Happenings of December 26

I think it is important to look at the evidence and find out if it is actually real evidence or someone's opinion. This case is a miry mess of information.

I'm just saying before you form an opinion make sure it is based on real fact.



Forgive the autocorrect. Tapatalk has a mind of its own. :)

RBBM: I have known the facts about this case for years. My opinion is formed on those facts. Those facts are gleaned from reading what the lead investigators had to say. IMO, they had no agenda except to make the facts known. I have listened to what the Ramseys have had to say, and what they say does NOT match up with the facts.

Actually, it's really simple for me. Four people went into that house alive, and only three came out alive.

JMO
 
Of course we all form our own opinions, but the opinion, and the decision of the GJ must not be ignored.
They surely didn't believe the fiasco that was presented by LS. The did indict both R's, and we have never heard or read of what went on as far as testimony of people, and all the evidence presented to them. If we were to have all the info presented to them perhaps it would shine a light on what caused them to decide that both R's were guilty. I think the testimony of BR was very important as to why they decided both the R's were guilty, because they reached their decision one day after BR testified.
 
Of course we all form our own opinions, but the opinion, and the decision of the GJ must not be ignored.
They surely didn't believe the fiasco that was presented by LS. The did indict both R's, and we have never heard or read of what went on as far as testimony of people, and all the evidence presented to them. If we were to have all the info presented to them perhaps it would shine a light on what caused them to decide that both R's were guilty. I think the testimony of BR was very important as to why they decided both the R's were guilty, because they reached their decision one day after BR testified.


I think the GJ absolutely can be ignored. It is not a finding of guilt. It is just a finding that they thought it was enough to take them to trial to see if they were guilty. Nothing more. There are a lot of people indicted and found not guilty. There are a lot of people found guilty at trial and yet found to be not guilty even if convicted.

A grand jury can indict anyone for anything. There is a reason they say GJ can indict ham sandwiches. There is no guilt finding. It is just, do you think there is enough to go to trial.

The indictment for me is off the table. Especially since after the GJ finding there is more DNA that came to light that excludes any of the Ramsey's. Had the GJ had that I bet their findings would have been different.

We have no idea what BR said so that us just speculation and not fact or evidence.



Forgive the autocorrect. Tapatalk has a mind of its own. :)
 
The problem I find is that there is a lot that is not evidence that is purported as evidence. There has to be a factual nonbias basis for that opinion first.
One easily debunked was that there were no foot prints in the snow as a basis for there being no intruder early on. Yet pictures taken at that scene show only sporadic snow not a constant later that would be impossible not to leave foot prints in. For years that was the basis for many many people believing that the r's had to have done this.

I'm just saying there are still many things or theories that have no basis in fact so if we firm an opinion off the falsehood then opinion or not it is really just fable.

Over time I have had to toss out many thoughts on this case based on this case because when I trace the trail of the " facts" it turns out to be not fact but an opinion that has turned into facts.

I'm not saying that I have all the answers in this case. I'm just saying no matter where you fall, make sure you are looking at real hard facts. Undisputed fact.

Forgive the autocorrect. Tapatalk has a mind of its own. :)

.... no foot prints in the snow as a basis for there being no intruder early on. Yet pictures taken at that scene show only sporadic snow not a constant later that would be impossible not to leave foot prints in.

The photography evidence in this case is extremely important.

LS presented to the GJ a photo of the frontal view of the home. The CS photo shows a mostly snow covered ground. However, at the same time, LS showed photos taken outside the home, near the basement, that had no signs of snow whatsoever along the sidewalk areas or on the concrete driveway area in most spots; therefore, entirely blowing the intruder could not enter due to lack of footprints in the snow idea.

Over time I have had to toss out many thoughts on this case based on this case because when I trace the trail of the " facts" it turns out to be not fact but an opinion that has turned into facts.

Each of us here go through the same process similar to how detectives eliminate their suspects while tracking down leads.

If I post incorrect or misleading evidentiary information, I hope it is kindly pointed out so the correction can replace the rumor that became internet fact.
 
Who puts on the same clothes they wore during a very long day of visiting and Christmasing the day before. I mean honestly. It is a failure in logic to think she put on the very same outfit she wore yesterday to travel in. This woman showed up to a portrait session dressed to the nines, but she'd re-wear an entire outfit 2 days in a row? Let's try to be realistic. IMO, she was STILL WEARING what she wore the day before. She hadn't gone to bed yet when this debacle occurred.
 
A grand jury can indict anyone for anything. There is a reason they say GJ can indict ham sandwiches. There is no guilt finding. It is just, do you think there is enough to go to trial.

RS&BBM

Who says that? I have never heard that before but it's hilarious. :floorlaugh:
 
RS&BBM



Who says that? I have never heard that before but it's hilarious. :floorlaugh:


Just do a quick google search. There are many law review articles on it. Basically a GJ is not the review it once was. It has become a rubber stamp.

Grand juries don't find guilt. It has nothing to do with guilt.


