Refresher Course

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by The Punisher, Apr 11, 2005.

  1. The Punisher

    The Punisher Member

    Okay, just for our memories, and because the mood hits me, I'm going to make a list. What kind? You'll see!

    What is it that has convinced me of the Rams' guilt? Let's be scientific about it:

    -We have stats that show the great majority of filicides are committed by a parent or close relative

    -Patsy's clothes left fibers in some very key places, none of which she claimed to be anywhere near in a few days, plus her story about an innocent transfer is patently absurd.

    -John's fibers are also in a compromising place.

    -The ongoing sexual abuse of JB as pointed out by Drs. McCann, Rau, Wecht, Jones, Monteleone, Kirschner, White, and Krugman, among others.

    -Even Patsy's own experts can't eliminate her as the author of the ransom note, but David Liebman and Mr. Epstein identified her positively. Plus, there's that little matter of the phraseology (sp?).

    -The note was written in her home with her materials.

    -JB's body bore no signs of a struggle and there was a massive area of blood in the brain (three areas, really). Plus, a personal experiment showed that the garrote as seen did not kill her. The killer took an ordinary cord and crossed the ends behind her head, which would require two hands.

    -Dr. McCann said that the paintbrush could only be jabbed in if the labia were manually separated, which would also take two hands.

    -JB's wrists were not bound securely.

    -The cord used typically costs $2.29. A reciept from a hardware store showed an item for that much charged to Patsy. Plus, LHP claims to have seen a similar cord on a box a few days earlier.

    -Patsy being fully made up after only a half-hour, much of that supposedly spent screaming and crying.

    -The lack of disturbance on the supposed entry point. Smit is a skinny man who wore no winter clothing during his "demonstration."

    -A stun gun? Give me a break! I own one, so I think I'd know what one looks like. Plus, marks from a stunner are burns, but the marks were more like bruises. Plus, anyone zapped with one is gonna yell and twitch. These were very clean.

    -JB's body was treated with exceptional care after death. Compare this to the many child murders that have happened since and it doesn't match!

    And that's just for openers!
     
  2. Why_Nut

    Why_Nut FFJ Senior Member

    Right there, all you have to do is add the phrase "inside the child's own house" after the word "filicides" and you can bring the statistics to about as close to 100% as can humanly be gotten. This is the point where Ramsey defenders inevitably change the subject. Allchild murders inside the child's own house, where the child is not found dead in his or her bedroom, are murders done by a family member. Even in the extremely rare case of children killed inside their own houses by intruders, the intruder always comes in through a bedroom window, kills the child right there, and leaves the same way. There is no movement of a killer intruder and that killer's child victim inside a child victim's own house. You will never see Ramsey defenders offer so much as one single case of this happening, and the reason this is so is, obviously, that it has never happened before and has not happened in this case, either.
     
  3. The Punisher

    The Punisher Member

    Plus!

    Right, w_n. Besides, we can't forget out little spider friend on the grate, can we?
     
  4. DocG

    DocG Banned

    Mixed bag

    >We have stats that show the great majority of filicides are committed by a parent or close relative

    True, but that's exactly what team Ramsey claimed to be the cause for the investigators to veer way off base.

    >Patsy's clothes left fibers in some very key places, none of which she claimed to be anywhere near in a few days, plus her story about an innocent transfer is patently absurd.

    No, it's not absurd. The transfer could have been via the victim herself, who'd been in very close contact with her mother.

    >John's fibers are also in a compromising place.

    That's been much less publicized, but is in fact far more suspicious -- because the compromising place was JonBenet's private parts.

    >The ongoing sexual abuse of JB as pointed out by Drs. McCann, Rau, Wecht, Jones, Monteleone, Kirschner, White, and Krugman, among others.

    Yes, that does seem likely, but it's controversial and not all the experts agree.

    >Even Patsy's own experts can't eliminate her as the author of the ransom note, but David Liebman and Mr. Epstein identified her positively. Plus, there's that little matter of the phraseology (sp?).

    The handwriting "experts" are all over the place on Patsy. It's NOT a science. There are experts who say it looks more like John's printing. The phraseology is John's NOT Patsy's. HE'S the one who's been quoted as using "and hence," NOT her. The note is written in exactly the same stiff, formal, turgid prose as that favored by John. John is the one who loves percentage figures, John is the one who frequently uses the word "proper" as in "proper burial," all the threats are couched in typically hard-boiled masculine language. The movie quotes are from the sort of films women generally avoid like the plague.

    >The note was written in her home with her materials.

    Duh! Why would she want to point ALL the evidence to herself? (You forgot to mention the paintbrush.)

    >Dr. McCann said that the paintbrush could only be jabbed in if the labia were manually separated, which would also take two hands.

    If the paintbrush handle had been used to penetrate her there would have been a LOT of bleeding. There was only a little. I can't imagine why anyone would want to separate her labia in order to gently insert a paintbrush handle. Seems clear to me the penetration was digital, with the flecks from the brush transferred via the attacker's fingers.

    >JB's wrists were not bound securely.

    Nor was the tape. No sign she struggled with either. Both were probably added post mortem. As staging, yes.

    >The cord used typically costs $2.29. A reciept from a hardware store showed an item for that much charged to Patsy. Plus, LHP claims to have seen a similar cord on a box a few days earlier.

    Both cord and tape could have been discarded by John when he went AWOL between 10:40 and 12.

    >Patsy being fully made up after only a half-hour, much of that supposedly spent screaming and crying.

    Patsy says she applied her makeup prior to discovering the note. If she'd been up all night, her makeup would have been a mess. And she'd hardly have been dumb enough NOT to shower and change (as John did). Again: duh!

    >The lack of disturbance on the supposed entry point. Smit is a skinny man who wore no winter clothing during his "demonstration."

    Yup. No one went through that window. Ever! (If John had gone through it months earlier, as he claims, there would have been signs of THAT as well.) Clearly that scene was staged.

    >A stun gun? Give me a break! I own one, so I think I'd know what one looks like. Plus, marks from a stunner are burns, but the marks were more like bruises. Plus, anyone zapped with one is gonna yell and twitch. These were very clean.

    The stun gun is total Lou Smit red herring spin. Shameful. There is NO reason to assume a stun gun was used, no evidence for that WHATEVER.

    >JB's body was treated with exceptional care after death. Compare this to the many child murders that have happened since and it doesn't match!

    Yes. Someone "out to get" John by attacking JonBenet would have displayed the body in some gruesome pose instead of wrapping it carefully in a blanket along with the victim's favorite nightgown and hiding it in the most remote part of the house.

    >And that's just for openers!

    OH, yeah! There's a LOT more to be said. I think John did it, though, not Patsy.
     
  5. Sylvia

    Sylvia FFJ Senior Member

    Don't forget

    Although both Ramsey's handled the note adnauseum, the only print found on the note (I prefer letter though :D) was that of the lab examiner.

    When skinny Smit, gave the demonstration the basement room was empty. So the conditions were not exactly the same. See thread http://www.forumsforjustice.org/forums/showthread.php?t=5220&highlight=Challenging+Smit

    John Ramsey told his eldest son and his daughter's boyfriend that he had found the body at 11:00 o'clock, which fits in with the time that he was missing from the sight of the police. Arndt, his son and the boyfriend stated the same thing to the Boulder police. So I do have a big, big problem here. Let's return to J. Ramseys plea: "Help me to understand."

    Both P. Ramsey and J. Ramsey told the police they were unaware of any significance concerning the $118,000 ransom money demand. Now they are saying, that they both, did not know it was the same amount as the bonus J. Ramsey just had received. Highly unlikely to me.

    Both during the first police interviews, as in their book, the Ramseys stated that JonBenét was asleep upon their arrival at home on the 25th of December, and did not wake up. In their book J. Ramsey goes even further by stating: He carried a sleeping JonBenét up the stairs to her bedroom. He laid her on her bed. Took of her coat and shoes and on top of it states "I was amazed at how soundly asleep she was."

    Burke’s June 1998 statement goes as follows: He said his sister fell asleep in the car on the way home, but awakened to help carry presents into the house of a friend. When they got home, JonBenét walked in slowly and went up the spiral stairs to bed, just ahead of Patsy Ramsey. So not only was she awake, but P. Ramsey followed her up the stairs. No, sleeping JonBenét!
     
  6. Why_Nut

    Why_Nut FFJ Senior Member

    Oops, contradiction alert. If John removed JonBenet's coat in her bedroom, then why is it not visible in pictures of the bedroom? We have an answer, but unfortunately for John, the answer is from Patsy and it makes out John to be a liar.

     
  7. Sylvia

    Sylvia FFJ Senior Member

    There are so many lies and inconsitencies. Burke claims his sister was awake upon arrival at their home.

    Checking JB's room:
    P. Ramsey stated to Officer French, that she first checked JonBenét's bedroom, then went downstairs and found the note. However, later she told Detective Arndt that she went downstair, found the note and after that had gone to check JonBenét’s bedroom. I do think that you would know whether you first checked on the child or not. So we definitely have an inconsistency here.

    Ransom note:
    J. Ramsey declared on video tape made by the Boulder authorities that on the morning of December 26, 1996, that he, J. Ramsey, had been in the upstairs in his bathroom, when he heard P. Ramsey scream. He hurried downstairs, while she was coming up and she handed him the ransom note on the second floor landing.

    About on the same time (and also on video tape made by the Boulder authorities) P. Ramsey claimed she didn't pick up the note. Oops, I think we have definitely got a contradiction here. Can one or rather both of you, please tell me who is telling the truth here?

    In their book Death of Innocence P. Ramsey writes "I race back up the stair and stumble towards JonBenét's bedroom, pushing the door wide open. The bed is empty! John Help! I scream JonBenét is gone. He meets me wearing only his underwear. There is a note downstairs."

    Pineapple problem:
    The autopsy report states: The proximal portion of the small intestine (the first part, right after the stomach) contains fragmented pieces of yellow to light green-tan apparent vegetables or fruit material which may represent fragments of pineapple.

    Both Ramseys claim that they didn't give JonBenét any pineapple to eat. Pineapple was not served at the at the Whites Christmas party. A bowl containing fresh pineapple was found at the Ramsey house, P. Ramseys finger prints were on it. During the June 1998 interview of Burke Ramsey, he was shown a photograph of the pineapple and the bowl. He recognized the bowl. Now, why would someone want to lie about the simple fact of giving the child pineapple? Because, if that was so, it would mean the child had been awake! And this brings me back to the fact that Burke stated she was awake upon arrival at home.


    I had a complete list of inconsistencies, but lost most of them due to a computer crash.
     
  8. DocG

    DocG Banned

    Sylvia and Why_nut

    I have a different take on all this than either of you. I don't think you can just go fishing for contradictions, it takes us nowhere. I agree that just about everything you mention looks suspicious. To US. Who are already suspicious -- and for good reason. But to someone new to the case it gives the impression the case against the Ramseys is weak. Looks as though we're desperate to find any little crumb that will make them look bad. Just because John and Patsy claim she was asleep and Burke states she wasn't, so what? What bearing does that have on the case? Why would they want to lie about something that innocuous? Same with the pineapple. If both John and Patsy were up with her that night and fed her pineapple, why would they want to deny it? "We gave her some pineapple and put her to bed." So what?

    I think Steve Thomas badly weakened his case by trying too hard to come up with every little thing he could find that didn't fit. It made him sound pedantic and nit picky. Where his case was really strong -- all the evidence pointing away from an intruder -- that's what he should have concentrated on -- but didn't. And so the real point got lost in all the confusion over whether or not JonBenet was fed pineapple and why Patsy was wearing full makeup.

    As far as the pineapple is concerned, if both John and Patsy are in on it, then there'd be no reason for them to lie about that. However, if only one of them is involved and the other innocent, THEN we have a very different situation. The one who fed it to her would have to deny it -- otherwise it would mean he was the last one to be alone with the victim before the murder. The innocent one would know nothing about it and deny it for that reason.

    As far as prints are concerned, either on the note or on the pineapple bowl: we'd expect Patsy's prints to be on the bowl since she's probably the one who last washed it and put it away; a lack of prints doesn't mean no one touched an item, in fact it's always a lucky break when prints are found -- if your hands are reasonably clean they probably won't leave prints.
     
  9. Sylvia

    Sylvia FFJ Senior Member

    A case is like a puzzle. Lies, inconsistencies, direct and indirect evidence are pieces of that puzzles. Of course you can discard piece of the puzzle you don't want to hear about them, you can even explain away every single piece of the puzzles. Only the art is to put all the pieces together till you get the full picture and all pieces fall together.

    As an example: what is the significance of the pineapple means, simple, time of digestion can establish a closer estimated time of death. So by denying feeding her pineapple, it is more difficult to establish the time of death as close as possible.

    No one like to see a mother or a father as a murderer, but unfortunately it happens on almost daily basis in this world.
     
  10. The Punisher

    The Punisher Member

    Not quite...

    Truth be told, DocG, I didn't forget those details, I just didn't have that much time to post all of the stuff I had. I did say "just for openers."

    Your paintbrush flecks transfer is reasonable.

    Yes, not all of the examiners are in agreement, but the majority do seem to be on the side of "was" rather than "was not," and that means something to me.

    Glad you're here to help me keep this mess straight.
     
