Poll: Will this case ever be solved?

[BBB167893]

Nice try, but they were framing a small foreign faction, remember?

It's my considered opinion that they were trying to cover all bases as best they could. That way, they could always change their minds later. Which they DID, in case you haven't noticed.

How to frame a local 'fall guy with insider information' on one hand, while framing a 'group of individuals that represent a small foreign faction' on the other?

How indeed? Makes one wonder just how clearly they were supposed to have been thinking those first few hours, doesn't it?

It is an inarguable inconsistency in RDI theory, where JR or PR is attempting to frame a foreign faction while including inside information that literally only a handful of people would know.

I never said it wasn't an inconsistency. But it's precisely those inconsistencies that lead to RDI, not away from it. Don't take my word for it. As Gregg McCrary said in reference to this case, real crime scenes aren't inconsistent.

Neither JR or PR would be inclined to include this information whether or not it was a collaborative effort.

And yet it led the cops to check out LHP, Jeff Merrick, Tom Carson, et al., didn't it?

Using this logic, I'm surprised PR didn't just sign the note 'mom'.

In some ways, so am I!

I mean, if they were mixed up enough to include personal inside information, why not forget the RN is supposed to be anonymous??

All kidding aside, the subconscious need to confess is strong in some people, and manifests in odd ways. Remember when PR said on TV that there were two people who knew who did this? I thought JR was going to mess his pants!

This inconsistency is not unlike PR misspelling advise when the RN author did not. RDI has the claim 'deliberate' misspelling or 'she panicked and remembered how to spell' to handle these inconsistencies in the RDI theory. They're still inconsistencies, though.

I've never given that one much thought, one way or the other.

Unsupported claims don't make the inconsistencies go away. They are still there.

I suppose they don't make them go away. But in my case, that's not my intent so much. I make these claims on the basis that people who read them can make up their own minds.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

All kidding aside...

Easier said than done.

...the subconscious need to confess is strong in some people, and manifests in odd ways. Remember when PR said on TV that there were two people who knew who did this? I thought JR was going to mess his pants!

Are we talking about the same case? Who confessed? How did it manifest?

For me, anything to do with confession in this case has to do only with JMK. You're right, the need for JMK to confess was strong, so strong it outweighed his actual involvement in the crime.

Otherwise, the concept of 'confession' is not realistically even relevant to the case at this time, because nobody has come forward and claimed responsibility. The RN is not a confession, can't be construed as one since its not signed, indicates no remorse, and instead threatens ultimate harm to a child as if none had yet happened at the time of the writing.

It is only the most extremely surreal and abstract interpretation of the ransom note that would allow it to be seen as some kind of confession. You have to add some things that just aren't there.

 

[BBB167893]

Easier said than done.

Don't I know it.

Are we talking about the same case? Who confessed? How did it manifest?

One thing at a time. Yes, we are talking about the same case.

Not a confession in the classic sense. I was referring to how the subconscious mind sometimes betrays us. Sort of Freudian slip, if you will. I guess the best example would be when someone is lying to you: they say all the right words, but their facial expressions give them away.

So, IF you take that tack, one could say that the personal references were "hints," for lack of a better term.

For me, anything to do with confession in this case has to do only with JMK. You're right, the need for JMK to confess was strong, so strong it outweighed his actual involvement in the crime.

Well, if you're referring to confession in the classic sense, you're right. Though in this case, we have an instance of someone who is compelled to confess to acts they didn't commit for whatever reason.

Otherwise, the concept of 'confession' is not realistically even relevant to the case at this time, because nobody has come forward and claimed responsibility. The RN is not a confession, can't be construed as one since its not signed, indicates no remorse, and instead threatens ultimate harm to a child as if none had yet happened at the time of the writing.

It's very psychiatric, HOTYH.

It is only the most extremely surreal and abstract interpretation of the ransom note that would allow it to be seen as some kind of confession. You have to add some things that just aren't there.

Just trying to help you out.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

What is very psychiatric? Therapy? Drugs? A couch? You lost me.

In the context PR was speaking, wasn't she referring to the killer and someone who the killer may have confided in? Thats not a bad idea really. She was asking someone who knew what happened to rat out the killer. In the case of Kaczynski, wasn't that his brother or something?

How can you possibly construe this as a subliminal confession or freudian slip? It was instead in reality a fully conscious attempt to get somebody to come forward. Thats how I see it, and its as plain as day.

 

[BBB167893]

What is very psychiatric? Therapy? Drugs? A couch? You lost me.

Sorry. What I meant was that the idea of a subconscious need to confess is rooted in modern psychiatry.

In the context PR was speaking, wasn't she referring to the killer and someone who the killer may have confided in?

Yeah, and you can't help but wonder who she meant, especially given JR's reaction.

Thats not a bad idea really. She was asking someone who knew what happened to rat out the killer.

That's one possibility, sure. But then, it can go the other way too.

In the case of Kaczynski, wasn't that his brother or something?

