Please explain RDI's

[createthis]

Somebody please break this down into a reality I can understand. If the Ramsey's committed this murder unto their daughter and it was accidental...(I think premeditation is out) how could they bring themselves "to stage" the crime in the way is was?????? I don't care how desperate they were. I think about what if it was me...who had lost control...I still in a million years would not have been able to fake a strangling of my daughter after or "during" she was dying or what have you, to make it believable to police! No way, no how! It is too brutal...too nasty...to sick for a parent who made the worst mistake of their lives to cover up in this manner. It is too unbelievable and way beyond logic. Have we lost all perspective here? You have to put yourself in the mind of the killer. I don't care if John or Patsy was so called sexually abusing her and lost control...you don't garrotte her or crack her skull (whichever came first) to make it believable to LE. Ok You want to say John or Patsy committed this horrific crime? Then explain to me the malice behind the motive of staging. It can't be done...or prove me wrong. I want details.

[Zoey]

Originally Posted by createthis

Somebody please break this down into a reality I can understand. If the Ramsey's committed this murder unto their daughter and it was accidental...(I think premeditation is out) how could they bring themselves "to stage" the crime in the way is was?????? I don't care how desperate they were. I think about what if it was me...who had lost control...I still in a million years would not have been able to fake a strangling of my daughter after or "during" she was dying or what have you, to make it believable to police! No way, no how! It is too brutal...too nasty...to sick for a parent who made the worst mistake of their lives to cover up in this manner. It is too unbelievable and way beyond logic. Have we lost all perspective here? You have to put yourself in the mind of the killer. I don't care if John or Patsy was so called sexually abusing her and lost control...you don't garrotte her or crack her skull (whichever came first) to make it believable to LE. Ok You want to say John or Patsy committed this horrific crime? Then explain to me the malice behind the motive of staging. It can't be done...or prove me wrong. I want details.

I'm not sure what you mean by fake a strangling. The cord was very deeply imbedded in JB's neck, so to me that is not fake; it is very real.

[KingCoyote]

Createthis:

Without trying to start an argument I find your questions a little on the confrontational side which you feel you cannot lose. Simply because something is not believable or logical to you doesn't mean it isn't believable or logical to someone else. You ask for others who do not hold your beliefs and thoughts to delve into the mind of an individual and decipher their thoughts as evil. Can you delve into the mind of the Ramseys and decipher their thoughts as good?

Simply because you would not do it, in your hypothetical situation, does not mean someone else could not or would not do it when faced with the reality of the situation. It is impossible for anyone to know what was going on or not going on in the mind of a family member who murders a child until that family member confesses. For us to opine at to their thoughts would be as much conjecture as your question contains.

Your question reminds me of the age old argument of being able to prove or disprove the existence of God. You cannot prove or disprove the existence of a belief.

I challenge you to prove, based on Ramsey motive and thoughts alone, that the Ramsey could not have done it. I would like to see specifics from you as to exactly what their thoughts were...not their statements, which you have the self serving advantage of mind you...just their thoughts to which you must inevitably opine, or shall we say, speculate.

I would also like to remind you that the law recognizes that when an individual, due to a mental disease or defect, cannot conform their conduct to the requirements of the law, there is diminished capacity and when the individual, due to a mental disease or defect, cannot appreciate the nature and consequences of their act, they may be declared legally insane due to the inability to form the necesary intent (mens rea) to be responsible for a crime (actus reus). You ask your fellow forum members to instantly become experienced forensic and criminal psychiatrists to determine mental diseases and defects as well as a possible conclusion of legal insanity or diminished capacity while you rely on your comforts of your personal thoughts, logic and opinions. Do you consider that fair?

Respectfully,

KingCoyote

[createthis]

Originally Posted by KingCoyote

Createthis:

Without trying to start an argument I find your questions a little on the confrontational side which you feel you cannot lose. Simply because something is not believable or logical to you doesn't mean it isn't believable or logical to someone else. You ask for others who do not hold your beliefs and thoughts to delve into the mind of an individual and decipher their thoughts as evil. Can you delve into the mind of the Ramseys and decipher their thoughts as good?

Simply because you would not do it, in your hypothetical situation, does not mean someone else could not or would not do it when faced with the reality of the situation. It is impossible for anyone to know what was going on or not going on in the mind of a family member who murders a child until that family member confesses. For us to opine at to their thoughts would be as much conjecture as your question contains.

Your question reminds me of the age old argument of being able to prove or disprove the existence of God. You cannot prove or disprove the existence of a belief.

I challenge you to prove, based on Ramsey motive and thoughts alone, that the Ramsey could not have done it. I would like to see specifics from you as to exactly what their thoughts were...not their statements, which you have the self serving advantage of mind you...just their thoughts to which you must inevitably opine, or shall we say, speculate.

I would also like to remind you that the law recognizes that when an individual, due to a mental disease or defect, cannot conform their conduct to the requirements of the law, there is diminished capacity and when the individual, due to a mental disease or defect, cannot appreciate the nature and consequences of their act, they may be declared legally insane due to the inability to form the necesary intent (mens rea) to be responsible for a crime (actus reus). You ask your fellow forum members to instantly become experienced forensic and criminal psychiatrists to determine mental diseases and defects as well as a possible conclusion of legal insanity or diminished capacity while you rely on your comforts of your personal thoughts, logic and opinions. Do you consider that fair?

