Parents who kill...

[Louisadelmar]

I don't see the Ramseys in this.

http://www.deathreference.com/Ce-Da/...Murder-of.html
Familial Homicides
The psychiatrist P. T. D'Orban classifies the factors that play a role in filicides (the killing of a son or daughter) into three categories: family stress, including a family history of mental illness and crime, parental discord, parental maltreatment, and separation from one or both parents before age fifteen; social stress, involving financial and housing problems, marital discord, a criminal record, and living alone; and psychiatric stress, comprising a history of psychiatric symptoms, a psychiatric diagnosis, and a suicide attempt after the offense.
A history of child abuse or neglect is the most notable risk factor for the future death (i.e., murder of a child). Scholars note that the best predictor of future violence is a past history of violence. Most child abuse killings fall into the category of battering deaths, resulting from misguided, but brutal, efforts to discipline, punish, or quiet children. According to a study conducted by Murray Levine and associates, 75 percent of maltreatment-related fatalities occur in children under age four. Very young children are at the greatest risk because they are more physically vulnerable and less likely to be identified as at-risk due to their lack of contact with outside agencies. Shaken baby syndrome, in which the child is shaken so violently that brain damage can occur, takes the lives of many young children.
There are numerous risk factors for child murder. The criminal justice expert Neil Websdale has identified several situational antecedents such as a history of child abuse and/or neglect, a history of domestic violence, poverty, inequality, unemployment, criminal history, the use of drugs and/or alcohol, and the availability of weapons. Male and nonwhite children are more likely to be victims of child murder than female and white children.
According to the American psychiatrist and expert on child murder, Phillip Resnick, typical neonaticidal mothers (mothers who kill their children the first day of birth) are young, unmarried, are not suffering from psychotic illness, and do not have a history of depression. They characteristically conceal their pregnancy, often denying that they are pregnant. Other researchers have concluded that most deaths are the result of unwanted pregnancies, and that many mothers are overwhelmed by the responsibilities and have little or no support system. A number of women have serious drug and/or alcohol problems and lose control in a fit of intoxication.
Mental disorder is a major factor in the killing of children. In Fatal Families (1997), Charles Ewing notes that psychotic infanticide and filicide perpetrators are most likely to be suffering from postpartum psychosis, while parents who batter their children to death are more likely to suffer from nonpsychotic mental illnesses, such as personality disorders, impulse control disorders, mood disorders, anxiety disorders, and/or substance abuse disorders. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (1994) explains that postpartum psychotic episodes are characterized by command hallucinations to kill the infant or delusions that the infant is possessed. Other researchers report that mothers who kill their newborn are often suffering from dissociative disorders at the time of the birth because they feel overwhelmed by the pregnancy and perceived lack of support, necessitating their handling the traumatic experience on their own. However, when mothers kill older children, it is the children who have mental aberrations or psychiatric conditions rather than the mother, who in fear of her life or the lives of other family members, feels she has to end the life of her child.
According to Levine and colleagues, not only are males predominantly the perpetrators, but the presence of a male in the household increases the risk of maltreatment-related fatalities, especially from physical abuse. Fathers kill infants when they cry excessively and the father has little tolerance for such disruption due to the influence of alcohol or drugs, or because he is suffering from antisocial personality disorder. Some fathers kill their son when he is old enough to challenge the father's authority and they physically fight. Occasionally, fathers have killed their daughters following rape or sexual exploitation, when they threatened to reveal the abuse.
The rate of child murder is greatly elevated in stepfamilies. Martin Daly and Margo Wilson found that whereas young children incurred about seven times higher rates of physical abuse in families with a stepparent than in two-genetic-parent homes, stepchildren were 100 times more likely to suffer fatal abuse. In a sample of men who slew their preschool-age children, 82 percent of the victims of stepfathers were beaten to death, while the majority of children slain by genetic fathers were killed by less violent means.
_________________

[SnarkyCow]

Good post - even tho I believe the Ramseys were involved in the death of JonBenet. It is fair to say that not every instance will fit into a neat, clean profile. You'd be hard pressed (in fact, it'd be impossible) to find another case where a supposed-to-be kidnapped child is found sexually abused and murdered in her home AND accompanied by a three page ransom note. My point is: This case doesn't fall into any profile - it is unique unto itself.

