Which is strongest RDI evidence?

[eleven]

Pretty much my point Eleven...
Possible & Probable aren't Facts....which is largely the argument used by people who believe the Intruder Theory, when they have a go at those who do not.

I like to stick with the facts...the rest is guess work.

Fact being, they said they had her and didn't.
There is no evidence any intruder DID.


OOHH...Double posting...

But I digress...because your statement is NOT a known fact. It is exactly what you say the "rest" is.....guess work. Plain & Simple. Matter of opinion only.

Double posting as well! Tit for tat, and all that jazz.

 

[eleven]

You get aggressive quickly Holdon....chill.

Fact - they said they had their daughter.
Fact - they did not...she was in their house.

Don't get caught up in what you THINK might have happened, cos that's pretty much what you're telling ME not to do....there are facts and there are theories.

YOUR theory is that "THEY" had their daughter.
The FACT is, kidnappers don't ransom the family from within their own house.
She was found inside her own house....doesn't sound like "they" were ever in control of the situation with respect to the parents does it....no...it does not.
(Sorry if you are as put off by being patronized as I am by people who get aggressive quickly).

Saying they "had" their daughter doesn't in any way denote a location, i.e., a robber/intruder can "have" me in his possession in my very own home. The fact that I don't ever LEAVE my home does not, in any way, mean that I am not in the possession of said intruder.

NOW...IF the note said "We have your daughter at *advertiser censored* Location," signifying a location OTHER than the home, then your point could and would be very well valid. Otherwise, it's a guessing game, which leaves everything open. Ya know, interpretation and opinion.

ETA: As far as your statement, and self proclaimed FACT that kidnappers don't ransom the family from within their own house.....you are making a very broad assumption that the "plans" of the kidnappers did not change or vary at all between the writing of the note and the horrific end of this young girl. One must realize that people capable of such an act can, and most likely will be, fraught with flight of ideas and massive reworking of the so called plan. The sheer nature of this crime denotes that it is not a methodical, well-thought-out plan of action that has been rehearsed umpteen times. Without a doubt, the scenario required plan revisions and modifications at a seconds notice...numerous times.

 

[wonderllama]

Oh of course I am....the assumption is very much there.

You are sort of missing my point though.

Holdon said "My guess is you're unable to factually rule out even one of them"...

I said....yes, I am...."We have your daughter."
The fact is, they did not have their daughter.

Don't worry about whether there was a balls up when leaving the house or whatever. The reality is, nobody "had" their daughter, she was in the house the entire time.

As I detailed in a different thread when discussing this exact thing with Murri, I went through reading the note and taking it at face value. For it to work, it meant that the note was written BEFORE the kidnapper/s grabbed the child. For that to work, that meant that the kidnapper/s had to author the note whilst in the house BEFORE grabbing the child. It's not a short note remember, this seems like time wasted if your aim is to kidnap a child. (my assumption of course). And given that the pen and paper were sourced in the home, it also seems a level of unpreparedness was involved....again, an assumption on my behalf but these are assumptions LEADING to facts, not assumptions STEMMING from facts.

1 + 1 = 2
I forgot my notepad & pen + oh look, here's a notepad and pen = I'll write a ransom note now

Look, I'm all for people questioning the stuff I say, but do it like you have and not in a tanty manner like Holdon. It's not becoming. This is one opinion, about one murder...not a political, religious, racial, lifestyle issue.

Perspective is all I ask in addressing the issues.

 

[DeeDee249]

Det. Arndt mishandled the case when she asked JR to take another look around an active crime scene unsupervised by her. She alleged it was suggested to her to give JR something to do. However, she could have simply ORDERED everyone that did not live in the home to leave and ORDERED the family to remain in one room with her. She had a gun. However, she could simply have stated that this was for their protection and to preserve the crime scene. If JR Had blatantly walked away at that point, one would realize it was his INTENTION to contaminate the crime scene.

The FBI did not "misdirect" the case. They had FAR more experience in this exact type of situation than any local LE. In their experience, when parents report a missing child and that "missing" child is later found dead in their own home, in nearly every case there is parental involvement. They also recognized the RN as a fake immediately, having seen countless ransom notes (legitimate and not). I'd say they were spot on.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

The fact is, they did not have their daughter.