Respectfully,

KingCoyote

KC

I can easliy answer. KC you ask " my fellow forum members to instantly become experienced forensic and criminal psychciatrists to determine mental diseases and defects as well as etc." that is all anyone on this board has to give is their opinion on to what has happened in this case. We don't have the evidence as LE does. Your statement detours and as I thought exactly cannot answer the questions that remained in my thread! Just what I thought. Yes-these questions are very fair because they cannot be answered and you ask me to answer questions to which I have posted? And the law reconizes what? The riddle to mental illness? I already gave you specific answers as to why the Ramsey's could have not done it. Stop spreading this case out all over the place and keep it simple. That is where the answers may be found...my "hypothetical situations cannot be ignored" the physical evidence is obvoiusly not solving this case so far. Don't blame me for trying KC. Don't start your reply with " without trying to start an argument" and intend to excuse your opinions to my thread in that manner. Please.

[createthis]

KC...Stop going around the questions in my thread and give your RDI to the answers in my thread.

[KingCoyote]

Createthis:

I have reread your original post:

Please confirm to me that these are not purely opinions and conclusions on your part:

" I think about what if it was me"

"I still in a million years would not have been able to...

"It is too unbelievable and way beyond logic"

"You have to put yourself in the mind of a killer"

"Explain to me the malice and motive" -- and you say you are not asking others to arrive at psychiatric and legal conclusions. What do you call malice and motive?

Where is your objective evidence that they Ramseys could not have done this?

Now if you will kindly go to the Thread begun by LouisaDelmar about Parents Who Kill, where I have posted certain stresses of the holidays and dynamics of the JBR/PR relationship and the known medical conditions we have available to us, you will find that I have already listed, in a very objective fashion the indications of evidence of rage, which could very well be a motive. Rage, due to mental disease and defect, (scores of which exist if you study the most recent Diagnostic and Statistical Manual on Mental Disorders - I will have to check that title...it has been years since I have done extensive research on such matters), created by many of the indications listed in my post has far more than once provided the defense of diminished capacity and legal insanity.

If you must know I am currently analyzing the cause-effect relationships of the age categories of children who are murdered by their parents and find some interesting deviations in the JBR/PR relationships from the norms established by the categories that may seriously increase the probabilities of a mother killing her daughter as a possible result of rage.

Now if you truly wish to be as one sided as you seem to be you can ignore the fact that there are more than twice as many indications of evidence of rage as there are contraindications of rage. How do you respond to such evidence without summarily dismissing twice as much evidence or unilaterally and summarily relying on your opinions, conclusions and logic as you believe? I challenge you to give me precise details, psychological and legal, as to why the indications of my list do not present the possible malice and motive that you so confidently assert does not exist. I have met your request..now please meet mine.

Respectfully,

KingCoyote

[KingCoyote]

Createthis:

I am neither RDI nor IDI. That is an erroneous conclusion on your part.

KingCoyote

[thewhitewitch1]

Well, my thoughts are this:

I think JR did all of the staging. I do not believe Patsy could have done that part; with the exception of helping to write the RN.
John has been described by some who knew him as "a cold fish". He is businesslike and is used to taking charge of a situation. Yes, I can very well imagine him doing what needed to be done while keeping his emotions at bay. When your career, your other child and your "reputation" in your community is at stake, I can see how and why he/they would want to cover this up. I think the head blow came first. I think they knew she was dying or thought she was dead. They had to have heard her skull crack and she may have been convulsing. Perhaps her breathing was so shallow they thought she was dead. Remember, obviously JR doesn't recognize death even when rigor mortis has set in.
Just because this is something you can't concieve of doing does not mean that dictates what other people are capable of.
You weren't there. You don't know what took place and neither do I. To say that they couldn't have done it is just ridiculous.
I find the intruder theory ridiculous. That doesn't mean there couldn't have been one. I am not asking you to prove conclusively that there was one because you can't do it. I would like to know why, with all of the evidence (and some we don't even know about), all of the detectives on this case for the past 10 years, all of the hours spent and all of the money...why has no one even come close to solving this? Because they are looking for an intruder that doesn't exist. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

[KingCoyote]

I am going to bed....I have to work tomorrow....

[createthis]

Originally Posted by KingCoyote

Createthis:

I have reread your original post:

Please confirm to me that these are not purely opinions and conclusions on your part:

" I think about what if it was me"

"I still in a million years would not have been able to...

"It is too unbelievable and way beyond logic"

"You have to put yourself in the mind of a killer"

"Explain to me the malice and motive" -- and you say you are not asking others to arrive at psychiatric and legal conclusions. What do you call malice and motive?

Where is your objective evidence that they Ramseys could not have done this?

Now if you will kindly go to the Thread begun by LouisaDelmar about Parents Who Kill, where I have posted certain stresses of the holidays and dynamics of the JBR/PR relationship and the known medical conditions we have available to us, you will find that I have already listed, in a very objective fashion the indications of evidence of rage, which could very well be a motive. Rage, due to mental disease and defect, (scores of which exist if you study the most recent Diagnostic and Statistical Manual on Mental Disorders - I will have to check that title...it has been years since I have done extensive research on such matters), created by many of the indications listed in my post has far more than once provided the defense of diminished capacity and legal insanity.

