Are the Ramseys involved or not?

nobull · Mar 7, 2009

madeleine said:
http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorious_murders/famous/ramsey/book_10.html

Thomas indicated that this fact also pointed to Patsy Ramsey, as she often used acronyms. He cited a Christmas note to a friend that was signed "P.P.R.B.S.J.," which she said stood for "Patsy Paugh Ramsey, Bachelor of Science in Journalism."

More accurately it should have been, P.P.R.B.S.F. or: Patsy Paugh Ramsey, Bachelor of Science in Fiction.

BBB167893 · Mar 7, 2009

Holdontoyourhat said:
We cant see the forest for the trees?

Never thought I'd see you put it that way, HOTYH.

Holdontoyourhat · Mar 7, 2009

SuperDave said:
Never thought I'd see you put it that way, HOTYH.

Well, I've said before that RDI sees things thru rose colored glasses. That is, RDI places the perp comfortably in the front. I can see the comfort and satisfaction that would give RDI to be able to believe the perp is a known and not an unknown.

When really, the perp appears to be an unknown. An intruder who is still at large. That is according to the latest evidence and LE indications.

RDI is also unable to characterize the real killer because the killer personality is sugar-coated and minimized on each and every brutal, violent aspect of the crime. The child beheading in the ransom note is bogus, something an upper middle class couple spontaneously thought up, the cord applied post-mortem, the 2nd ligature never tightened, the headbash accidental. See what I mean? Its all junk. Dont take my word for it, read the news.

BBB167893 · Mar 7, 2009

Holdontoyourhat said:
Well, I've said before that RDI sees things thru rose colored glasses.

That's another one on me. You just made history, HOTYH. I think that's the first time anyone ever said I was naive regarding this case. Most times, it's the other way around.

And to that end, I'm usually the one telling people to look at the big picture. That's why it struck me so funny.

That is, RDI places the perp comfortably in the front.

I thought that's what I should do.

I can see the comfort and satisfaction that would give RDI to be able to believe the perp is a known and not an unknown.

If you knew as much about RDI as you claim (and I can't tell you how many times I've asked you to walk a mile in my boots), you would know that using words like "comfort" and "satisfaction" is dubious at best. So I'll say it flat-out: I would find it MORE comforting NOT to believe it. Speaking purely for myself, I find RDI to be a LOT scarier than the alternative.

Let me be even more clear: I'd love (and that's a love well-used) to be on your side of it. I just can't. Not now, at least. So "comfort" and "satisfaction" just don't enter into it, to my way of thinking.

When really, the perp appears to be an unknown.

Yeah, to some people. I don't even hold that against them, either.

An intruder who is still at large. That is according to the latest evidence and LE indications.

We'll see about that. When Chief Beckner gave his press conference last month, there was some RDI subtext there, at least I thought. I could well be wrong about that. But like ol' Yogi says, "it ain't over 'til it's over."

RDI is also unable to characterize the real killer

You'll have to excuse me if I disagree.

because the killer personality is sugar-coated and minimized on each and every brutal, violent aspect of the crime.

Hey, we're just going by what the real experts said. And don't take my word for it.

The child beheading in the ransom note is bogus, something an upper middle class couple spontaneously thought up,

That's right. Just like a thousand upper-middle class Hollywood screenwriters have thought up. Rent 300 and Friday the 13th if you don't believe me. Not only that, but let's take a close look at this upper-middle class couple, shall we? She was a journalism major who had written a play called Kiss of Death. which pretty much tells you what it was about, and he was an ex-sailor who had been stationed in the Phillipines during the anti-Marcos rebellion, when you had all kinds of nasties from communists to Islamic radicals coming out of the woodwork, many of whom are still operating today. Hmm, mm, mm.

the cord applied post-mortem,

There you go again, putting words in my mouth. When we talked about that some time ago, I was very clear that the cord was applied when JB was still alive.

the 2nd ligature never tightened,

That's what the lack of marks on JB tells us.

the headbash accidental.

I think a bit of clarification is in order. When we say "accidental," we mean that whomever did it did not mean to kill her. I guess the best way to categorize it would be the difference between murder and manslaughter.

[QUOTE[See what I mean?[/QUOTE]

No, HOTYH, I don't, and I haven't for a long time. That's as plain as I can put it.

