I'm actually kind of surprised you weren't ON it.
In case you missed it. Nancy Grace addresses the Burke Ramsey break.
- Thread starter cynic
- Start date
I'm actually kind of surprised you weren't ON it.
There was no semen found. That was cleared up long ago.
I wouldn't get too excited yet, for reasons I will make clear momentarily.
I guess I'll take the first shot. For one thing, none of it is new. It's been around for a long time. Trouble is, it's all incomplete and outdated "Evidence" Lou Smit illegally took from the police file before testing was finished and was later accepted as fact in a civil case because the opposing counsel made no attempt to challenge its validity.
I never get tired of answering this one!
Something like that.
For a possible answer, I direct you the the thread entitled "Loved to Death." In short, because she couldn't bear the thought of JB being left out to be ravaged by the elements. It was vitally important to her that JB have a proper burial.
Well, a few things: number one, duct tape is a lot easier to carry and conceal than a body. And it wasn't just any body, it was his daughter. He probably didn't like the idea of letting her rot anymore than Patsy did. Three, how could he get rid of her? The police would have been watching the house. He probably hoped they would find it. When they didn't, and it looked like they'd leave him with a dead body in the house, he had to think of something. Truth be told, as Plan B's go, it wasn't bad. It gave him a chance to contaminate the crime scene with FW right there as a witness.
I think you just said the magic word, Amy Noel. On a couple of different levels.
Something like that.
For a possible answer, I direct you the the thread entitled "Loved to Death." In short, because she couldn't bear the thought of JB being left out to be ravaged by the elements. It was vitally important to her that JB have a proper burial.
Well, a few things: number one, duct tape is a lot easier to carry and conceal than a body. And it wasn't just any body, it was his daughter. He probably didn't like the idea of letting her rot anymore than Patsy did. Three, how could he get rid of her? The police would have been watching the house. He probably hoped they would find it. When they didn't, and it looked like they'd leave him with a dead body in the house, he had to think of something. Truth be told, as Plan B's go, it wasn't bad. It gave him a chance to contaminate the crime scene with FW right there as a witness.
I think you just said the magic word, Amy Noel. On a couple of different levels.
Ames
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,838
- Reaction score
- 57
http://www.slate.com/id/2063086/
"WHEN PARENT'S KILL"
<<SNIPPED FOR LENGTH>>> Click on link above for full article.
The Murders
Perhaps more revealing than the differences in why they kill their offspring are the differences between how fathers and mothers do so. For one thing, parental murderers tend to be highly physical. According to a 1988 survey done by the U.S. Justice Department, while 61 percent of all murder defendants used a gun in 1988, only 20 percent of the parents who killed their children used one. Children were drowned and shaken, beaten, poisoned, stabbed, and suffocated. These methods betray a certain "craziness" in both genders—they betray an intense passion and a lack of planning. But a study by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children shows that fathers are far more violent. And mothers frequently dispose of the corpses in what researchers call a "womblike" fashion. Bodies are swaddled,(Added by AMES...JB was found "wrapped papoose style" (swaddled) when found, and these were John's own words). submerged in water, or wrapped in plastic. Moreover, the NCMEC study showed that while the orvictims of maternal killings are almost always found either in or close to the home, fathers will, on average, dispose of the bodies hundreds of miles away. All these behaviors suggest that women associate these murders with themselves, their homes, and their bodies
Mind if I show this to madeleine, Ames?
Holdontoyourhat
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 5,299
- Reaction score
- 12
my bold
You're right to see the RDI paradox.
The RDI theorists like to quote statistics but only sometimes. There has never been a paradoxical crime scene staged by two parents ever.
If parents staged a crime scene then it would probably be EITHER a kidnapping OR a murder. A person who is a college grad or a multimillionaire businessman and also an experienced parent is probably not known for being naive. They would know ahead of time that staging a kidnapping would get the attention of not only local police but also the FBI. Since the ransom note author refers to the FBI we could presume they were aware. Because of this I believe they would only stage an intruder sexual assault and murder, and leave out the kidnapping rant. Otherwise we're forced to believe that both PR and JR wanted the FBI to come in addition to local police. Then adding 350 handwritten words to the mix just seems too self-defeating to be a plausible theory.