If you must know I am currently analyzing the cause-effect relationships of the age categories of children who are murdered by their parents and find some interesting deviations in the JBR/PR relationships from the norms established by the categories that may seriously increase the probabilities of a mother killing her daughter as a possible result of rage.

Now if you truly wish to be as one sided as you seem to be you can ignore the fact that there are more than twice as many indications of evidence of rage as there are contraindications of rage. How do you respond to such evidence without summarily dismissing twice as much evidence or unilaterally and summarily relying on your opinions, conclusions and logic as you believe? I challenge you to give me precise details, psychological and legal, as to why the indications of my list do not present the possible malice and motive that you so confidently assert does not exist. I have met your request..now please meet mine.

Respectfully,

KingCoyote

KC: You say I ingnore "twice" as many indications of rage. You know what follows anger in most people? (as I do not deny?) Remorse. There is no prior indication of Ramsey craziness. I will ask again...if the Ramsey's (one or both)accidentally killed JBR Xmas night, how did they bring themselves to stage or leave JBR in the condition she was left in? I have yet to hear a definitve explanation.

[rashomon]

Originally Posted by createthis

KC: You say I ingnore "twice" as many indications of rage. You know what follows anger in most people? (as I do not deny?) Remorse. There is no prior indication of Ramsey craziness. I will ask again...if the Ramsey's (one or both)accidentally killed JBR Xmas night, how did they bring themselves to stage or leave JBR in the condition she was left in? I have yet to hear a definitve explanation.

But people with a sociopathic personality structure for example hardly ever feel remorse. And this lack of remorse has nothing to do with craziness either.
I agree with you that whoever staged this scene is not a normal person, but a sociopath.
A sociopath who I think chose self-preservation over the life of her child. A narcissistic sociopath who did not want to turn herself in to the police for what she had done, for then her whole facade would have crashed down in public. Sociopaths often wear a brilliant mask in public. There are enough illustrative examples in criminal history.
The damage had been done anyway, no one would ever bring JonBenet to life again, and so she tried to save what was left: herself.

And don't forget Burke's role in all this. Both Patsy and John (I believe he helped her) probably had Burke's fate in mind too, wanting him to spare the horribe truth that his mother had killed his little sister in a rage.

The IDIs take things too much at face value and refuse to look behind the Ramseys' facade.

[aussiesheila]

Originally Posted by createthis

Somebody please break this down into a reality I can understand. If the Ramsey's committed this murder unto their daughter and it was accidental...(I think premeditation is out) how could they bring themselves "to stage" the crime in the way is was?????? I don't care how desperate they were. I think about what if it was me...who had lost control...I still in a million years would not have been able to fake a strangling of my daughter after or "during" she was dying or what have you, to make it believable to police! No way, no how! It is too brutal...too nasty...to sick for a parent who made the worst mistake of their lives to cover up in this manner. It is too unbelievable and way beyond logic. Have we lost all perspective here? You have to put yourself in the mind of the killer. I don't care if John or Patsy was so called sexually abusing her and lost control...you don't garrotte her or crack her skull (whichever came first) to make it believable to LE. Ok You want to say John or Patsy committed this horrific crime? Then explain to me the malice behind the motive of staging. It can't be done...or prove me wrong. I want details.

I have to agree with you, createthis, I find this RDI belief "unbelievable and way beyond logic", but KingCoyote is correct in his reply to you I think, when he states "You cannot prove or disprove the existence of a belief."

That is why I have given up arguing with the RDIs. From my point of view I feel I have spent far too much of my life on this case and have decided it is more constructive to discuss just the IDI theories. It took me a long time, but I finallyt realised I could never convert an RDI to an IDI (nor could I be converted to an RDI) on the evidence currently available. At least though, i can still try to work out the most logical (to me) IDI belief.

[rashomon]

Originally Posted by createthis

Somebody please break this down into a reality I can understand. If the Ramsey's committed this murder unto their daughter and it was accidental...(I think premeditation is out) how could they bring themselves "to stage" the crime in the way is was?????? I don't care how desperate they were. I think about what if it was me...who had lost control...I still in a million years would not have been able to fake a strangling of my daughter after or "during" she was dying or what have you, to make it believable to police! No way, no how! It is too brutal...too nasty...to sick for a parent who made the worst mistake of their lives to cover up in this manner. It is too unbelievable and way beyond logic. Have we lost all perspective here? You have to put yourself in the mind of the killer. I don't care if John or Patsy was so called sexually abusing her and lost control...you don't garrotte her or crack her skull (whichever came first) to make it believable to LE. Ok You want to say John or Patsy committed this horrific crime? Then explain to me the malice behind the motive of staging. It can't be done...or prove me wrong. I want details.

I'll give the Ramseys the benefit of the doubt here, and believe they thought their daughter was already dead when they put the cord around her neck.
For if they had thought JB was still alive, they would probably have pulled far more vehemently at the cord around her neck to make sure the child was dead. But no damage to JB's larynx was done. So it seems they simply put the ligature around the neck, tied a knot and that was it. That the cord later got so embedded in JB's flesh is probably due to post-mortem swelling.
The cord did cut off the oxygen supply to JB's body though, which is why Dr. Meyer wrote death from asphyxiation 'associated with' the head blow.