Of course they did. How do you think they sexually assaulted, strangled, and headbashed her? Telekenesis?

For all you know, there were three people of which at least two were men. And they belonged to a group that represented a foreign faction who disrespected this country. Professing to know differently and then stating it as fact when you were not a witness? As I posted previously, its obvious you dont know what happened. Then why profess these so-called facts that are really just opinions?

 

[wonderllama]

Once again you are presenting your Intruders as if they are proven...
Although I don't agree with your theory, nothing I am saying is leaning one way or the other. I have simply said that a demand was made when the prize was not in their possession.

Do you not see the irony of your statement ...

"Professing to know differently and then stating it as fact when you were not a witness?"

Differently to what? YOUR opinion? I think that's what you meant....

No. My statement is correct from either an IDI or RDI position.
Demands were made when they didn't have JBR. Plain and simple.

It's really not hard.
Also, just because you say the same thing about three times in a post doesn't make it three times as believable.

 

[BOESP]

Patsy said on public television that they (whomever "they" are) believed there were two who knew what happened: the offender and one person the offender "confided in."

Her remark is interesting.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Demands were made when they didn't have JBR. Plain and simple.

Wha? How do you know they didn't have JBR? Were you there?

Please answer this question, as other posters seem to be curious and in disagreement with your logic as well. It certainly escapes me, as it seems you're privy to information, professing to know who did and didn't have JBR while the ransom note was being written.

While you're at it, answer this question also: The ransom note author states "At this time". Does that mean at the time the ransom note was written, or at the time JR/PR found it and read it?

I think you'll be needing to admit that you dont know who killed JBR or why, and are professing to know stuff that nobody else is even saying. Out there on a limb, you are

 

[wonderllama]

*sigh*

You certainly enjoy the "Were you there????" line of questioning.
Think of it this way.

I leave you a note saying "I HAVE YOUR CHOCOLATE BAR".
You eventually FIND your chocolate bar.
Sure, it may have clearly been moved, touched, etc.
But I don't HAVE YOUR CHOCOLATE BAR.

You seem very caught up in trying to tell me I'm wrong when the reality is you are simply having trouble with TENSES.

You asked (originally) for me to disprove ONE thing in the Ransom Note.
I thought to myself "Sure, that's easy"....they said they had JBR, but they DIDN'T.

Okay, while I'm at it I'm supposed to answer another question....
"At this time"...well, normally I would say that with any ransom note it is CURRENT, as in the majority of Ransom Notes are prepared AHEAD of time and delivered AFTER there is something to ransom (I'm sure you'd agree there...despite neither of us being there).

And there is the key....they are prepared AHEAD of time.
We know this one was not prepared ahead of time, it was prepared in situ and that somewhat changes the interpretation I would say.

For your Intruder suggestion, the only way I can see it happening is Mr Intruder breaks in, writes the note, leaves it on the step, twists his evil moustache, heads upstairs, grabs the child, heads downstairs, then stops and goes to the basement instead of leaving....maybe overcome by the desire to defile the child straight away, certainly immediately making the Ransom Note null and void.

So you see, even in my attempt to recreate an intruder option (no...I still wasn't there), they never actually "HAD" JBR. To KIDNAP her for mine suggests they have taken her OUT of the house and are holding her.

Either way you look at it, they had NOT kidnapped her.
Oh, did I mention I was not there?

Out of interest, which posters were "curious and in disagreement with my logic as well"?
Eleven posted a alternate view of "HAD" which sure, wasn't the same as mine, but it wasn't questioning my logic.....were you at Eleven's house to discuss the meaning of the post? Apparently not.

And now....a question for you Holdon...
If you are so determined to dismiss every RDI theory with "Were you there?", how can you in all sincerity proclaim an Intruder did it when the exact same question is then relevant to you?

Your stance on this case requires just as much speculation and guess work as you accuse others of presenting and yet you don't seem to be able to comprehend that.
I'm certainly not saying you have an agenda as I don't believe you do, but your inability to see how most of your accusations can be flipped and hypocritically pointed at yourself (in my opinion) weakens your credibility as an Intruder proponent.