Its all junk.

That it is, but in a much different way than you mean it.

Dont take my word for it, read the news.

Like I said, HOTYH, you could fill volumes with what the news doesn't report. Ever heard the expression "All The News That's Fit to Print?" Well it ought to be "All The News That Fits, We Print." That's not even counting the various backstage workings. Don't take my word for that, either. Ask Tricia next time she's around.

Tadpole12 · Mar 8, 2009

Hey Hotyh.

I was watching SNL, and they did a news desk skit, hilarious, political spoof, and the term Fat Cats was used.

So it is part of the popular vernacular. Maybe I'm just so old that the last time I heard it used was in a black and white.

Preconceptions!

I'll not eat crow.
Maybe a couple quail?

Holdontoyourhat · Mar 12, 2009

Tadpole12 said:
Hey Hotyh.

I was watching SNL, and they did a news desk skit, hilarious, political spoof, and the term Fat Cats was used.

So it is part of the popular vernacular. Maybe I'm just so old that the last time I heard it used was in a black and white.

Preconceptions!

I'll not eat crow.
Maybe a couple quail?

I just heard 'fat cat' used on 'In the Line of Fire" the Clint Eastwood movie. I'd never noticed that before. It was used in reference to rich campaign contributors, I think.

madeleine · Mar 12, 2009

Holdontoyourhat said:
Well, I've said before that RDI sees things thru rose colored glasses. That is, RDI places the perp comfortably in the front. I can see the comfort and satisfaction that would give RDI to be able to believe the perp is a known and not an unknown.
When really, the perp appears to be an unknown. An intruder who is still at large. That is according to the latest evidence and LE indications.

RDI is also unable to characterize the real killer because the killer personality is sugar-coated and minimized on each and every brutal, violent aspect of the crime. The child beheading in the ransom note is bogus, something an upper middle class couple spontaneously thought up, the cord applied post-mortem, the 2nd ligature never tightened, the headbash accidental. See what I mean? Its all junk. Dont take my word for it, read the news.

Re the underlined part.....and I can understand why it's way more fascinating for the IDI's to believe it was ......who?!.The not knowing.Who it was,why he did it,how ( :waitasec: ) he did it,how did he get away,what's he doing now,what's he look like,did he do it again,is he still alive,is he married,does he really look like a psycho and soooo onnnnn.....way more fascinating,more puzzles,more questions,more to find out.

Holdontoyourhat · Mar 12, 2009

"And so this pedophile kidnapper, this pedophile-ransomer-kidnapper-turned-murderer would have been unique in the annals of crime. Such a bird does not exist." ST

In crimes against children that involve pedophiles, many times the criminal isn't the pedophile. The criminal provides material for the pedophile.

Not to disagree with an 'expert' or anything, but a ransomer-kidnapper turned murderer IS NOT unique in the annals of crime. Yes its been done before. Instead of pedophiles, the perps were homosexuals (Leopold and Loeb).

Sophie · Mar 12, 2009

Holdontoyourhat said:
"And so this pedophile kidnapper, this pedophile-ransomer-kidnapper-turned-murderer would have been unique in the annals of crime. Such a bird does not exist." ST

In crimes against children that involve pedophiles, many times the criminal isn't the pedophile. The criminal provides material for the pedophile.

Not to disagree with an 'expert' or anything, but a ransomer-kidnapper turned murderer IS NOT unique in the annals of crime. Yes its been done before. Instead of pedophiles, the perps were homosexuals (Leopold and Loeb).

I agree that there's nothing new under the sun and, despite being a huge ST supporter who genuflects in cyber awe at his efforts for JBR , I have to admit that his veering between actual evidence and profiling/stats did him no favours: you can't deny the existence of something on the basis that it hasn't been seen before then write off the FBI's comments about the ligature being unprecedented in parental crimes as being merely statistical without needing a Logic 101 update. However, the catalogue of suspensions of disbelief required to accept that a kidnapper-paedophile-murderer DI outweighs the issue with this being a family crime by quite some distance. Kidnapper-paedophile-murderer with no previous or later form to warrant attention from the police or a CODIS match enters a house, unperceived by anyone, abducts a child and feeds her pineapple and kills her and writes a ransom note, unperceived by anyone, then escapes and remains unperceived by anyone for 12 years. It could happen but.......ST was probably right to quote Smit: 'Murders are normally what they seem.'