And the so-called garrote (which was no garrote, but only some cord loops clumsily wrapped around a stick) was done for staging purposes to direct the attention away from the parents. The Ramseys did not 'garrote' JB, but stagged it to make believe a sexual predator had done this. They used this bizarre element to misdirect LE.
Once you identify the whole scenario as a staged scene, everything falls into place.
Imo the only thing which was not staged in that crime was the head blow .

[Zoey]

Originally Posted by rashomon

I'll give the Ramseys the benefit of the doubt here, and believe they thought their daughter was already dead when they put the cord around her neck.
For if they had thought JB was still alive, they would probably have pulled far more vehemently at the cord around her neck to make sure the child was dead. But no damage to JB's larynx was done. So it seems they simply put the ligature around the neck, tied a knot and that was it. That the cord later got so embedded in JB's flesh is probably due to post-mortem swelling.
The cord did cut off the oxygen supply to JB's body though, which is why Dr. Meyer wrote death from asphyxiation 'associated with' the head blow.

And the so-called garrote (which was no garrote, but only some cord loops clumsily wrapped around a stick) was done for staging purposes to direct the attention away from the parents. The Ramseys did not 'garrote' JB, but stagged it to make believe a sexual predator had done this. They used this bizarre element to misdirect LE.
Once you identify the whole scenario as a staged scene, everything falls into place.
Imo the only thing which was not staged in that crime was the head blow .

I understand the hyoid bone was not damaged in any way due to the garrote, but I do not believe for one minute that the deep imbeddment of the cord in her neck is due to swelling. I think someone just stopped short of damaging anything internal, whether they knew to do this or not, I could not say. That cord is in there deep by what I can see on the autopsy photos, IMO.

[KingCoyote]

Createthis:

First let me say that I did not say that you ignored anything. I said that given the fact that you appear to be one sided in this issue you can,[if you wish] choose to ignore all of what I previously posted as indications of evidence that could lead to rage. Both sides, IDI and RDI alike, have the tendency to ignore that which they wish not to address. If you have read any of my posts, which it appears as though you have not, I have stated elsewhere that I find no particular indications of evidence of rage from what I have previously posted. However, I will tell you that I am accumulating other analyses that may include a review of the current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders that may provide evidence of a mental disorder in this case. There are some interesting deviations in the dynamics of PR/JBR relationship that do not coincide with the correlation/cause effect relationships established by the categories of children murdered by a family member. Also. it has been about 15+ years since I did any analysis of mental disorders so I have no idea what I will find. Therefore it would seem, from other posts of mine that since I have yet to find any evidence of rage I must agree with you that there is no prior "craziness" on the part of the Ramseys. At least no outward, overt appearances of "craziness" which I prefer to call mental disorders or diseases.

As to "staging" the scene as it was "staged" I can only provide you with my perceptions as opposed to "definitive explanations" as you so desire. I do not think there are any current "definitive explanations" for any part of this case, much less the case as a whole. I do note, without current analysis of my information, that the wrapping of the body in a blanket "papoose style" as I think JR called it, does seem to warrant analysis. I believe that is one of the things that the FBI noted as evidence of staging by a mother/parent. I also believe there are websites which may provide additional information about staging (Sam Shepard Case??) and I encourage you to familiarize yourself with them so you may engage in non confrontational discussion about the issue while at the same time being able to defend your position. I will do the same when I find time. (I am sorry but I found your original post to be not only quite, but unecessarily confrontational for the reasons listed in my first response.)

As to other comments regarding sociopathy, I am not ready to go so far that a single incident of possible rage quite leaps to the category of sociopathy. I am by no means a psychiatrist or psychologist but I have studied mental diseases and disorders from a legal insanity and temporary insanity standpoint and consider that leap too great to make at this time.

Let me also assure you that I am not RDI simply because I took up the banner to respond to your first post. I am merely an analyst...not even a FS. I was hoping that you would see that I was merely attempting to temper your questions with mediatory discussion. I find that extremely difficult to do, and quite unsuccessfully so in this case, with two sides so definitively drawn.

I will continue to analyze as objectively as possible to find all possible routes to a better explanation of this case. I will also consider any and all posts you make for possible information to assist me. I can tell you though, that the more objective you remain, the more I will be able to extract from your quotes that benefit the IDI side.

Respectfully,

KingCoyote

[rashomon]

Originally Posted by KingCoyote

As to other comments regarding sociopathy, I am not ready to go so far that a single incident of possible rage quite leaps to the category of sociopathy. I am by no means a psychiatrist or psychologist but I have studied mental diseases and disorders from a legal insanity and temporary insanity standpoint and consider that leap too great to make at this time.

KingCoyote

KC,
Imo not that Patsy snapped and lost it is the sociopathic element here (for I think this could happen to anyone, given the circumstances), but her subsequent attempts to save her hide, which even led her to such an extreme that she callously jabbed a paintbrush in her child's vagina for staging purposes.

[KingCoyote]

Rashomon:

Oh...now I see your point....you saw two separate aspects of the incident...OK...thanks for the clarification...Interesting idea.