Respectfully yours,

Snarky

[shill]

Motive needs to match the crime.

[SnarkyCow]

Originally Posted by shill

Motive needs to match the crime.

Not when it's a crime of passion (I'm not talking about romantic relationship) or rage. Not every murder is premeditated or motivated.

[shill]

People can't believe an intruder would fit the profile the evidence points to, but they believe the Ramseys thought it would be a convincing staging.

IMO the intruder did not intend to kill JB in the house and it was an accident. And this is why the evidence is confusing. The original plan had to be aborted and then everything was improvised, and not thought out.
The only cover up needed was for his escape, a ransom note that told them to wait for a day.

[shill]

Originally Posted by SnarkyCow

Not when it's a crime of passion (I'm not talking about romantic relationship) or rage. Not every murder is premeditated or motivated.

Murder was just part of the crime. Staging a crime (if it was the Ramseys), moving the body, death threats, strangulation, sexual penetration, imprisonment, attempted kidnapping.

[SnarkyCow]

Originally Posted by shill

People can't believe an intruder would fit the profile the evidence points to, but they believe the Ramseys thought it would be a convincing staging.

IMO the intruder did not intend to kill JB in the house and it was an accident. And this is why the evidence is confusing. The original plan had to be aborted and then everything was improvised, and not thought out.
The only cover up needed was for his escape, a ransom note that told them to wait for a day.

Well, I guess that's what makes you IDI and me RDI. I completely see your point and respect it, but I don't believe that is what happened - in my opinion there is no evidence of an intruder, none. The only evidence at the crime scene ties one or both of the Ramseys to the crime. This is how I interpret it. I've read a lot of your posts while lurking here & know already that we'll have to agree to disagree, but that is the beauty of being able to speak freely & have an opinion.

Cheers,

Snarky

[Ames]

Originally Posted by shill

<snipped>
The only cover up needed was for his escape, a ransom note that told them to wait for a day.

So the "intruder" didn't think that the Ramsey's would search the house for their child???

[shill]

If you wear gloves at a crime scene and leave no fingerprints, that doesn't mean you didn't touch anything.
If you leave no signs of breaking into a house, that doesn't mean you were not in the house.
But there is a lot of evidence missing from the crime scene that is no longer in the house. So who removed it?

[shill]

Originally Posted by Ames

So the "intruder" didn't think that the Ramsey's would search the house for their child???

No, why would they, she had been kidnapped. They didn't search for her even after the call didn't come from the kidnapper at the time they thought it was suppose to. Unless you know of someone telling John and the others to look for JB's body, I don't think it really occured to them. As far as I have seen, they were just looking for clues or things out of the ordinary.

[SnarkyCow]

Originally Posted by shill

If you wear gloves at a crime scene and leave no fingerprints, that doesn't mean you didn't touch anything.
If you leave no signs of breaking into a house, that doesn't mean you were not in the house.
But there is a lot of evidence missing from the crime scene that is no longer in the house. So who removed it?

Good question - who removed it? I'd imagine it wouldn't be hard to find something to do with it in the 7 hours between coming home and calling the police. Wasn't Patsy's sister allowed in the house shortly after to collect a number of things Patsy wanted?

Also, why would someone bring some of the things they used to kill JB with them, but use other things from the house? If it were a kidnapping gone wrong and the note was left to give the intruder time to escape wouldn't the intruder write a short, succinct ransom note instead of a three page masterpiece? If it was a kidnapping or sexual assault gone murder wouldn't the person want to get out ASAP? Would they take the time to put the pad of paper and the pen back where they found it?

Would an intruder interupt their kidnapping mission, or suppress their deviant urges to feed JB some pineapple? Must have been one calm, collected pedophile, kidnapping, murderer - and nice too, giving JB a snack. This makes no sense to me - none at all.