Forgive the autocorrect. Tapatalk has a mind of its own. :)
 
Who puts on the same clothes they wore during a very long day of visiting and Christmasing the day before. I mean honestly. It is a failure in logic to think she put on the very same outfit she wore yesterday to travel in. This woman showed up to a portrait session dressed to the nines, but she'd re-wear an entire outfit 2 days in a row? Let's try to be realistic. IMO, she was STILL WEARING what she wore the day before. She hadn't gone to bed yet when this debacle occurred.

So, just curious, why do you think her make up looked freshly applied? And why weren't the same cothes in some sort of disarray? If she was up all night in the same clothes she wore the day before and either killing her daughter and staging, or simply participating in the staging, doesn't it seem like:

1. The clothes would be a little worse for wear? I mean, maybe it's just me, but I can come home from work in business clothes, feed the dogs and tidy up the house and note a stain on my dress that wasn't there when I left work. Yet Patsy participated in all that staging, at the very least, and her clothes were fine?

2. The make up bothers me. Unless you are one of the very few who believe that the murder was premeditated by Patsy, wouldn't you assume she would have cried at some point in the night.? Either with the realization of what she had done, or that someone else had done, it doesn't seem like it would matter. I would still think there would be some emotion. But even if we assume that she just went into full "damage control" mode and didn't take the time for tears, her makeup wouldn't be messed up? Streaked, faded, smudged, etc.? After almost 24 hours it wouldn't look too good even if you exclude the murder and staging activities.

Or are we to believe that in the midst of all that staging and writing the War and Peace of Ransom notes she took the time to re-apply full make up? And if so, why not grab some different clothes?

That part of the puzzle has always bothered me.

I know people think the same clothes as the night before points to her guilt, or at least to Ramsey guilt, but that just doesn't fit for me. It never has.

For the sake of full disclosure I must admit, if I wore an outfit on Christmas Day that I would have selected as "Christmassy" and I only visited friends in it, so nothing strenuous, and I hadn't spilled anything on it, and I knew that aside from my hubby and kids, I would be not be seeing a single soul that I had seen on Christmas day and I was getting up at 5:00 A M that morning, I just might wear the same thing I had worn on Christmas.

Also full disclosure, while I am far from as rich as Patsy, a good portion of my income (according to my husband, too big a portion) has always gone to clothes which I love. But if I really, really liked a particular outfit for a particular occasion, and would be seeing different people, yep I'd wear it again.
 
Just do a quick google search. There are many law review articles on it. Basically a GJ is not the review it once was. It has become a rubber stamp.

Grand juries don't find guilt. It has nothing to do with guilt.


Forgive the autocorrect. Tapatalk has a mind of its own. :)

No, but it has everything to do with evidence. The evidence is clear to me anyway...JR and PR were indicted for child abuse resulting in death and for covering up a crime. Now, who would they help cover the crime up for? Not the mysterious intruder, IMO.

JMO
 
No, but it has everything to do with evidence. The evidence is clear to me anyway...JR and PR were indicted for child abuse resulting in death and for covering up a crime. Now, who would they help cover the crime up for? Not the mysterious intruder, IMO.



JMO


This had nothing to do with findings that are conclusive. It has to do with was there enough to have a trial. People are not guilty based on grand jury indictments.

Grand juries get it wrong. They are not a standard of guilt.




Forgive the autocorrect. Tapatalk has a mind of its own. :)
 
I think the GJ absolutely can be ignored. It is not a finding of guilt. It is just a finding that they thought it was enough to take them to trial to see if they were guilty. Nothing more. There are a lot of people indicted and found not guilty. There are a lot of people found guilty at trial and yet found to be not guilty even if convicted.

A grand jury can indict anyone for anything. There is a reason they say GJ can indict ham sandwiches. There is no guilt finding. It is just, do you think there is enough to go to trial.

The indictment for me is off the table. Especially since after the GJ finding there is more DNA that came to light that excludes any of the Ramsey's. Had the GJ had that I bet their findings would have been different.

We have no idea what BR said so that us just speculation and not fact or evidence.



Forgive the autocorrect. Tapatalk has a mind of its own. :)


The only thing I am aware of and I put a lot of weight on is the GJ got the extended dance version of the intruder theory straight from the horses mouth and still dismissed it.

I also find it interesting they could spend 6 hours with Burke.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
This had nothing to do with findings that are conclusive. It has to do with was there enough to have a trial. People are not guilty based on grand jury indictments.

Grand juries get it wrong. They are not a standard of guilt.




Forgive the autocorrect. Tapatalk has a mind of its own. :)

I haven't seen anyone saying the grand jury indictment is a guilty verdict.

A group of people, seeing and hearing evidence, were convinced there was enough evidence for John and Patsy to be tried for a crime. That is significant...more significant than you are allowing.

Don't disdain all grand juries and lump them into one. Not all grand juries are alike, some rubber stamp and some don't. Does anyone know the record of indictments from this specific grand jury?