KC

[bullmoose]

Originally Posted by rashomon

I'll give the Ramseys the benefit of the doubt here, and believe they thought their daughter was already dead when they put the cord around her neck.
For if they had thought JB was still alive, they would probably have pulled far more vehemently at the cord around her neck to make sure the child was dead. But no damage to JB's larynx was done. So it seems they simply put the ligature around the neck, tied a knot and that was it. That the cord later got so embedded in JB's flesh is probably due to post-mortem swelling.
The cord did cut off the oxygen supply to JB's body though, which is why Dr. Meyer wrote death from asphyxiation 'associated with' the head blow.

And the so-called garrote (which was no garrote, but only some cord loops clumsily wrapped around a stick) was done for staging purposes to direct the attention away from the parents. The Ramseys did not 'garrote' JB, but stagged it to make believe a sexual predator had done this. They used this bizarre element to misdirect LE.
Once you identify the whole scenario as a staged scene, everything falls into place.
Imo the only thing which was not staged in that crime was the head blow .

Please tell me where you get your glasses so that I can be sure not to shop there; there seems to be an element of mental fog in your distorted RDI lenses. The only statement that you make that I agree with is that the whole scenario was staged; but I have to tell you that IMO not a single other one of your ideas or conclusions falls into place; IMO they are based on the mantra of "The evil Ramseys did it, The evil Ramseys did it,etc." This is just not convincing to me. When I tryed saying it my glasses fogged right over and I couldn't see anything clearly for ten minutes. Is this what happens to you?

[shill]

Originally Posted by rashomon

And the so-called garrote (which was no garrote, but only some cord loops clumsily wrapped around a stick) was done for staging purposes to direct the attention away from the parents. The Ramseys did not 'garrote' JB, but stagged it to make believe a sexual predator had done this. They used this bizarre element to misdirect LE.
Once you identify the whole scenario as a staged scene, everything falls into place.
Imo the only thing which was not staged in that crime was the head blow .

The garrote and paint brush was what bondage people call a "Bikini" . It is fashioned that way to fulfill it's purpose. After it was used, the part of the paint brush handle that penetrated JB was broken off.
Why do you think the paintbrush handle was broken off?
The perp wanted a souvenir.

[bullmoose]

Originally Posted by shill

The garrote and paint brush was what bondage people call a "Bikini" . It is fashioned that way to fulfill it's purpose. After it was used, the part of the paint brush handle that penetrated JB was broken off.
Why do you think the paintbrush handle was broken off?
The perp wanted a souvenir.

I agree totally with your post, although I have heard the word trophy used along with souvenir. The perp may keep the trophy/souvenir for the rest of his life, to gloat over and remind him of what he got clean away with.

[LindaA]

Shill & Bullmoose, we do know that a part of the paintbrush is unaccounted for, don't we? That would tend to back up your opinion. IMO.

[Zoey]

I hate to say it, but I wonder, being how inept the BPD was in handeling this case, if that broken part of the paintbrush was sitting out in plain view on someone's shelf (like a trophy) if they would have even noticed it? I just don't think they would have given it a second glance, but this is JMHO.

[LindaA]

Zoey, I think your question is a good one and applies to all the evidence or lack of it in this case. It is one reason why I cannot see anyone being so sure the RDI or and IDI. What evidence did the BPD -- and other investigators -- overlook? What evidence exists and was never examined -- in all those warehouses full that CK talked about? And what evidence exists and is known to LE, but not disclosed to the general public, in spite of what Mary Lacy said in her interview last summer? Unless we know the answers to those questions, IMO, no one can be sure they are right about who killed JBR. JMO.

[nuisanceposter]

Are we absolutely certain that the paintbrush was broken in three pieces, and that one of them has never been accounted for?

[KingCoyote]

Could the missing piece of the paintbrush have been disposed of to destroy evidence?....There are so many options with so many pieces of evidence.

KC

[rashomon]

Originally Posted by nuisanceposter

Are we absolutely certain that the paintbrush was broken in three pieces, and that one of them has never been accounted for?

Wasn't the paintbrush part with the bristles found in Patsy's paint tote? We talked about this some time ago (I think it was on WS), but I'm not quite sure if I recall it correctly.

Could the missing piece of the paintbrush have been disposed of to destroy evidence?....There are so many options with so many pieces of evidence.

KC

If there was in fact a missing piece, this is the most logical explanation imo.

[createthis]

Originally Posted by KingCoyote

Createthis:

First let me say that I did not say that you ignored anything. I said that given the fact that you appear to be one sided in this issue you can,[if you wish] choose to ignore all of what I previously posted as indications of evidence that could lead to rage. Both sides, IDI and RDI alike, have the tendency to ignore that which they wish not to address. If you have read any of my posts, which it appears as though you have not, I have stated elsewhere that I find no particular indications of evidence of rage from what I have previously posted. However, I will tell you that I am accumulating other analyses that may include a review of the current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders that may provide evidence of a mental disorder in this case. There are some interesting deviations in the dynamics of PR/JBR relationship that do not coincide with the correlation/cause effect relationships established by the categories of children murdered by a family member. Also. it has been about 15+ years since I did any analysis of mental disorders so I have no idea what I will find. Therefore it would seem, from other posts of mine that since I have yet to find any evidence of rage I must agree with you that there is no prior "craziness" on the part of the Ramseys. At least no outward, overt appearances of "craziness" which I prefer to call mental disorders or diseases.