I wish these things could be explained away, but they can't - no matter what I read nothing justifies the events of that evening being caused by an intruder.

Respectfully yours,

Snarky

[SnarkyCow]

SNIP:

Originally Posted by shill

As far as I have seen, they were just looking for clues or things out of the ordinary.

Like a broken basement window as a means of entry or exit? Funny that wasn't mentioned by JR when he was looking for things out of the ordinary don't you think?

[Louisadelmar]

Nor by Fleet White...

[shill]

If JB was not asleep when they came home, they could have said that. They could have said they put her to bed and she fell asleep. No need to lie about it.

No need to lie about feeding her pineapple, she was awake when we came home and we gave her a snack of pineapple.

If she was awake when they got home, why lie about it.

Little kids do wake up in the middle of the night hungry, and are capable of finding the kitchen on their own.

[shill]

Originally Posted by SnarkyCow

SNIP:

Like a broken basement window as a means of entry or exit? Funny that wasn't mentioned by JR when he was looking for things out of the ordinary don't you think?

I would think detectives that are trained to look for that kind of thing would have noticed it. They didn't.
John is not a detective.

[SnarkyCow]

Originally Posted by shill

If JB was not asleep when they came home, they could have said that. They could have said they put her to bed and she fell asleep. No need to lie about it.

No need to lie about feeding her pineapple, she was awake when we came home and we gave her a snack of pineapple.

If she was awake when they got home, why lie about it.

Little kids do wake up in the middle of the night hungry, and are capable of finding the kitchen on their own.

Exactly! Why lie!? Why lie about any of what you mentioned! According to Burke she was awake when they arrived home - if this is the case Patsy & John did lie. What would Burke have to gain by fabricating his story? Nothing!

Patsy is the one, in her interview in 1998, who said JB would not be able to reach that bowl and would never get up to fix herself a snack - if she wanted something Patsy said JB would have woken her up.

From Patsy's 1998 interview:

PATSY RAMSEY: I mean, I would have heard
25 them. Burke would have gotten up and banged around
0486
1 getting cupboards open and getting stuff in the
2 refrigerator.
3 TOM HANEY: Well, if he banged around two
4 floors away, would you have heard that?
5 PATSY RAMSEY: I hope I would have.
6 TOM HANEY: You wouldn't hear JonBenet's
7 toilet flush one floor away.
8 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, that was at the opposite
9 end of the house. The kitchen is down under my --
10 TOM HANEY: It is kind of central, is it?
11 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah. I just -- he has -- I
12 have never known him to fix his sister, in the middle
13 of the night, something to eat. That would be unusual.
14 TOM HANEY: Okay.
15 PATSY RAMSEY: Okay.
16 TOM HANEY: Could it have happened?
17 PATSY RAMSEY: Anything could have happened.
18 I mean, we know something strange happened that night,
19 but this looks weird to me. That is all I have. That
20 is all I know. That looks strange to me.
21 And if there was pineapple in her stomach and
22 that pineapple, that is -- I would like to know when
23 somebody first saw that there, you know, because there
24 were a lot of people floating around there.
25 PATRICK BURKE: Is this a good time for a
0487
1 break?
2 TOM HANEY: I have a couple of questions.
3 PATRICK BURKE: Before we get off of that,
4 just to finish, I think we have time left on the tape.
5 TOM HANEY: I am done talking, okay.
6 TRIP DEMUTH: Do I understand you to say that
7 JonBenet would not have fixed herself pineapple?
8 PATSY RAMSEY: I very seriously doubt that.
9 TRIP DEMUTH: So if she had pineapple in her
10 system, someone had to serve that to her?
11 PATSY RAMSEY: That would be my guess.
12 TRIP DEMUTH: Okay. And we know that she did
13 have pineapple in her system.
14 PATSY RAMSEY: Okay.
15 TRIP DEMUTH: Right.
16 PATSY RAMSEY: That is why I'm here.
17 TRIP DEMUTH: Someone would have had to serve
18 her pineapple.
19 PATSY RAMSEY: It seems to me like that.
20 TRIP DEMUTH: The Whites have told us that
21 they did not serve her pineapple.
22 PATSY RAMSEY: Okay.
23 TRIP DEMUTH: We need to figure out when she
24 got pineapple.
25 PATSY RAMSEY: Exactly.