You're right, it does.
slug
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2009
- Messages
- 187
- Reaction score
- 1
the problem is though that both RDI and IDI seem crazy.
if RDI i agree why bother with the RN and leave her body in the house.
and if IDI why leave the RN if she died when you where planning a kinapping, either you'd leave the note and take the body or leave the body and not leave the note.
if RDI i agree why bother with the RN and leave her body in the house.
and if IDI why leave the RN if she died when you where planning a kinapping, either you'd leave the note and take the body or leave the body and not leave the note.
Holdontoyourhat
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 5,299
- Reaction score
- 12
Both RDI and IDI have to account for the seeming paradox of kidnapping for ransom on one hand and sexual assault and murder on the other. I would hope for a 'less crazy' explanation for the paradox though.
Because a kidnapping surely invites the FBI and the ransom note author refers to the FBI, it seems like someone may have been knowingly inviting extra attention. Factor in JBR's beauty pageant exposure and it seems like someone was going for publicity. This might be a 'less crazy' explanation for the paradox.
I know. Makes your head spin, doesn't it? After the touch DNA I was leaning toward IDI, now I am back to likely RDI after doing some really thorough research on the subject- cynic was invaluable.
Maybe some things seem crazy because that night the perpetrators went crazy doing everything possible to deflect suspicion. I don't think the perp/perps were experienced with this.
Zak
Active Member
My bold
If this SFF wanted the extra attention and publicity, then they sure got it. Years of attention and publicity. So why didn't or haven't they come forward to claim this deed if thats what they were after? No one, not the R's, not Smit, not any LE agency ever believed that a SFF ever wrote the RN. And you think this theory is a "less crazy" explanation for the paradox? IMO that theory is the "most crazy" out of all that I have heard to date.
Holdontoyourhat
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 5,299
- Reaction score
- 12
my bold
Thats not what they were after. Thats only what you posted.
My post stated that 'someone' wanted publicity. Even if RDI, a 'less crazy' explanation for the paradox would be that PR wanted extra publicity.
Maybe the SFF wanted the crime to be publicized, thus making their crime seem bigger, more infamous, more notorious. How do you go from SFF wanting the crime publicized and getting a lot of notariety, to SFF wanting to take credit for it? One doesn't automatically follow from the other. Besides, simply naming themselves as foreign and anti-US might have been all the credit they wanted.
Jeez I sense a lot of hostility. Is it because of yet another IDI-favoring media spot?
Holdontoyourhat
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 5,299
- Reaction score
- 12
OK maybe I'll accept there's no SFF. I'm just curious, though, how was SFF ruled out? Scientifically, statistically, specific evidence, or what?
Was it because the ransom note specifically stated SFF and we're too smart to believe that silly bogus unprofessional ridiculous amateurish ransom note? Maybe if the ransom note said 'we are NOT sff' then someone would believe it?
Sorry but I missed the whole rationale behind excluding SFF. I'm sure it was both thorough and poignant.
Zak
Active Member
I must apologize for interjecting SFF into your post. I thought that you believed that the RN was written by a real terrorist group and thats the someone that you were talking about.
How do I go from a SFF wanting one of their crimes highly publicized and getting a lot of notariety to them taking credit for it? Because that's what they most generally do. They do something and then take credit for it. I've no idea why but that's what I've read. Maybe they want to be known and feared.
Please know that I didn't mean to appear hostile to you. I enjoy discussing the case with you and would never intentionally do that. And no, the IDI-favoring media spot that you are referring to didn't have anything to do with my post. Actually, there was one bright spot to the NG show. It was mentioned that the DNA can't be dated and may not even be from the killer. So even with all the inaccuracies it wasn't all bad.
It's only a paradox if you want it to be.