It was.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Sorry. What I meant was that the idea of a subconscious need to confess is rooted in modern psychiatry.



Yeah, and you can't help but wonder who she meant, especially given JR's reaction.



That's one possibility, sure. But then, it can go the other way too.



It was.

I don't wonder who she meant. She was specific. She said 'someone who the killer confided in'. This was the context she spoke in, and a context RDI omits from the discussion because, well I dunno. You tell me?

I'm not having any trouble understanding her point whatsoever. She wanted somebody to rat on the killer.

 

[BBB167893]

I don't wonder who she meant. She was specific. She said 'someone who the killer confided in'. This was the context she spoke in, and a context RDI omits from the discussion because, well I dunno. You tell me?

Well, it's not that we omit that context, HOTYH. What I'm suggesting is that it could be the way you think it is, but what if it isn't? What if it were a plea for help? Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that you're right. It wouldn't be the first time a victim's relatives made that play.

But what if, for the sake of argument, she wanted to confess (and I sincerely think she did, at least at first)? She couldn't just blurt it out on TV with JR right next to her.

I'm not having any trouble understanding her point whatsoever. She wanted somebody to rat on the killer.

That could go either way, IMO.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Well, it's not that we omit that context, HOTYH. What I'm suggesting is that it could be the way you think it is, but what if it isn't? What if it were a plea for help? Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that you're right. It wouldn't be the first time a victim's relatives made that play.

But what if, for the sake of argument, she wanted to confess (and I sincerely think she did, at least at first)? She couldn't just blurt it out on TV with JR right next to her.



That could go either way, IMO.

Where can we see this interview? Just curious.

 

[Ravyn]

Where can we see this interview? Just curious.

Actually I think the R's was on CNN or one of their T.V. interviews but JR really was nervous about what she said...But you might be able to find it on Youtube...

 

[BBB167893]

Where can we see this interview? Just curious.

This was the now-legendary CNN appearance on New Year's Day, 1997.

I seem to be having a little trouble chasing that footage down just now.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

Question for anyone who's been following this case since the beginning....

At what point did you feel like the Ramsey case might never be solved? Was it when the Grand Jury came back with no indictment or was it earlier?

 

[DeeDee249]

For me, it was earlier. MUCH earlier. The GJ was just for show. There was never going to be an indictment. For me, it became apparent that this case was not going to be prosecuted when the DA began to stymie the police investigation- denying warrants for the phone records, JB's medical and school records, etc. Actually, it goes back to the first DAY-when the DA would not allow the Rs to be arrested.

 

[BBB167893]

For me, it was earlier. MUCH earlier. The GJ was just for show. There was never going to be an indictment. For me, it became apparent that this case was not going to be prosecuted when the DA began to stymie the police investigation- denying warrants for the phone records, JB's medical and school records, etc. Actually, it goes back to the first DAY-when the DA would not allow the Rs to be arrested.

It's not that hard to understand, is it, DD?

 

[KoldKase]

Not until I read Steve Thomas's book did I get a clue that the fix was in.

Still, I held on to hope that justice would prevail, considering that the evidence against the Ramseys is voluminous.

But the final nail in the coffin for me was when Mary Lacy went public with her statement that she agreed with Judge Carnes' ill-informed "opinion" that it was more likely an intruder. I knew then that Lacy was Team Ramsey, since she should have seen the actual case files and known how many errors about the evidence there were in Carnes' opinion, not to mention how much evidence there is leading only to the Ramseys. Lacy had in one short media release:

-Demonstrated either her ignorance of the case or her corruption in ignoring the evidence to support the Ramseys and bury any possibility of ever prosecuting them, and therefore, anyone. (Patsy Ramsey will always be reasonable doubt for anyone who might be tried for these crimes. That's a legal fact it took Lacy's arrest of PERV Karr for her to learn.)

-Become the Ramsey's best witness in any case that might have been brought against them. Having the DA's public statement of belief the killer was an intruder would certainly be reasonable doubt for any jury.

For me, that was game, set, match. VICTORY! for the killer.

 

[BBB167893]

Not until I read Steve Thomas's book did I get a clue that the fix was in.

Still, I held on to hope that justice would prevail, considering that the evidence against the Ramseys is voluminous.

But the final nail in the coffin for me was when Mary Lacy went public with her statement that she agreed with Judge Carnes' ill-informed "opinion" that it was more likely an intruder. I knew then that Lacy was Team Ramsey, since she should have seen the actual case files and known how many errors about the evidence there were in Carnes' opinion, not to mention how much evidence there is leading only to the Ramseys. Lacy had in one short media release:

-Demonstrated either her ignorance of the case or her corruption in ignoring the evidence to support the Ramseys and bury any possibility of ever prosecuting them, and therefore, anyone. (Patsy Ramsey will always be reasonable doubt for anyone who might be tried for these crimes. That's a legal fact it took Lacy's arrest of PERV Karr for her to learn.)