[SnarkyCow]

Originally Posted by shill

I would think detectives that are trained to look for that kind of thing would have noticed it. They didn't.
John is not a detective.

So his daughter is missing, and he is looking for anything unusual - points of entry, things out of place, but because he isn't a detective he doesn't think to mention it? Come on - that's a stretch & it makes no sense.

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally Posted by shill

If JB was not asleep when they came home, they could have said that. They could have said they put her to bed and she fell asleep. No need to lie about it.

No need to lie about feeding her pineapple, she was awake when we came home and we gave her a snack of pineapple.

If she was awake when they got home, why lie about it.

Little kids do wake up in the middle of the night hungry, and are capable of finding the kitchen on their own.

We've been over this before. Why make the story more complicated by saying she was awake? Her being awake would have allowed for something to have happened to her; as would saying that they fed her a snack. Easier to have her having been asleep since she got home. Less details to remember to try to keep track of and less suspicion placed on them and what may have taken place.
IMO
Little kids do get up in the night but Patsy even said that JB couldn't have reached that bowl of pineapple by herself. There were none of her prints on the bowl either. Very stupid of the Ramseys to deny everything about that bowl of pineapple. They would have us believe that an "intruder" either chopped up a fresh pineapple or opened a container of fresh pineapple, looked for and found a serving bowl to put it in and then sat there and fed JB while they slept on unawares.
If you don't think the Ramseys are lying about the pineapple, how do you explain it?

Sorry, Snarky...must have missed your post!

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally Posted by SnarkyCow

So his daughter is missing, and he is looking for anything unusual - points of entry, things out of place, but because he isn't a detective he doesn't think to mention it? Come on - that's a stretch & it makes no sense.

No, it doesn't.
And he did look for her. He looked under her bed for her and in the refriderator. I guess he thought she wrote the RN as a joke.

[shill]

Originally Posted by thewhitewitch1

We've been over this before. Why make the story more complicated by saying she was awake? Her being awake would have allowed for something to have happened to her; as would saying that they fed her a snack. Easier to have her having been asleep since she got home. Less details to remember to try to keep track of and less suspicion placed on them and what may have taken place.
IMO
Little kids do get up in the night but Patsy even said that JB couldn't have reached that bowl of pineapple by herself. There were none of her prints on the bowl either. Very stupid of the Ramseys to deny everything about that bowl of pineapple. They would have us believe that an "intruder" either chopped up a fresh pineapple or opened a container of fresh pineapple, looked for and found a serving bowl to put it in and then sat there and fed JB while they slept on unawares.
If you don't think the Ramseys are lying about the pineapple, how do you explain it?

I was under the impression the bowl of pineapple was out on a table top and that is what is shown in the crime scene photos.

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally Posted by shill

I was under the impression the bowl of pineapple was out on a table top and that is what is shown in the crime scene photos.

See Patsys statements in Snarkycows post above.

[shill]

Originally Posted by SnarkyCow

So his daughter is missing, and he is looking for anything unusual - points of entry, things out of place, but because he isn't a detective he doesn't think to mention it? Come on - that's a stretch & it makes no sense.

I admit John should have noticed it, my point is he wasn't the only one who missed it.
And trained detectives not noticing it... now that's a stretch & it makes no sense.