As to "staging" the scene as it was "staged" I can only provide you with my perceptions as opposed to "definitive explanations" as you so desire. I do not think there are any current "definitive explanations" for any part of this case, much less the case as a whole. I do note, without current analysis of my information, that the wrapping of the body in a blanket "papoose style" as I think JR called it, does seem to warrant analysis. I believe that is one of the things that the FBI noted as evidence of staging by a mother/parent. I also believe there are websites which may provide additional information about staging (Sam Shepard Case??) and I encourage you to familiarize yourself with them so you may engage in non confrontational discussion about the issue while at the same time being able to defend your position. I will do the same when I find time. (I am sorry but I found your original post to be not only quite, but unecessarily confrontational for the reasons listed in my first response.)

As to other comments regarding sociopathy, I am not ready to go so far that a single incident of possible rage quite leaps to the category of sociopathy. I am by no means a psychiatrist or psychologist but I have studied mental diseases and disorders from a legal insanity and temporary insanity standpoint and consider that leap too great to make at this time.

Let me also assure you that I am not RDI simply because I took up the banner to respond to your first post. I am merely an analyst...not even a FS. I was hoping that you would see that I was merely attempting to temper your questions with mediatory discussion. I find that extremely difficult to do, and quite unsuccessfully so in this case, with two sides so definitively drawn.

I will continue to analyze as objectively as possible to find all possible routes to a better explanation of this case. I will also consider any and all posts you make for possible information to assist me. I can tell you though, that the more objective you remain, the more I will be able to extract from your quotes that benefit the IDI side.

Respectfully,

KingCoyote

KingCoyote,
You said you find my oringinal post confrontational. I do not deny this one bit. You are not shedding light on something that was in the dark. The sensitvity level as to one's convictions on this board suprise me. It's like nobody wants to be in the wrong. Well, I am not afraid of that. I hope my post can spark the mind of the person who can put a strong chink in this case. I can't solve it for sure. I wish I could and that we all could. You wrote in your reply that I may need to familiarize myself with non-confrontational discussions as you suggested. I ask the tough questions. I want an opinion in theory. There is nothing wrong with that. I wan to read a descriptive analysis of how they brutally treated her after accidentally hurting her. From an opinion perspective! Nothing wrong with that KC. It just seems (no offense KC, that you dance around some questions with fancy words) You prove intelligent, though somewhat hidden behind your words as a protective machanism when you feel confronted. We are all trying to reach the same goal here.

[KingCoyote]

Createthis:

I danced around your specific post for very specific reasons: First I temper my true thoughts through softer language in order to avoid confrontation which rarely proves anything and second I did not want to openly challenge you or your statements by pointing out the fact that I had already done substantially what your first post requested in my Post on Parents Who Kill. (You, in effect threw down a gauntlet to the whole forum when you declared that based upon your logic, opinions and conclusions, an explanation of motive and malice "can't be done.") My listed indications of evidence of rage, which were detailed and specific and sequenced to address the dynamics of this case, can quite easily be transformed into motive and malice via a mental disorder (once researched, which I am doing now, and established) which could then easily account for all events and activities that occurred however brutal and nasty they may be.

I take a much more scientific approach to this case than most people and scientific analysis relies heavily on very, very specific and technical terminology. But please do not ever think I use my command over the English language to dance around issues because I am not fully capable of addressing them thoroughly. That would be an very erroneous conclusion.

I am not overly sensitive to your convictions. I heartily encourage you to have convictions but to be so confrontational seems to be counterproductive when it is well known that there are two emotional sides to this case. Unless you just like to fight for the sake of fighting, which I don't, I try to remember the old saying ...you can catch a lot more flies with sugar than you can with vinegar.

Respectfully,

KingCoyote

[createthis]

Originally Posted by KingCoyote

Createthis:

I danced around your specific post for very specific reasons: First I temper my true thoughts through softer language in order to avoid confrontation which rarely proves anything and second I did not want to openly challenge you or your statements by pointing out the fact that I had already done substantially what your first post requested in my Post on Parents Who Kill. (You, in effect threw down a gauntlet to the whole forum when you declared that based upon your logic, opinions and conclusions, an explanation of motive and malice "can't be done.") My listed indications of evidence of rage, which were detailed and specific and sequenced to address the dynamics of this case, can quite easily be transformed into motive and malice via a mental disorder (once researched, which I am doing now, and established) which could then easily account for all events and activities that occurred however brutal and nasty they may be.

I take a much more scientific approach to this case than most people and scientific analysis relies heavily on very, very specific and technical terminology. But please do not ever think I use my command over the English language to dance around issues because I am not fully capable of addressing them thoroughly. That would be an very erroneous conclusion.

I am not overly sensitive to your convictions. I heartily encourage you to have convictions but to be so confrontational seems to be counterproductive when it is well known that there are two emotional sides to this case. Unless you just like to fight for the sake of fighting, which I don't, I try to remember the old saying ...you can catch a lot more flies with sugar than you can with vinegar.

Respectfully,

KingCoyote

"but to be so confrontational seems to be counterproductive" Please KC..do not tell me how to be or what to write. You don't know how it might affect the mind of someone in the solving of this case.
To the board: Simplicty at it's finest. Two marks on the side of JB's face. Two marks on her back. Not buying the loom or tiara theory. Please do better.