Holdontoyourhat · Mar 12, 2009

Sophie said:
However, the catalogue of suspensions of disbelief required to accept that a kidnapper-paedophile-murderer DI outweighs the issue with this being a family crime by quite some distance. Kidnapper-paedophile-murderer with no previous or later form to warrant attention from the police or a CODIS match enters a house, unperceived by anyone, abducts a child and feeds her pineapple and kills her and writes a ransom note, unperceived by anyone, then escapes and remains unperceived by anyone for 12 years. It could happen but.......ST was probably right to quote Smit: 'Murders are normally what they seem.'

The RDI catalog? Well, lets start with allowing the cord and tape to appear on the scene, as if there were proof it was ever even owned by the R's. While we're at it, lets allow the unknown male DNA evidence found in three places on two articles of clothing JBR was wearing at the time she was murdered, to be transferred there innocently by someone JBR came in contact with THAT SAME DAY, that LE is ALSO coincidentally unable to find. Lets also add a Jekyl & Hyde child murdering personality inside one of JBR's parents for only one night. All the other nights A-OK.

It is interesting all the felonies taking place that one night, in word and deed. Conspiracy to murder with special circumstances, conspiracy to mass murder, kidnapping, extortion, murder with special circumstances, sexual assault on a child, aggrivated assault on a child. And yet, not even a misdemeanor jaywalking can be produced either before or after the crime. You're asking me to believe the criminality meter goes from zero to infinity and back to zero in 24 hours. I don't think it works that way.

madeleine said:
Re the underlined part.....and I can understand why it's way more fascinating for the IDI's to believe it was ......who?!.The not knowing.Who it was (a socialist),why he did it (why does anyone murder a child? A psychotic episode),how ( :waitasec: ) he did it (the perp is rich, and had paid help), how did he get away (either he was never there to begin with, or he left by car/plane. Remember it was done under the cover of darkness while the neighborhood slept after a busy day, right?),what's he doing now (exerting authority over others, that according to Clint VanZandt),what's he look like (probably middle aged asian male), did he do it again (probably),is he still alive (probably),is he married (Probably not anymore), does he really look like a psycho (probably can't hide it from his peers) and soooo onnnnn.....way more fascinating,more puzzles,more questions,more to find out.

Fascinating puzzle pieces highlighted.

Tadpole12 · Mar 13, 2009

Holdontoyourhat said:
I just heard 'fat cat' used on 'In the Line of Fire" the Clint Eastwood movie. I'd never noticed that before. It was used in reference to rich campaign contributors, I think.

Hi Hotyh.

That's cool.

I've seen all those action movies a million times, watching and as background tv when 'Spike TV?' runs those back to back movie weekends.

And I've never really noticed the dialogue .... and ..... I always identify with the good guy.

Sure I can quote Arnold, DeNiro, Duvall .....some half bad Walken, but that's part of pop-culture vernacular, and I guess those quotes do reflect my age group and experience.

That's quite something, I do believe, all those suggested movie quotes within the ransom note.

Children, they have the knack, to recite lines, gee .... a movie in it's entirity, but I guess that happens if ie you watch 'Little Mermaid' a million times.

I guess, also, an obsessive nature, if movie dialogue was your quirk?

Ya, I reread the L&L case, http://judicial-inc.biz/Leopold_Loeb.htm

Darrow uses psychiatrists
The defense hoped to build its case against death around the testimony of three psychiatrists, including Sigmund Freud consulted.
The defense presented extensive psychiatric evidence describing the defendants' emotional immaturity, obsessions with crime and Nietzschean philosophy, alcohol abuse, glandular abnormalities, and sexual longings and insecurities.

And for sure, it has it's parallels.
'Thrill kill' motivation allows for 'the exception' to be the case. All that randomness explained; as not everything has an explanation. Disorganization.

As for the tree forest analogy, I dunno, I wonder if the dna does obstruct the view of all those trees, lined up in rows?

Is it all junk?
or maybe a lot of 'filler' either way ... RDI or IDI.

Still, though I'm wondering about that ransom note, and what advances in linguistics could affect the direction of this case.

Think of the possible advances within 'the science' of handwriting analysis that could be possible in the next decade.