That's not the point. Statistics show that when a child is killed inside their house, the killer is a parent or parents. Now, if you want to argue that the details go against statistical analysis, that's fine. But at least acknowledge that a parent is more likely to have done it.
I don't know. In this particular case, you'd have two people, both very forceful personalities, in a highly agitated state, very likely of differing minds on how to proceed. (That's putting it very generally.)
They're not known for being master criminals, either. At the risk of sounding confrontational, you speak as if there were some kind of widely-available instruction manual on murder and crime scene staging.
That's what the lawyers were for. I'm not being a smart-*advertiser censored** here, either. Even if you don't believe that they might have thought they were smart enough to outwit the police and FBI, they had the resources to try and muddy up the water as best they could in the hope that it would create enough doubt.
That's the crux of it, as far as I go. I don't necessarily think they were out to fool the police or the FBI. Because they don't have to fool the police. They don't have to fool the FBI. They don't have to fool pathologists. They don't have to fool SuperDave. They don't have to fool HoldontoyourHat.
They have to fool one person out of twelve. THAT'S IT. As PT Barnum is supposed to have said, "there's a sucker born every minute." And, sadly, a LOT of those suckers find their way onto juries and give us OJ Simpson "justice." And they knew that. They watched the Simpson trial. There's your how-to manual right there.
For what it's worth, HOTYH, on the face of it, I follow you. BUT, and this is crucial as I've often said, without the "kidnapping rant" as you call it, there's no explanation for WHY JB was killed and WHO did it. Without it, all you have is a dead girl in her own house with sexual injuries. Ask Ron Walker sometime if he thinks that would fool LE.
No, we're not. That's YOUR claim, HOTYH, and a faulty one at that. To me, it's not a question of WANTING or not wanting the FBI to come. It's a question of taking a slim chance over no chance.
Self-defeating? Excuse me, but history is full of self-defeating choices made by smart people who thought it was a good idea at the time. Criminals facing capture will often do things that will make their punishment worse if they think it will provide an opportunity for escape. The problem as I see it is this:
I'm often criticized for not including parental love as a factor in this case. Well, as I see it, HOTYH, you're not factoring in an even stronger primal emotion, namely FEAR. More specifically, self-preservation and the fear of the police and what awaited them in prison. It doesn't matter what might have actually happened to them at the hands of the legal system as much as what they THOUGHT could happen.
Like I told Amy Noel, that may be the key right there.
Everybody getting all of this, or am I just talking to myself?
I don't know, HOTYH. A little while back, I expressed almost those exact sentiments, and to hear some people, you'd think I was a LUNATIC.
:clap: Kind of makes you wonder why some people find this so difficult, doesn't it, tragco?
Patience
Former Member
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2007
- Messages
- 2,668
- Reaction score
- 249
This article is in our news today, not that it is new news to you just thought I would post it.
U.S. police reopen JonBenet Ramsey case
Police are conducting new interviews regarding the 1996 death of six-year-old child beauty queen JonBenet Ramsey. Fox News reports that a 2009 committee of investigators from state and federal agencies has advised police in Boulder, Colo., on additional contacts and interviews to conduct
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2010/10/03/15565381.html
U.S. police reopen JonBenet Ramsey case
Police are conducting new interviews regarding the 1996 death of six-year-old child beauty queen JonBenet Ramsey. Fox News reports that a 2009 committee of investigators from state and federal agencies has advised police in Boulder, Colo., on additional contacts and interviews to conduct
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2010/10/03/15565381.html
Careful, HOTYH! Talk like that might get your IDI Gold Card revoked.
Very perceptive.
Hardly! Yet another "IDI-favoring media spot" would have been a sizable step UP from this debacle. It certainly favored the Ramseys and kept their bulldog lawyer away from the gate (which I imagine was the intent), but I'm hard-pressed to see how it did IDI ANY favors. Indeed, all it did was make all of us; RDIs, IDIs and FSs look like morons.
THAT's what's got us mad enough to chew up nails and spit out quarters.