More importantly, is there any touch DNA that links this grand jury to a really suspicious rubber stamp? :floorlaugh: :floorlaugh: :floorlaugh:

[I'm sorry Scarlett Scarpetta!!! I'm not really making fun of you...I just have a warped sense of humor :grouphug:]
 
Who puts on the same clothes they wore during a very long day of visiting and Christmasing the day before. I mean honestly. It is a failure in logic to think she put on the very same outfit she wore yesterday to travel in. This woman showed up to a portrait session dressed to the nines, but she'd re-wear an entire outfit 2 days in a row? Let's try to be realistic. IMO, she was STILL WEARING what she wore the day before. She hadn't gone to bed yet when this debacle occurred.

Yes, Patsy never went to bed, IMO....If I discovered my child missing, the last thing I would be concerned with is my clothes and makeup.

Patsy would have never been seen in the same clothes for two consecutive days.

JMO
 
This had nothing to do with findings that are conclusive. It has to do with was there enough to have a trial. People are not guilty based on grand jury indictments.

Grand juries get it wrong. They are not a standard of guilt.




Forgive the autocorrect. Tapatalk has a mind of its own. :)

The grand jury served for 13 months. They heard evidence that we don't know about. I am so tired of people dismissing the fact that these people worked for 13 months and the indictments are dismissed as nothing.

JMO
 
Yes, Patsy never went to bed, IMO....If I discovered my child missing, the last thing I would be concerned with is my clothes and makeup.

Patsy would have never been seen in the same clothes for two consecutive days.

JMO

So it is not plausible that Patsy got up that morning, brushed her hair, Started getting ready, put some make up on, Grabbed the clothes she had on the night before just to throw something on to go down and make coffee, Or something, found the note and that was that???

I don't know anyone who has not thrown on what they had on the day or night before just cause it is there and then plan to change later.

When you look at it, If she was trying to cover something up, She would have been void of all makeup, She would have put on new clothing. She had plenty of time to "cover up".

It does not fit. It does not fit with the theory of a great cover up. She would be wearing evidence if she was up all night killing someone. She would not want to answer the door wearing it for the police.

It just does not fit. JMO
 
So it is not plausible that Patsy got up that morning, brushed her hair, Started getting ready, put some make up on, Grabbed the clothes she had on the night before just to throw something on to go down and make coffee, Or something, found the note and that was that???



I don't know anyone who has not thrown on what they had on the day or night before just cause it is there and then plan to change later.



When you look at it, If she was trying to cover something up, She would have been void of all makeup, She would have put on new clothing. She had plenty of time to "cover up".



It does not fit. It does not fit with the theory of a great cover up. She would be wearing evidence if she was up all night killing someone. She would not want to answer the door wearing it for the police.



It just does not fit. JMO


I don't believe Patsy is some sort of criminal mastermind that was capable of thinking it through.

The Ramsey's got extremely lucky.

The note on the back spiral stairs makes no sense. Her claiming to step over it first makes no sense.

It would make more sense to put something comfortable on as she STILL wasn't fully prepared to travel.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
So it is not plausible that Patsy got up that morning, brushed her hair, Started getting ready, put some make up on, Grabbed the clothes she had on the night before just to throw something on to go down and make coffee, Or something, found the note and that was that???

I don't know anyone who has not thrown on what they had on the day or night before just cause it is there and then plan to change later.

When you look at it, If she was trying to cover something up, She would have been void of all makeup, She would have put on new clothing. She had plenty of time to "cover up".

It does not fit. It does not fit with the theory of a great cover up. She would be wearing evidence if she was up all night killing someone. She would not want to answer the door wearing it for the police.

It just does not fit. JMO

Personally, I wouldn't put makeup on before taking a shower.
If I had taken a shower, I wouldn't get into dirty clothes.
If I was getting up just to make coffee, I would throw on a robe over my pjs, not change clothes.
So nothing that PR did that morning syncs with what I would do. I think that's true of most people.
 
I don't believe Patsy is some sort of criminal mastermind that was capable of thinking it through.

The Ramsey's got extremely lucky.

The note on the back spiral stairs makes no sense. Her claiming to step over it first makes no sense.

It would make more sense to put something comfortable on as she STILL wasn't fully prepared to travel.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lucky? How are they lucky?
There is a big theory about all this cover up. They got rid of the rope, the tape, the flashlight, left no dna on her, And then left the writing pad upstairs, The pens, The clothes that would contain the evidence of a murder... ??

There are many days I don't wash my hair but I shower.

If you are trying to cover up a murder, You don't wear the clothes you murdered someone in. IMO
 
Personally, I wouldn't put makeup on before taking a shower.
If I had taken a shower, I wouldn't get into dirty clothes.
If I was getting up just to make coffee, I would throw on a robe over my pjs, not change clothes.
So nothing that PR did that morning syncs with what I would do. I think that's true of most people.


But that is just your routine. Just like I have a routine or preference that may be different. That does not make one better or one more likely to have committed a crime is all I am saying. It could just be as simple as they already knew those clothes were not fresh, And had some stuff to do before getting dressed later so they just put those clothes back on for a short time. It is not like she was running a marathon in them. She was at a party.

There is no evidence in these clothes or make up. It is just irritation with her choice.. IMO
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
71
Guests online
2,295
Total visitors
2,366

Forum statistics

Threads
590,011
Messages
17,928,944
Members
228,038
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top