But then this dark reality hits me, those suspicions and predictions that the only progression this case will see is a redirection back into a coldcase file.

madeleine · Mar 13, 2009

Holdontoyourhat said:
"And so this pedophile kidnapper, this pedophile-ransomer-kidnapper-turned-murderer would have been unique in the annals of crime. Such a bird does not exist." ST

In crimes against children that involve pedophiles, many times the criminal isn't the pedophile. The criminal provides material for the pedophile.

Not to disagree with an 'expert' or anything, but a ransomer-kidnapper turned murderer IS NOT unique in the annals of crime. Yes its been done before. Instead of pedophiles, the perps were homosexuals (Leopold and Loeb).

So yes maybe he was wrong by generalizing,I know that there are evil sickos out there.But I think he meant more that in this case it would have been amazing (was tempted to say impossible)for someone to have done all that magic.

Sophie · Mar 13, 2009

HOTYH, I know what you mean and have, in fact, thought at length about the Ramseys and their behaviour pathology. However, murder isn't generally a professional crime and if you look at many murderers, you will see little in their previous form to suggest a homicidal nature. Certainly, you can't give people a pass on the basis that they are perceived as being 'nice.'

In terms of the cord and tape, I've always been much more confused about the latter than the former. I mean, most people have random bits of cord in their houses from parcels etc, don't they? I'm not sure why anyone would expect there to be any more of the cord. The tape is more problematic but presumably it could have been attached to something (picture, electrical cables or whatever) rather than coming fresh from a roll so the absence of more of the duct tape may be irrelevant. In fact, I think Dr Henry Lee suggested that the tape had been used before (I'm pretty sure I'm not imagining that....).

Holdontoyourhat · Mar 13, 2009

Sophie said:
I mean, most people have random bits of cord in their houses from parcels etc, don't they? I'm not sure why anyone would expect there to be any more of the cord.

Its a critical piece of evidence because it basically was the murder weapon. Its widely reported that this critical evidence can't be factually sourced to the house. Not only that, the tape ALSO cannot be factually sourced to the house. No other use was found. To suppose that the R's owned them simply because most people have random bits of cord and tape is a generalization. Its like saying the R's killed their daughter because sometimes parents kill kids.

madeleine · Mar 13, 2009

http://clintvanzandt.newsvine.com/_...y-murder-police-and-science-take-another-look

During the course of this investigation, Boulder police officers presented case evidence to the FBIs Child Abduction and Serial Killer Unit (know to the media as the Behavioral Science Unit). Here almost two dozen experts reviewed the materials and suggested that this was the only known case in America where so young a victim had been sexually assaulted and strangled to death in her own home with the killer(s) leaving a ransom note behind them. The FBIs experts also believed the crime scene had been staged and was not suggestive of the act of an unknown intruder.

KoldKase · Mar 13, 2009

Holdontoyourhat said:
Its a critical piece of evidence because it basically was the murder weapon. Its widely reported that this critical evidence can't be factually sourced to the house. Not only that, the tape ALSO cannot be factually sourced to the house. No other use was found. To suppose that the R's owned them simply because most people have random bits of cord and tape is a generalization. Its like saying the R's killed their daughter because sometimes parents kill kids.

Holdontoyourhat, interesting argument.

But if you believe it is reasonable to make it, then you must believe it is reasonable to argue that the missing end of the paintbrush in the home means it was never there. It couldn't have simply been removed, right? Along with the missing practice note pages, which obviously were never there, either, because LE only found the evidence of them in the torn tops of the pages.

Sorry, using the absence of the duct tape roll and any other matching cord in the home does not an intruder make.

BBB167893 · Mar 13, 2009

Sophie said:
HOTYH, I know what you mean and have, in fact, thought at length about the Ramseys and their behaviour pathology. However, murder isn't generally a professional crime and if you look at many murderers, you will see little in their previous form to suggest a homicidal nature.

THANK YOU!

Certainly, you can't give people a pass on the basis that they are perceived as being 'nice.'

Not only CAN IDI do that, Sophie, they HAVE! Many, many times! In fact, it's often their basis!

In fact, I think Dr Henry Lee suggested that the tape had been used before (I'm pretty sure I'm not imagining that....).

You're not. He did.

Mendara · Mar 13, 2009

SuperDave said:
I get you. But I think that was the whole point of staging it that way, if you understand me.