Let me finish by saying that no personal insult is meant in any of these posts, as I'm sure is the case with yours, as I'm sure you'd agree, if everyone in the world shared the same opinion it would be a massively boring place.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

You asked (originally) for me to disprove ONE thing in the Ransom Note.
I thought to myself "Sure, that's easy"....they said they had JBR, but they DIDN'T.

If intruder then they had JBR at some point obviously.

*And there is the key....they are prepared AHEAD of time.We know this one was not prepared ahead of time, it was prepared in situ and that somewhat changes the interpretation I would say.

If intruder then the ransom note could've been written while the R's were at the Whites. I'd say thats ahead of time. You're stating as fact that 'we know it was not prepared ahead of time' when really we dont. You seem to be setting foundations of knowledge that dont exist. I suggest instead 'maybe this was not prepared ahead of time' or something less bold.

*
For your Intruder suggestion, the only way I can see it happening is Mr Intruder breaks in, writes the note, leaves it on the step, twists his evil moustache, heads upstairs, grabs the child, heads downstairs, then stops and goes to the basement instead of leaving....maybe overcome by the desire to defile the child straight away, certainly immediately making the Ransom Note null and void.

Fortunately the only way you can see it happening isn't the only way it could happen. No insult intended but your intruder scenario isn't very good. Grabbing the child and heading downstairs seems to be a deliberate oversimplification as JBR would scream. It looks like you've not given the intruder scenario much consideration and I understand that.

*And now....a question for you Holdon...
If you are so determined to dismiss every RDI theory with "Were you there?", how can you in all sincerity proclaim an Intruder did it when the exact same question is then relevant to you?

I'm not stating things as fact...when I do then you can ask me how I know so assuredly things like "the ransom note was not written ahead of time," or "they never had JBR."

It could have been (note how I'm not stating as fact) that the ransom note author intended for JBR to be 'safe and unharmed' upon JR/PR reading the note but that ensuing events rendered the ransom note obsolete, or no longer applicable. But they didn't retrieve the note.

 

[wonderllama]

If intruder then they had JBR at some point obviously.

See, we're coming down to semantics now.
I don't accept carrying a child downstairs and into the basement as "Having" your child.

If intruder then the ransom note could've been written while the R's were at the Whites. I'd say thats ahead of time. You're stating as fact that 'we know it was not prepared ahead of time' when really we dont. You seem to be setting foundations of knowledge that dont exist. I suggest instead 'maybe this was not prepared ahead of time' or something less bold.

Potato Potahto.
I see ahead of time as showing a level of preparation..ie: writing the note before you get there. It's a bit like going out to dinner and getting dressed at the restaurant...it doesn't make sense. Unless you're rushed of course, or perhaps you didn't know you were GOING until suddenly you were there.

Fortunately the only way you can see it happening isn't the only way it could happen. No insult intended but your intruder scenario isn't very good. Grabbing the child and heading downstairs seems to be a deliberate oversimplification as JBR would scream. It looks like you've not given the intruder scenario much consideration and I understand that.

Oh of course, I only stated one of many possibilities...and yes, I kept it simple for no reason in particular *wink*. Scream? Wasn't he carrying a stun gun or don't you follow that theory?

You choose the option of a team/pair of intruders working together...slight overkill for kidnapping a 6 year old girl no? Wouldn't one wait in a get away car....or were they simply going to walk away down the street holding a girl?

These folks also didn't prepare a note in advance ("Don't worry Foreign buddy, there's sure to be a pen and paper there somewhere")....

As for not giving the intruder scenario not much consideration...not true, I am open to all possibilities, but even if someone presented me with a robust Intruder scenario, there is still that multitude or weird, deceitful, conflicting, non-cooperative, coincidental, flip-flopping, changing over time behaviour and evidence that would leave me with suspicions...so yeah, I've considered it.

I'm not stating things as fact...when I do then you can ask me how I know so assuredly things like "the ransom note was not written ahead of time," or "they never had JBR."

It could have been (note how I'm not stating as fact) that the ransom note author intended for JBR to be 'safe and unharmed' upon JR/PR reading the note but that ensuing events rendered the ransom note obsolete, or no longer applicable. But they didn't retrieve the note.

