Clever or Lucky?

Clever or Lucky


  • Total voters
    93
If I were on a jury, I would have no problem finding Patsy guilty beyond a REASONABLE doubt. Not ALL doubt mind you...REASONABLE. I am 99.9 % certain Patsy was involved in the staging, why stage if you're innocent of any wrong doing?

Did John have anything to do with her actual death? I don't know. I would have more trouble convicting him based on what I THINK I know;)
 
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. Suspect Collusion (lucky or clever??)
7. No witnesses
8. Using a pen that distorted writing (sharpie) (lucky or clever??)
9. The pediatrician not bothering to conduct a vaginal exam
10.The hardware store losing their sales records.


Ok, this is going real good. Looking forward to the next instalment.

Just so nobody forgets what this thread is all about.
 
To whoever it was that claimed the Ramseys never came out and named suspects ................




"John appears to have brought with him to the interview a folder containing details of people of interest whom he wanted the investigators to look at.

Much of the interview was spent discussing the contents of the folder. It included Chris Wolf and Flippy Esso and also some guy that a psychic medium described on a tv programme.

TeamRamsey also offered a linguistic analysis which was done on Fleet White using the letters he wrote in newspapers etc and the ransom note.

Lin Wood was reluctant to discuss the findings of the analysis on tape, but if they were offering the police the results of a linguistic analysis, it is doubtful that the analysis was suggesting anything other than a possible match. "
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2197"]John's interview - Fleet as suspect - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

and


"4 MR. WOOD: Before we go there,
5 Bruce, let me say to you, I turned over to
6 Ollie two expandables of stuff that I have
7 gotten for him to look at, including, you
8 may know this, Chief, but I got some really
9 long and detailed analysis of Fleet White's
10 letters compared to the ransom notes from a
11 lawyer in New York. Are you familiar with
12 it? You may not have gotten it yet.
13 MR. BECKNER: I don't believe so.
14 MR. WOOD: He will go through it
15 and get it all to you. I am trying to
16 keep up with it to go to Ollie. It is two
17 expandables of different tips on leads.
18 MR. BECKNER: What type of
19 analysis is it?
20 MR. WOOD: It's a linguistic
21 analysis of the public letters that Fleet
22 White and Priscilla White have written about
23 the case, and they have taken that and done
24 an analysis of the ransom note. So I am
25 not making any suggestions except to describe

25
1 it

****

Q. Was there anybody else besides her
13 who submitted handwriting?
14 MR. WOOD: I told you about the
15 Fleet White package that I received.
16 MR. KANE: Yes. That is right.
17 Fleet White.
18 MR. LEVIN: If I can interrupt
19 for just a second, that's based on
20 linguistics, though, if I understood you?
21 MR. WOOD: To tell you the truth,
22 I haven't, other than to recognize what it
23 was, I did not try to study it. So I
24 wouldn't -- my impression was initially it
25 was linguistics, but it might be, it might

73
1 reference handwriting.
2 MR. KANE: Was that a handwritten
3 note or something of Fleet or --
4 MR. WOOD: No. It's about an
5 inch and a half thick report.
6 MR. KANE: Okay. But it's not
7 handwritten, I was talking about handwriting
8 here, was that in here?
9 MR. WOOD: That is what I was
10 telling Bruce. I didn't study it other than
11 to recognize that it was someone sending me
12 an analysis of Fleet White's writings. And
13 whether it is limited to linguistics or
14 whether it goes into the handwriting issue, I
15 wouldn't state on the record without being
16 certain, but I will get that to you all and
17 you will know exactly what it is. ?


Originally posted by Jayelles!
 
I'm sure Patsy considered herself very clever (anyone who wrote that rn had to consider themselves clever) and I'm sure that nobody would argue that John was/is a very shrewd man.

They were both LUCKY that Mary Lacy was in the da's office and that the BPD had virtually no experience with this type of crime.

We need a third option: All of the above.
 
The Rs also named LHP the very first day. And JR named a former employee, I believe his name was Merrick, wasn't it? And they certainly spoke of the White's in such a way as to case some suspicion on them.
 
Madeleine, I agree with what you are saying. I think a lot of RDI's do as well. If there are those that believe with certainty that PDI, well, I'm just not one of them.
I guess I could be called a fence sitter on which "one" I believe it was. That being said, I do believe there are only four choices as to the "who": JR/PR/BR/JAR. I have always believed that there is more to the story of John hiring an attorney for his ex-wife.
You can believe it wasn't to protect her, but himself or JAR.

I believe he hired the attorney for his ex-wife (JAR's mother) so she would not be questioned as to whether JAR was with her for Christmas (as he claimed). Her attorney would surely prevent her from having to turn over any photographs that may disprove that fact, as well as preventing her from being questioned about whether he son was with her.
He is still a suspect in the minds of many RDI.
 
The Rs also named LHP the very first day. And JR named a former employee, I believe his name was Merrick, wasn't it? And they certainly spoke of the White's in such a way as to case some suspicion on them.

Is Merrick the employee that was fired because someone saw him smoking a cigarette on his lunch break on a park bench? I can understand him being upset (who wouldn't), but to insert his name into a murder investigation? I might could see the logic behind it if the guy had embezzled a ridiculous amount of money, but come on. This shows the Ramsey's were desperate to pin this on someone and none of their friends or acquaintances were immune.
 
I believe he hired the attorney for his ex-wife (JAR's mother) so she would not be questioned as to whether JAR was with her for Christmas (as he claimed). Her attorney would surely prevent her from having to turn over any photographs that may disprove that fact, as well as preventing her from being questioned about whether he son was with her.
He is still a suspect in the minds of many RDI.