[shill]

Originally Posted by nuisanceposter

Are we absolutely certain that the paintbrush was broken in three pieces, and that one of them has never been accounted for?

If JB was penetrated with the broken end of the paintbrush/garrote handle she would be a bloody mess. Since we have proof that one end was broken off and left in the paint tote and JB was penetrated with the brush handle, I see no other explanation other then the missing piece of the handle was used to penetrate JB and most likely kept for a souvenir. Since the rest of the handle was left behind, it implies that there was no intent to dispose of the evidence.

[bullmoose]

Originally Posted by shill

If JB was penetrated with the broken end of the paintbrush/garrote handle she would be a bloody mess. Since we have proof that one end was broken off and left in the paint tote and JB was penetrated with the brush handle, I see no other explanation other then the missing piece of the handle was used to penetrate JB and most likely kept for a souvenir. Since the rest of the handle was left behind, it implies that there was no intent to dispose of the evidence.

Exactly right;If there was any kind of intent to dispose of the evidence,then why leave the garrot behind, with the cord attached? It would have been easy to take them , ditto the duct tape. Then there would have been very little evidence; IMO only the end of the paintbrush was taken, as a trophy, as sociopaths will do; the rest was left to send the cops down the road to the hardware store that Patsy shopped at. Imo, it was not by coincidence, but to cast suspicion. And I think it worked, the BPD took the bait.

[LindaA]

FWIW I don't think Createthis was being confrontational. He was merely asking the RDIs to "give it their best shot" and explain how certain facts fit into their theories. Someone did that before you came to the forum, KC, but the mods changed the thread's title to ask for theories from both sides.

No one has come up with an explanation of the marks on JB that satisfies me either. I don't buy either the tiara, the loom, or Patsy's rings. That is what is at once so frustrating and fascinating about this case -- no one from either side can fully explain how all the eevidence fits into their idea of who killed JBR. Aussiesheila is the only one who has ever done that, and I'm not convinced of all the aspects of her scenario.

I have posted elsewhere about the evidence we don't know about. I believe the answer to this case lies there. I don't think a Ramsey did this, but I have always said that is not impossible for me to believe. I think it is improbable. Had they given her the head injury I think the most likely reaction on thier part -- as I've posted before -- would have been to throw her unconcsious body down a flight of stairs to make it look as if she had fallen while prowling in the middle of the night. That would have provided a reason for the head wound -- even if later LE could have determined that it wasn't. I don't see them doing all that was done, and I certainly don't see Patsy stopping for a cup of hot tea in the middle of it as Tober suggested.

I think the reason they could not answer some questions is simple -- they had no idea of the answers. But all this is just my opinion.

[KingCoyote]

Createthis:

I am not telling you how to write...I am merely suggesting alternatives that might slow down some of the bickerings that exist on these forums.

LindaA:

As to Createthis "merely asking RDIs to give it their best shot"...we will have to agree to disagree on that but I will admit that is better use of the concept of euphemisms than I have shown.

KC

[createthis]

I don't want to do ya wrong KC. If it happens...it's not intentional. It can hard to read someone through their typed words sometimes, I think. Not trying to come off brash. I am just brutally blunt.

You suggested that I haven't read your posts and I have really tried, but most of the time I can't keep up with you. I don't understand a lot of what you are saying or write. But I know several people benefit from your posts and threads.

In general: I believe it to be ok to re-hash old ideas or things that may seem indignant to others. There are new people viewing the message boards every day. I would like to see some patience with "newbies" such as myself. I've studied the case for a year now, I have read PMPT & DOI, but I am new to the board and an amatuer.

I believe ALL ideas, thoughts, theories, and opinions from beginners to forum or case elders, could be viewed as helpful wether one is RDI or IDI or neither.

I wish we could figure out where those darn marks(side of face & back) came from!! Ahhh, I wish this case could catch a real break. It and JB deserve it.

[createthis]

Originally Posted by createthis

I don't want to do ya wrong KC. If it happens...it's not intentional. It can hard to read someone through their typed words sometimes, I think. Not trying to come off brash. I am just brutally blunt.

You suggested that I haven't read your posts and I have really tried, but most of the time I can't keep up with you. I don't understand a lot of what you are saying or write. But I know several people benefit from your posts and threads.

In general: I believe it to be ok to re-hash old ideas or things that may seem indignant to others. There are new people viewing the message boards every day. I would like to see some patience with "newbies" such as myself. I've studied the case for a year now, I have read PMPT & DOI, but I am new to the board and an amatuer.

I believe ALL ideas, thoughts, theories, and opinions from beginners to forum or case elders, could be viewed as helpful wether one is RDI or IDI or neither.

I wish we could figure out where those darn marks(side of face & back) came from!! Ahhh, I wish this case could catch a real break. It and JB deserve it.

BTW-Does anyone know how to edit the title of a thread? I would like to change from "please explain RDI's" to something else. It just seems to be rubbing some people the wrong way...Geez.

[thewhitewitch1]

Originally Posted by shill

If JB was penetrated with the broken end of the paintbrush/garrote handle she would be a bloody mess. Since we have proof that one end was broken off and left in the paint tote and JB was penetrated with the brush handle, I see no other explanation other then the missing piece of the handle was used to penetrate JB and most likely kept for a souvenir. Since the rest of the handle was left behind, it implies that there was no intent to dispose of the evidence.