Well we can agree there, the Ransom Note WAS obsolete...and in my conversations (in a different thread) with Murri I have laid out a scenario where the note wasn't retrieved once an intruder realised they had to leave
in a hurry.

Besides, if you stated everything as fact, you wouldn't be RDI or IDI...you'd be nothing, because the case hasn't been solved and I doubt you have any more information that what is out there...

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

*
For your Intruder suggestion, the only way I can see it happening is Mr Intruder breaks in, writes the note, leaves it on the step, twists his evil moustache, heads upstairs, grabs the child, heads downstairs, then stops and goes to the basement instead of leaving....maybe overcome by the desire to defile the child straight away, certainly immediately making the Ransom Note null and void.

Oh of course, I only stated one of many possibilities...and yes, I kept it simple for no reason in particular *wink*. Scream? Wasn't he carrying a stun gun or don't you follow that theory?

Did I get you wrong or is this a contradiction?

Looking for a robust intruder scenario? If half the effort went into FFDI scenario that has gone into RDI dead horse, then this Victory fat cat foreign faction country disrespecter pedophile murderer child beheader immediate executor probably wouldn't be so elusive...unless you believe the college graduate wife of a multimillionaire businessman can't spell business herself?:doh:

 

[wonderllama]

Did I get you wrong or is this a contradiction?

Looking for a robust intruder scenario? If half the effort went into FFDI scenario that has gone into RDI dead horse, then this Victory fat cat foreign faction country disrespecter pedophile murderer child beheader immediate executor probably wouldn't be so elusive...unless you believe the college graduate wife of a multimillionaire businessman can't spell business herself?:doh:

Not a contradiction.
In the first post I said "The only way I see it".
In the second post I said "I stated one of many possibilities".
Again, no contradiction...read VERY carefully. First one is MY opinion, second is admitting there are MANY opinions.
Nice try though.

I have a postgraduate degree Holdon, am I beyond making a spelling mistake under pressure? C'mon...that's lame.

 

[BBB167893]

The FBI did not "misdirect" the case. They had FAR more experience in this exact type of situation than any local LE. In their experience, when parents report a missing child and that "missing" child is later found dead in their own home, in nearly every case there is parental involvement. They also recognized the RN as a fake immediately, having seen countless ransom notes (legitimate and not). I'd say they were spot on.

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to point that out.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Not a contradiction.
In the first post I said "The only way I see it".
In the second post I said "I stated one of many possibilities".
Again, no contradiction...read VERY carefully. First one is MY opinion, second is admitting there are MANY opinions.
Nice try though.

I have a postgraduate degree Holdon, am I beyond making a spelling mistake under pressure? C'mon...that's lame.

Your theory then is that PR misspelled an elementary school word due to pressure, despite her college education and being a parent of a child learning all those same words? You're kidding, right?

Then there is the phenomenon where PR in her exemplars spelled advise with a 'z' which was decidedly different than the ransom note. Are you going to use the same 'pressure' explanation there, even though she used the 'z' in both right and left hand exemplars?

Or could it be that PR and the ransom note author are two different spellers? This IS the prima facie explanation for the phenomenon. It IS evidence that PR did not write the note.

 

[DeeDee249]

Your theory then is that PR misspelled an elementary school word due to pressure, despite her college education and being a parent of a child learning all those same words? You're kidding, right?

Then there is the phenomenon where PR in her exemplars spelled advise with a 'z' which was decidedly different than the ransom note. Are you going to use the same 'pressure' explanation there, even though she used the 'z' in both right and left hand exemplars?

.

Not under pressure. She misspelled them deliberately. That was part of the staging, too. While the Rs constructed the note to implicate an array of suspects. This misspelling, particularly of the double S word "bussiness" was done to make it seem like the note was written by someone who wouldn't know the proper spelling; in other words, to make it seem like it couldn't possibly be Patsy. LHP was a very early casualty of this fiasco- she was named almost immediately. She was far beneath Patsy in social standing, education, financial means, and she had access to the house. A perfect "patsy" (no pun intended). Only problem- there was ZERO forensic evidence linking her to the body (an impossible scenario for ANY suspect). Fortunately, there was forensic material from the actual perps (her parents) on her body, clothes, and the white blanket.

