Hi, guys! Sorry I missed the chat, but I just got through watching the recording. I just want to hit a few points and see what you all think.
1) It was clear to me that Ron Walker, the FBI man and one of the most experienced investigators involved, still think the Ramseys are involved some way.
2) I'm puzzled as to why Bob Whitson was given so much credence, since he was only peripherally involved with the case. His comments about disposing of the cord, tape and paintbrush handle goes to something I've been hammering at for a long time: who's to say that there were any of those things LEFT to dispose? The duct tape could have been a used piece; the cord could have been one of Patsy's slings taken apart...so many possibilities.
3) They finally brought up the other DNA profiles at the scene! YES!
4) Bob Grant said flat-out that he couldn't understand Mary Lacy's rationale for clearing the Ramseys. He also said what I've been saying for a while now: that you have to take the varying results of the handwriting examinations with a grain of salt, because it's not a real science.
5) Tom Haney admits he told Patsy things that weren't true. I guess that's one for RST, but he didn't seem to imply that he thinks she's innocent. We know from PMPT that he thought she did it.
6) Dr. Steven Pitt is my new hero in this case. He finally put into words what a lot of us have been saying. But there was one in particular that leaped out at me, and that is his response to people who say, "but how could parents do that?" He said that he's dealt with people who were squeaky-clean on the outside who had done terrible things, and that you can't fool yourself into thinking that someone can't do something because you don't think you can do it, when you yourself don't know until you're in a spot like that. Lord knows we at websleuths have dealt with that thinking too many times to count.
So, any questions? Any answers? Any thoughts? Any reactions? Any food? (I'm hungry!)
1) It was clear to me that Ron Walker, the FBI man and one of the most experienced investigators involved, still think the Ramseys are involved some way.
2) I'm puzzled as to why Bob Whitson was given so much credence, since he was only peripherally involved with the case. His comments about disposing of the cord, tape and paintbrush handle goes to something I've been hammering at for a long time: who's to say that there were any of those things LEFT to dispose? The duct tape could have been a used piece; the cord could have been one of Patsy's slings taken apart...so many possibilities.
3) They finally brought up the other DNA profiles at the scene! YES!
4) Bob Grant said flat-out that he couldn't understand Mary Lacy's rationale for clearing the Ramseys. He also said what I've been saying for a while now: that you have to take the varying results of the handwriting examinations with a grain of salt, because it's not a real science.
5) Tom Haney admits he told Patsy things that weren't true. I guess that's one for RST, but he didn't seem to imply that he thinks she's innocent. We know from PMPT that he thought she did it.
6) Dr. Steven Pitt is my new hero in this case. He finally put into words what a lot of us have been saying. But there was one in particular that leaped out at me, and that is his response to people who say, "but how could parents do that?" He said that he's dealt with people who were squeaky-clean on the outside who had done terrible things, and that you can't fool yourself into thinking that someone can't do something because you don't think you can do it, when you yourself don't know until you're in a spot like that. Lord knows we at websleuths have dealt with that thinking too many times to count.
So, any questions? Any answers? Any thoughts? Any reactions? Any food? (I'm hungry!)
opcorn: 