-Become the Ramsey's best witness in any case that might have been brought against them. Having the DA's public statement of belief the killer was an intruder would certainly be reasonable doubt for any jury.

For me, that was game, set, match. VICTORY! for the killer.

Shameful just doesn't quite describe it, does it, KK?

 

[dazeerae]

Sadly, I think this will be "one for the ages" as they say. Something similar to the JFK assassination or the Lindbergh baby (though officially solved). I hope I'm wrong. I hope that somehow the killer(s) will be identified, & the person(s) involved will be punished.

 

[chlban]

Sadly, I think this will be "one for the ages" as they say. Something similar to the JFK assassination or the Lindbergh baby (though officially solved). I hope I'm wrong. I hope that somehow the killer(s) will be identified, & the person(s) involved will be punished.

I tend to agree, although at least in the other two cases, the crimes are solved to my own personal satisfaction. Meaning simply that I believe I know who committed them.

This is a case where I don't think I will ever know even myself who actually did what in that house that night. I have no doubt it was a Ramsey and I always tend to lean back to Patsy. However the recent GJ information made me lean back to my original belief which is BDI. I cannot really buy JDI for whatever reasons, that one just doesn't work for me. Although he may well have participated in the staging, especially if it was BDI.

As a kid, and well into my adulthood I was obsessed with the JFK assasination. I read virtually every book written and was ridiculously informed about each and every conspiracy theory. I was certain, along with most Americans, that it was definitely a conspiracy, just wasn''t sure who.
Finally, I had to face what I believe to be the reality that there was, in fact, no conspiracy. One crazy guy with a $10.00 mail order rifle changed the course of history. IMO.

I wonder if eventually I will discover I am wrong in this instance as well?
I don't think so, for one thing I don't have another 40 years (about how long it took me on the JFK case) to come around.

I just don't think we will ever know which RDI.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

I still believe this will be solved. I think that as time goes on there will be better testing and the evidence will be reexamined and we will have more answers.
I believe we need new eyes in the case. Not the same old ones with the same old opinions.

 

[madeleine]

I tend to agree, although at least in the other two cases, the crimes are solved to my own personal satisfaction. Meaning simply that I believe I know who committed them.

This is a case where I don't think I will ever know even myself who actually did what in that house that night. I have no doubt it was a Ramsey and I always tend to lean back to Patsy. However the recent GJ information made me lean back to my original belief which is BDI. I cannot really buy JDI for whatever reasons, that one just doesn't work for me. Although he may well have participated in the staging, especially if it was BDI.

As a kid, and well into my adulthood I was obsessed with the JFK assasination. I read virtually every book written and was ridiculously informed about each and every conspiracy theory. I was certain, along with most Americans, that it was definitely a conspiracy, just wasn''t sure who.
Finally, I had to face what I believe to be the reality that there was, in fact, no conspiracy. One crazy guy with a $10.00 mail order rifle changed the course of history. IMO.

I wonder if eventually I will discover I am wrong in this instance as well?
I don't think so, for one thing I don't have another 40 years (about how long it took me on the JFK case) to come around.

I just don't think we will ever know which RDI.

The main reason (from a very personal point of view ,based on my own life experience and problems with abuse) why I always tended to believe JDI is that if PDI / BDI - in a fit of RAGE ,you would have seen signs of GUILT.if you do something outta rage, in a moment of anger ,you regret it afterwards...if you're a normal person I guess...it eats you alive....IF though PDI or BDI and it was premeditated then it's a different story I guess cause we're dealing with MOTIVE...jealousy,sickness and the list goes on....

 

[chlban]

The main reason (from a very personal point of view ,based on my own life experience and problems with abuse) why I always tended to believe JDI is that if PDI / BDI - in a fit of RAGE ,you would have seen signs of GUILT.if you do something outta rage, in a moment of anger ,you regret it afterwards...if you're a normal person I guess...it eats you alive....IF though PDI or BDI and it was premeditated then it's a different story I guess cause we're dealing with MOTIVE...jealousy,sickness and the list goes on....

Oh I definitely don't think it was premeditated. I think i was just initially an act of rage. Whether it was Patsy or Burke I think they just overreacted and caused the initial injury. I realize that if the garrote was part of the staging (which I believe it was) then legally it was premeditated, but what I mean is that I don't think anyone planned the murder in advance.

As for the guilt, I thought Patsy could well be showing that guilt. She was a drugged out mess, her alleged comment at the funeral about "not meaning for this to happen", just her overall behavior could certainly have been a combination of guilt and grief, both of which I would fully expect her to be feeling.

I just still tend to think if JDI that ludicrous RN would not have existed at all, or if it had for whatever wierd reason, if would have looked much more like a real RN. That note to me just screams Patsy, regardless of the handwriting and all the other evidence that points to her. Just the content of the note has drama queen Patsy all over it, IMO. Even the garroting rings of Patsy. Over the top dramatic.