 

[wonderllama]

Your theory then is that PR misspelled an elementary school word due to pressure, despite her college education and being a parent of a child learning all those same words? You're kidding, right?

Then there is the phenomenon where PR in her exemplars spelled advise with a 'z' which was decidedly different than the ransom note. Are you going to use the same 'pressure' explanation there, even though she used the 'z' in both right and left hand exemplars?

Or could it be that PR and the ransom note author are two different spellers? This IS the prima facie explanation for the phenomenon. It IS evidence that PR did not write the note.

Now you're being naive.
To think a spelling difference is evidence someone didn't write something is just a laughable defence Holdon.

If I write something on a piece of paper then come back the next day and write the same thing on a difference piece of paper but spell one word different, that's proof to you I didn't write both?
Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that is the case?
Stop right now and answer that question.
Are you GENUINELY telling everyone in this forum that a difference in SPELLING is "EVIDENCE" that one person didn't write two notes prepared at different times.

As much as you question everything that RDI might put up as proof the Ramsey's were involved.....the answer to THIS question is paramount to your credibility as a proponent of the Intruder theory.

So I will ask it once more so we're all clear on this.

Is a difference in spelling, in your books, evidence of two writers?



And I really have to tell you, and this is someone with a postgraduate degree, lecturing experience, teaching experience, thesis writing experience.
As your level of education increases, it does not indicate your ability to spell improves. The two are not dependent upon the other.

I know many many academics, Professors etc who cannot spell or are inconsistent spellers.

Attempting to exonerate PR from being the author based on any ability to spell because she has a "College Education" is a nonsense and no attempt to introduce it back into the fold will make it relevant. It is not.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Now you're being naive.
To think a spelling difference is evidence someone didn't write something is just a laughable defence Holdon.

If I write something on a piece of paper then come back the next day and write the same thing on a difference piece of paper but spell one word different, that's proof to you I didn't write both?
Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that is the case?
Stop right now and answer that question.
Are you GENUINELY telling everyone in this forum that a difference in SPELLING is "EVIDENCE" that one person didn't write two notes prepared at different times.

As much as you question everything that RDI might put up as proof the Ramsey's were involved.....the answer to THIS question is paramount to your credibility as a proponent of the Intruder theory.

So I will ask it once more so we're all clear on this.

Is a difference in spelling, in your books, evidence of two writers?



And I really have to tell you, and this is someone with a postgraduate degree, lecturing experience, teaching experience, thesis writing experience.
As your level of education increases, it does not indicate your ability to spell improves. The two are not dependent upon the other.

I know many many academics, Professors etc who cannot spell or are inconsistent spellers.

Attempting to exonerate PR from being the author based on any ability to spell because she has a "College Education" is a nonsense and no attempt to introduce it back into the fold will make it relevant. It is not.

Well then clearly you're not in IT or computer programming where one misspelled word anywhere in the code stops everything...congratulations.

Its still evidence that PR did not write the note, and thats not MY idea, its presented by a college professor outranking your postgraduate...sorry insulting me or what you accidentally thought was my idea didnt work like you planned, did it. :-(

I find it interesting though that you believe misspellings should be dismissed or ignored as insignficant, whereas I believe all phenomenon require an explanation because its a child murder. If two different writers then spellings would be different especially on a large document. It is evidence, and no thats not my idea you're arguing with your teacher now.

Hows your math, BTW:

Different spellings (stylistics) + nonrandom unsourced DNA + no smoking gun evidence against either PR or JR = IDI

IDI + zero local leads = FFDI, just like the RN author stated.

 

[madeleine]

IDI + zero local leads = FFDI, just like the RN author stated.

well yeah but most IDI's and other people like me blame the BPD for NOT investigating other leads.that doesn't mean zero leads,that means there were leads but not investigated.as far as I am concerned I am still not satisfied with how they investigated CW for example.this doesn't mean he did it or something,just sayin,if they investigated all suspects like they did him then we've got problems.IMO
zero local leads ,even if true,don't make the intruder (IF IDI) necessarily foreign.misspellings don't necessarily point to someone foreign either.btw,did they ever check foreign rich arrogant students who attended the university near-by?I would have done that.

 

[DeeDee249]

The possibility of deliberately misspelled words still has to be considered.