Well, that begs a few points:

1) Were any of those other methods available?

2) "Less cruel" wouldn't have worked as well.

3) Most importantly, strangling is a clean method. It doesn't make a bloody mess. (I'm going to hell for this; I just know it.)

Well, Mendara, I hate to seem like I'm jumping on you, but they asked FBI agent Ron Walker about a parent "going that far," as you put it. Here's what he had to say:

"Well, as much as it pains me to say it, yes, I've seen parents who have decapitated their children, I've seen cases where parents have drowned their children in bathtubs, I've seen cases where parents have strangled their children, have placed them in paper bags and smothered them, have strapped them in car seats and driven them into a body of water, any way that you can think of that a person can kill another person, almost all those ways are also ways that parents can kill their children."

If that's the only thing keeping you back, you got nothing to worry about.

I should have said I don't think a parent like Patsy would go that far - i know parents do terrible things to their children - but the theory that Patsy snapped and caused the bash in her head and then staged the strangulation is what I can't picture - she wasn't an abusive mother - never hit JB - there are not reports of her being hit correct? Why would she just used her clothing to strangle her - why use a method that is known as a sexual sadistic method?

Thanks for responding to me.

Gma Kat · Mar 13, 2009

Sophie said:
Holdontoyourhat said:

"And so this pedophile kidnapper, this pedophile-ransomer-kidnapper-turned-murderer would have been unique in the annals of crime. Such a bird does not exist." ST

In crimes against children that involve pedophiles, many times the criminal isn't the pedophile. The criminal provides material for the pedophile.

Not to disagree with an 'expert' or anything, but a ransomer-kidnapper turned murderer IS NOT unique in the annals of crime. Yes its been done before. Instead of pedophiles, the perps were homosexuals (Leopold and Loeb).

I agree that there's nothing new under the sun and, despite being a huge ST supporter who genuflects in cyber awe at his efforts for JBR , I have to admit that his veering between actual evidence and profiling/stats did him no favours: you can't deny the existence of something on the basis that it hasn't been seen before then write off the FBI's comments about the ligature being unprecedented in parental crimes as being merely statistical without needing a Logic 101 update. However, the catalogue of suspensions of disbelief required to accept that a kidnapper-paedophile-murderer DI outweighs the issue with this being a family crime by quite some distance. Kidnapper-paedophile-murderer with no previous or later form to warrant attention from the police or a CODIS match enters a house, unperceived by anyone, abducts a child and feeds her pineapple and kills her and writes a ransom note, unperceived by anyone, then escapes and remains unperceived by anyone for 12 years. It could happen but.......ST was probably right to quote Smit: 'Murders are normally what they seem.'

Click to expand...

BOLD IS MINE: I too am a huge fan of ST. I agree wholeheartedly with the theory that if it looks and sounds like a duck...just maybe not a duck we've seen before....

RhythmicSun · Mar 13, 2009

Just adding my 2 cents here. I have always felt the Ramseys were involved; directly or indirectly caused the death of their daughter.

Early on I thought it was highly suspect that LE completely bungled the investigation so much so that it cast suspicion as to why the bungling was so "over the top." Second, the graphological analysis of the ransom note convinced me that PR had indeed written the note (for what reason I don't know but have several ideas like many people). A few years after JBR's murder, I was listening to the radio in my car and a male host was talking about JR's frequenting a well-known area of pedophilia in Amsterdam and had been seen at a bookstore in Denver with regard to same. There was a lot of discussion about those sightings. At the time I felt that JR somehow directly or indirectly caused his daughter's death and PR was trying to cover it up/mitigate the damage it would do to their status quo (lifestyle, reputation, etc.)

Also possible is that Patsy directly caused her daughter's death. Personally I lean heavily toward the pedophilia theory. Especially with JR's later ties to attempting running for political office.

Are the Ramseys involved or not?

Are the Ramseys involved or not?

The Ramseys are somehow involved in the crime and/or cover-up

The Ramseys are not involved at all in the crime or cover-up

Sharpening my Occam's Razor.

Former Member

Former Member

Former Member

Well-Known Member

Former Member

Well-Known Member

Former Member

Well-Known Member

Former Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Former Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Former Member

Well-Known Member

Wantonly distributing my opinion........

Active Member

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics