Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, I feel the family was 100% responsible for the crime & cover-up & they got special treatment because of their wealth - that is obvious to anyone who pays attention to the unfair justice system in this country.
I do definitely believe that PR wrote the ransom note - there's no question in my mind about that.
Yeah, I can't think of one rich person who was convicted for murder. OJ got away with, Robert Blake got away with murder, and the list goes on.
They were indicted by the grand jury who had more information than we do. I'm pretty sure the grand jury said murder (not accident) and assistance to someone, failure to protect from abuse--obviously paraphrased.
There were no indications of the kind of scratches that would be caused by the victim struggling to remove the ligature, no skin of her own under her fingernails,
What are the half moon marks? Also, I read that her own skin was found underneath her fingernails.
Quote:
evidence points to her hands tied above her head while she was strangled
What evidence is there that her hands were over her head when she was strangled? From what I've read, she was likely on her stomach as he was tightening and loosening the cord, then finding he needed more force--probably not in his plan--so when he saw PR's paint tote, he broke a paintbrush handle to make the garrote.
Quote:
(and, incidentally, it would have been very difficult to deliver the kind of blow to the head she received while her arms were tied above her head, the right arm would be in the way
He hit her when she was face down. Her arms were not in that position until rigor set in...we are assuming she had been dead around 12 hours when her father found her body.
Quote:
What the quotation from Doberson says is that death by strangulation followed soon after the head injury, not that the blow happened after strangulation.
Who says the strangling was to stage anything? The strangling was to kill her, because the blow to the head did not kill her, and her death was necessary to escape detection. Simple.You have really lost me here. I don't know what you're trying to say.
Why would an intruder hit her on the head first, then? I don't follow you. Maybe you should state your theory on what happened, since it might make more sense. If you think the Ramseys hit her first, WHY? If you think an intruder hit her first, WHY? The hit on the head FIRST goes along with the whole "accidental" idea. If the hit on the head was intentional, it would have killed her anyway....why do anything afterwards? OTOH, the strangling did NOT kill her. She regained consciousness enough that he didn't know whether she was dead or alive, so....
Quote:
Strangling was the cause of death. Hence, the blow had to come before, not after.
I don't agree with you on this; sorry.
Quote:
Yes, the position was due to rigor mortis, but that doesn't have any bearing on whether her hands were tied or not at the time of her death (and in fact the unnatural position supports the hands being tied). Therefore, your suggestion that her hands were left free to flail about is left hanging, conflicting with the evidence.
Her wrists were loosely tied as part of the strangling game BEFORE SHE WAS DEAD. While she was alive, he wanted her arms to be relatively free because it excited him sexually to see her flailing around. He was obviously a very sick person.
They were indicted by the grand jury who had more information than we do. I'm pretty sure the grand jury said murder (not accident) and assistance to someone, failure to protect from abuse--obviously paraphrased.
If the Grand Jury had found EVIDENCE to support murder, the case would have gone to trial. That's what grand juries are for....to find out if enough evidence or probable cause exists to support criminal charges.
They were indicted by the grand jury who had more information than we do. I'm pretty sure the grand jury said murder (not accident) and assistance to someone, failure to protect from abuse--obviously paraphrased.
The grand jury had no idea what happened or who did what (one of the jurors was later quoted to that effect), they were just so sure it had to be the Ramseys, they wanted to see them strung from the highest tree.
The charges show that they didn't know what happened any more than we do, but they wanted to have their cake and eat it, too. Charge them with being "responsible for" the death, without saying specifically how or who did it. If Patsy did it, John must be an accomplice and covered it up, or at least was negligent and looked the other way, and if John did it, the same applies to Patsy. If Burke did it, they are both guilty of covering for him. Presto! All-purpose, one-size-fits-all indictment. The problem is evidence.
The charges also indicates a roll of the dice. By using these vague, weird charges, if this went to trial (regardless of the outcome) there would be no double jeopardy if new evidence arose and they were charged with murder. But if no new evidence ever does come up, this might be their only chance to nail the bastards.
But perhaps most of all, I think they also thought (or were convinced by someone) that if the Ramseys were actually charged and faced with the prospect of serious jail time, one of them would crack and either confess or roll over on the other. That was the purpose of all the BPD leaks, most of them inaccurate, to pressure the Ramseys into confessing or slipping up somehow. It was a cynical, calculated gamble.