[SnarkyCow]

My personal, favorite conversation regarding the pineapple and bowl. From Patsy's 1998 interview:

PATSY RAMSEY: Not to my knowledge, unless
17 she -- you know, I can't remember what was served over
18 at the White's. Does anybody know? Except there was
19 crab. I remember crab.
20 TOM HANEY: That seems to be the only thing
21 you recall that she ate.
22 PATSY RAMSEY: Yeah.
23 Did you fingerprint that?
24 TOM HANEY: Yes.
25 PATSY RAMSEY: Did it show anything?
0480
1 TOM HANEY: Well, what would that tell you,
2 somebody's fingerprints were on it.
3 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, if they weren't mine, if
4 they were not John's, maybe somebody fed her pineapple.
5 TOM HANEY: What if those fingerprints
6 belonged to one of the two of you?
7 PATSY RAMSEY: Well, I don't know.
8 TOM HANEY: Well, wait a minute. You started
9 that line.
10 PATSY RAMSEY: I didn't put the bowl there,
11 okay. I did not put the bowl there. I would not do
12 this, set it.
13 TOM HANEY: Let's go back to your line of
14 reasoning here. If they were not -- now talk to me.
15 PATSY RAMSEY: Okay.
16 TOM HANEY: Look at me. If they are not
17 yours and they are not John's, then they would be
18 somebody else's.
19 PATSY RAMSEY: Right.
20 TOM HANEY: But now I am telling you they are
21 not somebody else's. Those prints belong to one of the
22 two of you.
23 PATSY RAMSEY: They do? You are sure? Well,
24 I don't know. I did not put that there. No.
25 TOM HANEY: Now, so could we just slough it
0481
1 off like that, because --
2 PATSY RAMSEY: I don't know how else to -- I
3 mean, I would not do this set like this. JonBenet
4 could not reach a bowl that size.
5 TOM HANEY: Wait. Talk to me. Your line of
6 reasoning, and this was your logic a couple sentences
7 ago, they are not yours, they are not John's, then they
8 are somebody else's, whoever put it there. I'm telling
9 you that it isn't somebody else's.
10 PATSY RAMSEY: Well --
11 TOM HANEY: You know sometimes the simplest,
12 most obscure little thing could be so significant.
13 PATSY RAMSEY: Right. I did not feed
14 JonBenet pineapple, so I don't know how it got in her
15 stomach. I don't know where this bowl of pineapple
16 came from. I can't recall putting that there. I can
17 never recall putting a tea bag like that in a cup, so I
18 don't know. I don't know the answer.

[SnarkyCow]

Originally Posted by shill

I admit John should have noticed it, my point is he wasn't the only one who missed it.
And trained detectives not noticing it... now that's a stretch & it makes no sense.

I agree that LE should've noticed it - I don't claim the investigation wasn't f-ed up or that the detectives did the right things. But we were talking about John Ramsey - there is no question LE screwed up, there is also no question that John Ramsey's behavior is suspicious as hell.

[shill]

Originally Posted by thewhitewitch1

We've been over this before. Why make the story more complicated by saying she was awake? Her being awake would have allowed for something to have happened to her; as would saying that they fed her a snack. Easier to have her having been asleep since she got home. Less details to remember to try to keep track of and less suspicion placed on them and what may have taken place.
IMO
Little kids do get up in the night but Patsy even said that JB couldn't have reached that bowl of pineapple by herself. There were none of her prints on the bowl either. Very stupid of the Ramseys to deny everything about that bowl of pineapple. They would have us believe that an "intruder" either chopped up a fresh pineapple or opened a container of fresh pineapple, looked for and found a serving bowl to put it in and then sat there and fed JB while they slept on unawares.
If you don't think the Ramseys are lying about the pineapple, how do you explain it?

Sorry, Snarky...must have missed your post!

I take it that it is a fact that there was a bowl of pineapple found sitting out that morning.
So was there an open can of pineapple or the skin and rind of a pineapple found anywhere that morning or was that pineapple in the refrigerator for days?

[aussiesheila]

Originally Posted by shill

I take it that it is a fact that there was a bowl of pineapple found sitting out that morning.
So was there an open can of pineapple or the skin and rind of a pineapple found anywhere that morning or was that pineapple in the refrigerator for days?