Then why all of the IDI speculation of "where is the rest of the duct tape and cord"? If you believe there was a roll of tape and more cord, then the "intruder" must have taken that "evidence" with him, as well as the end of the paint brush.
As far as the paint brush goes, do we know conclusively which end was used to penetrate JB? No, we don't. It could have been the piece left in the paint tote or even the garrote "stick". Both could have been wiped off after the fact (or not). As we all know, there is evidence that the public doesn't know about. We also don't know for a fact that the paint brush wasn't already broken and the missing end tossed away long before the murder took place. The paint brush appeared to be older and well used.
We can speculate that it was taken for a "souvenier" but there is no proof of that, just as there is no proof that there was a roll of duct tape and more of the cord to be taken with the "intruder". IMO

[createthis]

Originally Posted by LindaA

FWIW I don't think Createthis was being confrontational. He was merely asking the RDIs to "give it their best shot" and explain how certain facts fit into their theories. Someone did that before you came to the forum, KC, but the mods changed the thread's title to ask for theories from both sides.

No one has come up with an explanation of the marks on JB that satisfies me either. I don't buy either the tiara, the loom, or Patsy's rings. That is what is at once so frustrating and fascinating about this case -- no one from either side can fully explain how all the eevidence fits into their idea of who killed JBR. Aussiesheila is the only one who has ever done that, and I'm not convinced of all the aspects of her scenario.

I have posted elsewhere about the evidence we don't know about. I believe the answer to this case lies there. I don't think a Ramsey did this, but I have always said that is not impossible for me to believe. I think it is improbable. Had they given her the head injury I think the most likely reaction on thier part -- as I've posted before -- would have been to throw her unconcsious body down a flight of stairs to make it look as if she had fallen while prowling in the middle of the night. That would have provided a reason for the head wound -- even if later LE could have determined that it wasn't. I don't see them doing all that was done, and I certainly don't see Patsy stopping for a cup of hot tea in the middle of it as Tober suggested.

I think the reason they could not answer some questions is simple -- they had no idea of the answers. But all this is just my opinion.

Oh yes-I do remember the mods changing that. I wish I could change the title of my thread. But I will stick by my posts and not budge. Thanks for writing that...I couldn't get my words across like you just did for me, so thanks.

[KingCoyote]

Createthis:

I think we have more in common than either of us think. We are probably both going through "growing pains" since we are both relative newbies.

Later... because the early part of the week is my toughest and I only get meal breaks at wierd times and try to get a quick peek in.

KC

[createthis]

Originally Posted by KingCoyote

Createthis:

I think we have more in common than either of us think. We are probably both going through "growing pains" since we are both relative newbies.

Later... because the early part of the week is my toughest and I only get meal breaks at wierd times and try to get a quick peek in.

KC

You are probably right. Now let's get back to this case!
I only get to peek in and out today too.

Originally Posted by KingCoyote

Createthis:

Without trying to start an argument I find your questions a little on the confrontational side which you feel you cannot lose. Simply because something is not believable or logical to you doesn't mean it isn't believable or logical to someone else. You ask for others who do not hold your beliefs and thoughts to delve into the mind of an individual and decipher their thoughts as evil. Can you delve into the mind of the Ramseys and decipher their thoughts as good?

Simply because you would not do it, in your hypothetical situation, does not mean someone else could not or would not do it when faced with the reality of the situation. It is impossible for anyone to know what was going on or not going on in the mind of a family member who murders a child until that family member confesses. For us to opine at to their thoughts would be as much conjecture as your question contains.

Your question reminds me of the age old argument of being able to prove or disprove the existence of God. You cannot prove or disprove the existence of a belief.

I challenge you to prove, based on Ramsey motive and thoughts alone, that the Ramsey could not have done it. I would like to see specifics from you as to exactly what their thoughts were...not their statements, which you have the self serving advantage of mind you...just their thoughts to which you must inevitably opine, or shall we say, speculate.

I would also like to remind you that the law recognizes that when an individual, due to a mental disease or defect, cannot conform their conduct to the requirements of the law, there is diminished capacity and when the individual, due to a mental disease or defect, cannot appreciate the nature and consequences of their act, they may be declared legally insane due to the inability to form the necesary intent (mens rea) to be responsible for a crime (actus reus). You ask your fellow forum members to instantly become experienced forensic and criminal psychiatrists to determine mental diseases and defects as well as a possible conclusion of legal insanity or diminished capacity while you rely on your comforts of your personal thoughts, logic and opinions. Do you consider that fair?

Respectfully,

KingCoyote

KC, I usually agree with you, but disagree 100% with your answer here. I think Createthis's questions are absolutely valid and relevant. Neither Ramsey has a mental disease or defect that rises to the level of diminished capacity. IF they did it, the crime was covered up...that is absolute proof that they knew that what they did (kill JB) was wrong. In order to plead insanity in court, one has to prove that they did not know that their actions were wrong. This doesn't work in this case.
IF the Rs did it, they were legally sane, and createthis is asking how a sane person could do what was done to their own daughter. I think that is an excellent question. This forum is all about 'delving into the mind of the killer(s)'. I see it all the time on the board with people trying to interpret behavioural evidence. Why do you find createthis's question objectionable? Again, I think the question is excellent.