd better get a blanket from the dryer to wrap her in. What else? Oh yes, some tape for her mouth would look good. Where is that tape now? Upstairs to find the tape in the drawer. Oooops that was lucky, nearly tore it off with my fingers, better find some gloves, so I don't leave any prints on the tape. Where are those pesky gloves. Oh here they are. Now just tear a little bit off, don't need much, afterall she's already dead so she isn't going to try to get it off is she? Oh, this is looking really like some intruder broke in and killed her. What else would someone like this do? Oh yes, tie up her hands. Just to cut a bit more cord off and do a tie of her hands. Oh bugger, they're above her head and a bit stiff. No matter, I'll just put it on anyway, no one will notice.

I can't really leave her here, someone might see her. I'll just take her into the winecellar and leave her in the dark, it might be days before she's found. Ooops, lucky I'm really thinking. Best go and get some different shoes on before I go in there, because there's all this mould/dust stuff on the floor and I don't want to leave my own footprints in it. Back upstairs to find a pair of sneakers just like an intruder would wear. Boy, all this up and down stairs should lose me some weight and keep me looking young and beautiful! Ok, well she's safely in the winecellar. What else can I do to make this whole thing look genuine? I know, a suitcase under an open window will make it look as if someone escaped through there - I'm just so clever! Ok, well I think I'm all done here. I'll just go upstairs and write a two and a half page ransom note in order to explain all this and no one will be any the wiser about what I did tonight.

Now pretend that you believe an intruder did it. Why in the world did he leave a ransom note? He had to know there would be no money coming since she was dead in the home and why in the world would he risk evidence of his being there after being soooo careful to not leave any other evidence? It makes no sense.

This is such fun Beck.

Ok now I'm an intruder who did this. Here's what I'm thinking.

I need money. They have money. They take no care at all with the amount they spend, it means nothing to them. Do you know he got $118,000 bonus last year?? That's a BONUS, not his salary - what must that be? It's obscene!! I'd really like to get my hands on some of this wasted cash. You know, if you could figure out a way to get him to hand just some of this over, without being caught, (I don't want millions, even his annual bonus would be good) I reckon it would serve them right. Rude children, untidy parents, don't teach their children manners, parade them in pageants like baby prostitutes, treat people like they are beneath them. Yeah, I'd really enjoy that. You know, if they THOUGHT someone had kidnapped their precious little JonBenet (what kind of name is that?), I reckon they'd hand over cash without even asking questions, provided it wasn't too much money. What you could do is get into the house one night while the family is asleep, no you won't wake the parents, cause they sleep on a different floor to the kids, and get JBR out of bed (tell her Santa wants to talk to her or something like that- she's a real believer in Santa), you could get her to come downstairs. You might need to feed her something that would put her to sleep for a while, not hurt her mind, just make her sleep for 12 hours or so. Then take her to the basement and tie her up (not too tight, we don't want to cut of the circulation), but if you just put some cord on her hands, wrapped over her jammies and then get a blanket and wrap her up and put some cord or tape around that, she'd be warm and secure. A bit of tape over her mouth in case she wakes up and screams and she'd be sweet. Then get someone to mind her and keep her quiet downstairs (under the house somewhere there's heaps of space under there) until mid-morning. By then, the parents would be frantic, they'd have got the money and we'll arrange somewhere to pick it up. Then we call them and let them know where JBR is (under the house) and they are so grateful, they probably won't even tell the Cops. Now we have to write a RN and make it so scarey that they won't call the cops and spoil the whole plan. We have to think up all the threats from all the movies we've ever seen where tough guys threaten people. Make it sound like we are terrorists, that'll confuse them. Now, I'll have to get someone else to write this, just in case they get suspicious or call the cops in after. Wouldn't it be funny if it was written in handwriting just like PR's. Ha ha ha, what a joke. Now I also need someone to mind JBR. Who though? Don't want someone who is smart enough to want an equal share - just a few thousand or even less if we can swing it. Yep, I know someone, he's not too bright, but can do simple jobs and if he gets caught, well, I'd just say it was nothing to do with me, he must have got the idea from hearing me talk about my 'favourite employers' LOL. It's a simple job just to keep a six year old quiet for a few hours, surely even he can do that? Meanwhile, I'll be home in bed asleep, totally unaware of any of this. Yep, this is a simple but very clever plan. Get ready to be seriously rich. What I could do with $118,000 - I wouldn't waste it like the Rs. No sir.