There was a bowl of pineapple found sitting out that morning. The pineapple was fresh (not canned). No skin or rind was found in the house.

I did read the transcript of the interview in which Patsy was asked about the pineapple. My recollection is that her answer as to whether she bought the pineapple or not was a bit vague, as were a lot of her answers. Deliberately so, IMO.

[nuisanceposter]

IIRC, the pineapple had been bought at Safeway, and had come in a bag with a sealing top. The pineapple that was in JonBenet's stomach was found to be consistent down to the rind with what was still in the bowl.

[Ames]

Originally Posted by thewhitewitch1

No, it doesn't.
And he did look for her. He looked under her bed for her and in the refriderator. I guess he thought she wrote the RN as a joke.

Thanks for posting this...I knew that I had read where he had looked in the basement freezer for her...because he said that he had a fear of her getting trapped in there.

[Ames]

Originally Posted by SnarkyCow

My personal, favorite conversation regarding the pineapple and bowl. From Patsy's 1998 interview:

Thanks for posting this...its the first time that I had ever seen it before. Okay, so the "intruder" fed her pineapple AND had tea with her??? Oh good GRIEF!!!! I can see why this would be your personal, favorite conversation. She is SO lying.....What a crock of bull poop!!

[Ames]

Originally Posted by shill

I admit John should have noticed it, my point is he wasn't the only one who missed it.
And trained detectives not noticing it... now that's a stretch & it makes no sense.

Well, they probably figured that since John didn't mention it, that it had been broken prior to that night, and had absolutely nothing to do with an intruder....or else, JOHN would have mentioned it.

[shill]

Originally Posted by Ames

Well, they probably figured that since John didn't mention it, that it had been broken prior to that night, and had absolutely nothing to do with an intruder....or else, JOHN would have mentioned it.

Well, John probably figured that since the detectives didn't mention it, and he had broken prior to that night, it had absolutely nothing to do with an intruder....or else, the detectives would have mentioned it.

[LindaA]

Originally Posted by Ames

Well, they probably figured that since John didn't mention it, that it had been broken prior to that night, and had absolutely nothing to do with an intruder....or else, JOHN would have mentioned it.

Detectives should never assume anything esp. about a possible source of entry at a crime scene. Shame on them, if that is the case.

[shill]

Ramseys windows, door unlocked.
http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/fc/.../1110jon1.html

[nuisanceposter]

Shill, thanks for the article. It was written in November of 1997, almost a year after the murder. This is typical RST spin, done for damage control IMO.

Here's what I question:

"But the source said a police officer inspected the 15-room home after the Ramseys called police at 5:45 a.m. Dec. 26 and found six windows unlocked."

Who is that source?

According to the article, the source is "a prominent defense attorney."

Whose defense attorney? The Ramsey's? Who is this police officer that found these windows unlocked? How did this anonymous defense attorney come upon this information? Is there any other verification?

Three police officers, Officer French, Detective Arndt, and Sergeant Reichenbach, all independently heard John Ramsey tell them that he had made sure to lock up the night before. In PMPT, Patsy tells her friends the house was locked up. It also says in PMPT, according to friends and corroborated by Burke in an interview, that the Ramseys were good about locking up.

Is this another situation similar to the one with JR saying FBI were never on the case when they were?

Originally Posted by Ames

So the "intruder" didn't think that the Ramsey's would search the house for their child???

In all fairness, the police did not search the house for the child....at least not adequately.

Originally Posted by shill

I would think detectives that are trained to look for that kind of thing would have noticed it. They didn't.
John is not a detective.

Thats an interesting point. Did the cop who searched the basement and felt so guilty about not finding JBs body (I can t think of his name right now)...but did he ever mention the broken window?

[SnarkyCow]

His name is Officer French I believe & I'm not sure about him mentioning the window or not. I think it's bizarre that the John Ramsy and one of the first officers searching the house failed to mention it. It's like "HELLO!? Does this not seem like it could be important!?"