The grand jury saw all the evidence ginned up by the BPD, and did not hear a defense or about all the exculpatory evidence that casts reasonable doubt on the Ramseys' guilt, and then some. Their vote for an indictment doesn't mean anything, in my opinion.
No, the grand jury didn't have enough evidence and I think they said that. But they heard more then we did. I didn't want to think the Ramseys were guilty and maybe the gj didn't either. But when you start putting 2+2 together it starts to add up. I think the grand jury was on the right track but the evidence is so vague and convoluted, the cover up was so well done, that conclusions are impossible to make.
What are the half moon marks? Also, I read that her own skin was found underneath her fingernails.
I have read the opposite. It would be nice to find a definitive source. But I don't see anything in the autopsy that suggests a cause for the marks you refer to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CA4Now
What evidence is there that her hands were over her head when she was strangled? From what I've read, she was likely on her stomach as he was tightening and loosening the cord, then finding he needed more force--probably not in his plan--so when he saw PR's paint tote, he broke a paintbrush handle to make the garrote.
This is consistent with what I'm saying, and as a matter of fact, her hands tied above her head would require no further restraint if she were on her stomach, she wouldn't be able to move them down (if she were even conscious) the way she could if she were on her back, in which case the bound wrists would have to be bound to something else to keep them above the head. No problem here, she was on her stomach, and her hands were tied above her head.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CA4Now
He hit her when she was face down. Her arms were not in that position until rigor set in...we are assuming she had been dead around 12 hours when her father found her body.
The problem I see is that I think it is virtually impossible, even with her hands at her side, to deliver a blow that would inflict the wounds she received if she was face down on the basement floor. Her head would have had to have been turned to the side to expose enough of her right orbit for the blow to cause the fracture and hemorrhaging it did, and this at an angle that would allow the wound to extend from the orbital ridge all the way to the midpoint of the occipital area (basically from the eye socket to the middle of the back of the head), and with no indication of an matching injury to the opposite side of her head that was against the floor when this tremendous blow was delivered. I think the evidence strongly indicates she was upright when the head blow was delivered.
Apparently we are not reading the same quotation. Are you sure the one you highlight is from Doberson? Because I have "Report of Michael Doberson, M.D., Ph.D. at 6(C) attach as Ex. 3 to Defs . ' Ex. Vol. I, Part A (stating the "presence of hemorrhage does indicated that the victim was alive when she sustained the head injury, however the relative small amount of subdural hemorrhage indicates that the injury occurred in the perimortem (close to death)13 period.").)"
Quote:
Originally Posted by CA4Now
Why would an intruder hit her on the head first, then? I don't follow you. Maybe you should state your theory on what happened, since it might make more sense. If you think the Ramseys hit her first, WHY? If you think an intruder hit her first, WHY? The hit on the head FIRST goes along with the whole "accidental" idea. If the hit on the head was intentional, it would have killed her anyway....why do anything afterwards? OTOH, the strangling did NOT kill her. She regained consciousness enough that he didn't know whether she was dead or alive, so....
I don't think you understanding my own theory is necessary for you to understand why I think your theory doesn't fit the evidence. But if it will help, I'll give a brief summary:
Once inside, he goes to JBR’s room, wakes her and through persuasion or coercion or stun gun. gets her to go to the basement. He has thought this out a bit, and is wearing gloves most/all of the time, explaining why the almost complete lack of DNA and fingerprints. In the basement, things go wrong. When he starts to touch her, perhaps assaulting her orally, she does not respond the way he hoped. JBR decides that she doesn't want what Santa is really after, and tries to run away, or simply stands and screams. He tries to stop her before she wakes someone or gets upstairs where someone might hear her, chasing her if necessary; he stops her by hitting her in the head with some object. He accidentally strikes her much harder than he intended, either at relatively close range with a shorter object such as a flashlight, or farther away with a longer object such as a baseball bat. What does the killer do after that? Let’s try to enter his mind.
Her wrists were loosely tied as part of the strangling game BEFORE SHE WAS DEAD. While she was alive, he wanted her arms to be relatively free because it excited him sexually to see her flailing around. He was obviously a very sick person.
This just does not strike me as plausible.
Last edited by meibomius; 10-05-2016 at 10:27 PM..
Reason: comma for clarity
meibomius, you've given the best explanation I've read as to why the intruder "theory" is completely, utterly, and definitively ludicrous.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
