Voice of Reason
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2005
- Messages
- 343
- Reaction score
- 10
I was just re-reading some passages from JD's book, "The Anatomy of a Motive," and I came across some interesting things in a story about a phony kidnapping. Here are some excerpts below followed by my comments. I don't understand how JD is so convinced of the Ramsey's innocence when all of his literature seems to point right at them. Then, he has an interview with them and he becomes a human lie detector and declares their innocence. Anyway...
Therefore, we should look at scenario number two. In fact, this is what JD suggests in "The Cases that Haunt Us." He opines that JB's killer wanted revenge on JR. But this fails miserably when looking at JD's comments regarding the lack of contact in scenario two except in "extremely unusual" circumstances. Well, sure, the JBR case may be extremely unusual, but not really if you look at it from afar. It is only unusual in that there has been such difficulty in solving what seems, IMO, to be such a clear cut case of something went wrong in the house and a kidnapping was staged.
Anyone else have any thoughts on this...?
Sound familiar? The Ramsey house "might or might not have been secured" and the first words out of PR's mouth were "We have a kidnapping." Maybe the analysis is different because there is a note and what clearly appears to be a kidnapping (at first)....this is not a kidnapping. The little girl is dead and Nicole is the killer.
Why did you doubt her story?
There are a couple of elements that arouse suspicion. The first is that a mother left the child alone in an apartment that might or might not have been secured - but we'll give her the benefit of the doubt on that one. The second is that when she called 911, she told the operator her "baby had been kidnapped." This is such a horrible thing for parents even to contemplate that most of them will consciously or subconsciously suppress it as long as they can. Normally a parent under this kind of extreme stress will say something to the effect that her baby or child is missing, that she can't find her, that she's run off, that she's wandered away . . . anything not to confront the idea of kidnapping.
The Ramsey case unquestionably falls somewhere between scenario one and two. The problem is, scenario one fits the evidence being the note, but does not fit the crime scene (a dead child is not worth any $$). (The sexual abuse doesn't add much here either)There are really only three cases in which children are taken by strangers. The first is kidnapping for profit. The second is kidnapping by those who intend to do children harm for their own purposes, either for perverted sexual gratification or as a specific or general revenge. The third is kidnapping by unstable and pathetic people who wish to have a child of their own. The first of these three types of offenders will have to communicate with the parents to establish demands and make arrangements for payment. The second and third categories will want nothing whatever to do with the parents; only in the rarest of instances - when you have a truly insane or sadistic individual - would you see any attempt at communication. But that would be a real long shot, extremely unusual.
Therefore, we should look at scenario number two. In fact, this is what JD suggests in "The Cases that Haunt Us." He opines that JB's killer wanted revenge on JR. But this fails miserably when looking at JD's comments regarding the lack of contact in scenario two except in "extremely unusual" circumstances. Well, sure, the JBR case may be extremely unusual, but not really if you look at it from afar. It is only unusual in that there has been such difficulty in solving what seems, IMO, to be such a clear cut case of something went wrong in the house and a kidnapping was staged.
Anyone else have any thoughts on this...?