  11. DocG

    DocG Banned

    Punisher

    You've laid out some troubling aspects of the case, for sure. And I agree with much of it. And yes there IS a lot more that could be said. And HAS been said. What bothers me, however, is the tendency on all sides to pour it on indiscriminately, good evidence, inconclusive evidence and just plain meaningless evidence (such as the prints not on the note, Burke saying JonBenet was awake, Patsy's splayed fingers, John's "cordiality," the "stun gun," the DNA, etc.).

    I think it's now clear that there are two areas we can concentrate on that are NOT inconclusive and point very strongly to at least one of the Ramseys. And I think it best to focus as clearly as we can on these areas. What are they?

    1. There could have been no intruder. John himself reported to more than one police officer that he'd checked all the first floor doors and found them locked. The police double checked this. There were only four, by the way. There was no sign of entry or exit at any of the ground floor OR basement windows. The police found NO sign of forced entry ANYWHERE. So all talk of a Butler door being found open, that there were so many open windows and doors found by the police that morning, etc., that can clearly be dismissed as spin. Lou Smit's theory that an intruder broke in and/or exited via the basement window is total spin, from beginning to end. The grate was found undisturbed, there was even a spider web connecting it to the area around it (Smit's story about grass being trapped under the grate is highly deceptive -- as we know from his own admission, he was aware that a police officer had opened and then replaced it prior to that photo being taken); there was a thick layer of dirt on the window SILL, as is evident from the same photo Smit used to demonstrate a disturbance in the WELL -- clearly no one went through that window. An intruder could only have entered with a key -- and left via a door. But everyone who had a key was throroughly investigated -- none is still a suspect. Moreover, if we assume there WAS entry via a key, then how do we explain the debris and the suitcase under the basement window? Why would anyone with a key bother with that window? Given that no one passed through the window the debris and suitcase have to be staging. All this is based on FACT, on very clear and CONCLUSIVE evidence.

    2. John Ramsey's story about breaking that window earlier is clearly false. I've covered that issue thoroughly in another thread so won't go into it here. The story can now be seen as an alibi, formulated by a panicked John when it must have become clear to him that his window staging was NOT going to work and was about to backfire. The story is simply unbelievable from beginning to end and is flatly contradicted by Linda Hoffman Pugh, who has accused them of lying.

    The above is solid. Unlike all the other issues we continually go over and over and over with no result, these two points CAN be substantiated beyond reasonable doubt. THAT's where we need to bear down as hard as possible, IMO.
     
  12. 1000 Sparks

    1000 Sparks Active Member

    Well for one DocG

    "If both John and Patsy were up with her that night and fed her pineapple, why would they want to deny it? "We gave her some pineapple and put her to bed." So what?"

    The Ramseys were very clever. They didn't know why they were being asked that question so they said "NO" to be safe. After saying that they couldn't come back and change that. Maybe someone found a piece of pinapple somewhere that would have implicated them.

    Notice in many of the interviews they can't remember or aren't sure...that's to cover their butt.

    There are lots of these examples throughout this case.
     
  13. Sylvia

    Sylvia FFJ Senior Member

    As it was established she ate pineapple approximately 2 hours before death, the time the pineapple would have been given to her would have been a key indicator in helping to establish the time of death, to tricky for the Ramsey’s.
     
  14. JC

    JC Superior Cool Member

    Oh, you bee popular, The Punisher! :)

    I agree with this. I forget where the last two Florida girls were found, one in a pond or something. I don't think either of them were wrapped in a blankie, either.
     
  15. The Punisher

    The Punisher Member

    No sir, JC! Not even close to this one!

    Incidentally, if you or anyone else wants the rest, just yell!
     
  16. JC

    JC Superior Cool Member

    This is how the Florida nine year old was left: "buried inside two plastic bags, sitting with her legs to her chest inside a 4-foot-deep grave behind a mobile home where the suspect was living, according to investigative files."
     
  17. JC

    JC Superior Cool Member

    Indeed, Jayelles.


    Yelling, here. :)
     
  18. Deja Nu

    Deja Nu Banned

    "What bothers me, however, is the tendency on all sides to pour it on indiscriminately, good evidence, inconclusive evidence and just plain meaningless evidence (such as the prints not on the note, Burke saying JonBenet was awake, Patsy's splayed fingers, John's "cordiality," the "stun gun," the DNA, etc.)."

    DocG, from a prosecutorial perspective, none of the evidence in this case is useless as you state.