Hi DeeDee! Lately, I've been thinking about JAR and how it makes sense that he was involved in a big way. If so, I could almost feel sorry for John. Talk about being between a rock and a hard place!!!
 
I believe he hired the attorney for his ex-wife (JAR's mother) so she would not be questioned as to whether JAR was with her for Christmas (as he claimed). Her attorney would surely prevent her from having to turn over any photographs that may disprove that fact, as well as preventing her from being questioned about whether he son was with her.
He is still a suspect in the minds of many RDI.

I knew that long long ago........I completely forgot all about JAR and the lawyer hired for his ex wife!
 
Hi DeeDee! Lately, I've been thinking about JAR and how it makes sense that he was involved in a big way. If so, I could almost feel sorry for John. Talk about being between a rock and a hard place!!!


True, but why would Pasty go along?

I think "image" and other peoples perception of Patsy and her family was extremely important to Patsy, but to go along with the staging? ARGHHH I'll be chewing on this tid bit for awhile...........
 
I knew that long long ago........I completely forgot all about JAR and the lawyer hired for his ex wife!

I'm sure that it's been done before on here, but could we start a thread on JAR and get the info back up where everyone can debate/theorize? Or would it be :eek:ther_beatingA_Dead?????
 
True, but why would Pasty go along?

I think "image" and other peoples perception of Patsy and her family was extremely important to Patsy, but to go along with the staging? ARGHHH I'll be chewing on this tid bit for awhile...........

Well, I, for one am leaning toward something sending Patsy into a rage that night and I don't think it had a thing to do with bed-wetting. Say for instance, she walks in on someone molesting JB?
 
There are several ways (of course) the head injury could have happened, but I lean to Patsy jerking JB up with all the force of a mad woman (which she would have been) and her head striking something very hard.

And hence, there must be a cover up because she is now the guilty one!
 
True, but why would Pasty go along?

She didn't have a clue?
You always assume that she wrote the RN,that automatically involves her in the murder or cover-up.What if it wasn't so.You really underestimate JR sometimes.
And re them pointing fingers at Fleet,Santa,LHP(I already know that they did that).That's not what I was saying but because you can't stand different views you probably don't even read carefully what others have to say even if they say things you normaly would agree with cause they point to RDI.They pointed fingers here and there,maybe just for the show.But that's what IS weird.
I never felt they REALLY suspected THOSE people.If they ever suspected someone(REALLY suspected) it wasn't FW or Santa,whatever.
 
Pls tell me,if JDI,BDI or JARDI,what is one of the big reasons he/they will get away?
It's ST starting the PR wrote the note /PR bashed her head/PR staging the scene circus.
Even with doctors telling him about prior abuse he didn't change his views,well done.What did JR say?That the investigators were hired for HIS defence.He hired lawyers for HIS ex-wife and son.
I still think that S.Singular was SO right about one thing,if something bad happens who would be the first person you would lie to or hide the truth from,your WIFE.But you don't wanna follow this up because that would mean considering she DIDN'T write the note.
 
So what else ties her to the scene,the fibers?Couldn't those been transfered by him?Not on purpose of course,but he was with her all night,he touched her,right,maybe he touched her clothes.
 
Why is it that the bed-wetting PDI theory is more credible than the JDI sex game theory anyway?Your experts say there is evidence of prior abuse.Where's the evidence that JB wet the bed that night and PR bashed her head because of it?
What's more likely,people killing their kids over a bed-wetting problem or over a sex related issue,you tell me.


We have murder,sexual assault and possibly prior abuse.
What's more likely,daddy did it or mommy post mortem raped her daughter in order to cover up for......God knows what .
 
If I were on a jury, I would have no problem finding Patsy guilty beyond a REASONABLE doubt. Not ALL doubt mind you...REASONABLE. I am 99.9 % certain Patsy was involved in the staging, why stage if you're innocent of any wrong doing?

Did John have anything to do with her actual death? I don't know. I would have more trouble convicting him based on what I THINK I know;)

So you would find her guilty of staging then?What about murder?
Why stage if you're innocent?Let's see....because you love your husband,because you wanna protect your other kid who did something bad,because someone tricked you into it or lied to you,there's more.
Did John have anything to do with her actual death?How do you know it was her and not him,I will ask this until I drop dead.And you accuse me of pointing fingers at him based on what I THINK I know?Isn't this what you're doing as well?And I am talking about the killing not the staging.Pls feel free to prove that it was her and not him or one of the other sons.If you THINK I am wrong and you are always right.
 
Madeleine, I am curious about what you believe happened. Do you believe this is a
stranger/intruder murder, meaning nobody who lived in the home had anything to do with it or the cover-up?
TIA,
Becky
ETA: Would you be willing to believe that some else in the home was responsible, just not Patsy?
 
Madeleine, I am curious about what you believe happened. Do you believe this is a
stranger/intruder murder, meaning nobody who lived in the home had anything to do with it or the cover-up?
TIA,
Becky

If it was an intruder the Ramsey's behaviour is strange which makes me believe that at least JR has some ideas on who it was and why.If so did he tell PR?Maybe yes,maybe NOT.



ETA: Would you be willing to believe that some else in the home was responsible, just not Patsy?

Yes.But it seems that everything else is kinda dismissed because "she wrote the note".And to me,even IF she did,I still don't think it was her who killed JB.
 

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
235
Guests online
3,808
Total visitors
4,043

Forum statistics

Threads
591,702
Messages
17,957,787
Members
228,589
Latest member
3bell4010066bppts
Back
Top