Originally Posted by SnarkyCow

Good question - who removed it? I'd imagine it wouldn't be hard to find something to do with it in the 7 hours between coming home and calling the police. Wasn't Patsy's sister allowed in the house shortly after to collect a number of things Patsy wanted?

Also, why would someone bring some of the things they used to kill JB with them, but use other things from the house? If it were a kidnapping gone wrong and the note was left to give the intruder time to escape wouldn't the intruder write a short, succinct ransom note instead of a three page masterpiece? If it was a kidnapping or sexual assault gone murder wouldn't the person want to get out ASAP? Would they take the time to put the pad of paper and the pen back where they found it?

Would an intruder interupt their kidnapping mission, or suppress their deviant urges to feed JB some pineapple? Must have been one calm, collected pedophile, kidnapping, murderer - and nice too, giving JB a snack. This makes no sense to me - none at all.

I wish these things could be explained away, but they can't - no matter what I read nothing justifies the events of that evening being caused by an intruder.

Respectfully yours,

Snarky

Hey Snarky, I struggle with these same questions too but I also struggle with RDi questions. For example, if JBs parents wrote the ransom note, why in the world would they leave the tablet and pen on the kitchen counter...especially with the original 'false start' letter still in the pad? If I were going to kill one of my family members and write a bogus ransom note, I would find a piece of paper in my house that could not be traced to my grocery list. Also, if I started out writing a letter (Dear mr and mrs) then decided to change it, I would be absolutely careful to destroy the original...flush it down the toilet or something...maybe even swallow it. But the last thing I would do is leave the evidence, then hand it over to police as a handwriting example. I am not at all convinced that the Rs are innocent, but these inconsistencies make me question their guilt. Could they really be that smart, yet that stupid???

[SnarkyCow]

Originally Posted by elvislives

Hey Snarky, I struggle with these same questions too but I also struggle with RDi questions. For example, if JBs parents wrote the ransom note, why in the world would they leave the tablet and pen on the kitchen counter...especially with the original 'false start' letter still in the pad? If I were going to kill one of my family members and write a bogus ransom note, I would find a piece of paper in my house that could not be traced to my grocery list. Also, if I started out writing a letter (Dear mr and mrs) then decided to change it, I would be absolutely careful to destroy the original...flush it down the toilet or something...maybe even swallow it. But the last thing I would do is leave the evidence, then hand it over to police as a handwriting example. I am not at all convinced that the Rs are innocent, but these inconsistencies make me question their guilt. Could they really be that smart, yet that stupid???

I totally hear you. I realize polygraphs and handwriting samples aren't iron-clad. I just think about the not cooperating with the police, lawyering-up so early, refusal of FBI polygraphs, the difference in story between Burke & the parents regarding JB being awake or asleep when they got home, and the whole pineapple thing.... if the Rs did this thing, which I think they did, they had hours on end to figure out how they were going to play it out. The other thing is: The crime scene was staged. What intruder would stay in a house, with the possiblity of being caught at any minute, and elaboratly stage the crime? IMO there is no plausible answer for this - it just does not make sense to me. Pedophiliac kidnapper turned murderer? I just don't buy it.

When I think of the Ramseys (as I've said before) the phrase "Crazy like a fox" comes to mind.

What did they have to lose by doing everything in their power to cover up and get away with this dispicable crime? Nothing, in my opinion. If it was an accident, they chose not to call for help in time to make a difference in the life or death of their daughter, so they decided to uphold their image and try to gain sympathy rather than the alternative.... If they admit to it they go to jail. If they mess with the crime scene - stage it, fill the house with people, contaminate it, leave a rambling note, confuse people, clam up, point fingers away from themselves - they may have a chance to come away as victims rather than cold-blooded killers. At least by staging they had a chance to get away with what they did. In my opinion they took that chance - I don't see evidence that says anything else.

Warm Regards,

Snarks

[shill]

Rape and sexual attacks are not always about sexual gratification, but are often about empowerment and punishment.
I do not think this was done by a pedophile. There are no signs what so ever of fornication with JB.
But pedophiles very often do kill their victims.