    For example, the pineapple fact is not only crucial in fixing a time of death, it also reveals that at some point on the night of her murder, JB was alive, alert and pro-active in the goings-on in the Ramsey household. Certainly if JB had been so deeply asleep upon arriving home as JR testified, chances are strong that she would not have awakened until morning. The fact that pineapple in her digestive track medically/forensically afixed to consumption within not more than two-three hours of their homecoming that night lends greater credibility to Burke's version of events than the adult Ramseys'. (It would certainly be highly interesting to know if Burke was questioned about the bowl of pineapple since his fingerprints were found on it and what he had to say about JB's involvement with it.) The pineapple evidence also dissuades a reasonable person from believing that any violent intruder intent on assaulting and killing a 6 year old in her own home would not stop, or care, to feed his victim prior to such a dastardly deed, to say nothing of the time involved which greatly augments the possibility of discovery/detection.

    And certainly IF a stun gun had been used on JB, as Lou Smit insists, there would have been no need to use pineapple to coerce compliance. The nature of the head injury, the sexual assault and the staged strangulation all indicate an extremely violent nature of this perpetrator and, therefore, to try to introduce some sweet, manipulative, grooming behavior to suggest luring compliance from JB does not fit the otherwise violent profile. Again, Smit's theory is utterly nonsensical. Add to that the condition in which the body was "found" in an obviously caring, sensitive fashion and again, we have two inconsistent psych/behavioral profiles developed from the true evidence in the case, indicating more than one perpetrator. In all other cases used by Kukla Fran and Ollie to support an intruder theory, one and one only intruder acted alone and without accomplice to commit those crimes. The same cannot be said for the Ramsey case based upon the known evidence. Could this be why, since Kenady started singing, that the RST suddenly has developed an accomplice theory? The real evidence in this case is way too potent in suggesting more than one perp and they know it.

    As you stated, there is no reason for the adult Ramseys to lie about all of this, but clearly they did. One has to ask why, unless one understands that the Ramseys were in an intellectual/emotional intent to deny anything that might lead to possible culpability. That, from a forensic psych perspective, speaks volumes with regard to intent.

    As you pointed out earlier, the stun gun theory is nothing more than a machination of the biased mind of Lou Smit and not a piece of evidence in the case. Most intelligent people have ruled out this possibility AND HENCE it is not included in the official case evidence.

    As to cordiality, splayed fingers, yada yada, all of that kind of evidence goes to proving state of mind/mood/intent of both Ramseys that morning. Certainly none of their highly publicized behaviors are typical of victimized parents although some room may be made for individuality here. Nevertheless, documenting and examining behaviors creates profiles that are extremely persuasive at trial.

    I also disagree with your support of fiber transference defenses. JB was not wearing a ligature around her neck when alive and participatory in normal family activities and therefore any argument that PR's sweater fibers could have been transferred to that particular piece of strong evidence in this fashion is nonsensical. Add to that that PR did not wear that particular sweater in the days before the crime and the theory becomes even more nonsensical. PR's sweater fibers were found entwined, not just merely scattered on top of, that piece of evidence, as well as on the blanket, THE duct tape and paint tote that both Ramseys testified were left in the basement nowhere near PR upstairs.

    The same could be said for JR's sweater fibers found on JB's private area. Also remember that Meyer indicated strong evidence that the body had been wiped clean which would certainly have been done during the staging portion of the crime. This would have greatly weakened any such innocent transference argument. Wiping a body clean after commission of a crime is also profound behavior in that it indicates an intentional motive to eliminate/obscure evidence, also not an "accidental" issue. Whomever staged this crime acted with knowledge and intent, and took great time and care to do so. Also not a typical response of a random intruder.

    As to your assertion that there would have been great amounts of blood if the paintbrush or a portion of it had been used to commit the sexual assault, please re-read the autopsy report. There was vaginal bleeding and an open wound; a latex-gloved finger could not have abraded the vaginal tissues unless the fingertip tore, exposing a fingernail. Also, since the body was wiped clean, there is no accurate way to assess how much blood resulted. But there were remnants. This particular sexual assault was violent enough to have caused tissue damage and blood to some unknown extent.

    Just because some of the evidence in this case has not developed into conclusive clues does not mean it is useless. That judgment cannot possibly be formed until the entire case is ready for indictment and trial. But, like you, I've always leaned more toward JR as at least in charge of the staging, issuing instructions to PR who dutifully carried them out.

    So, in toto, all of the evidence creates a strong case that more than one perpetrator was involved in these crimes. We have 3 very violent personal assaults on this child, two of which were conclusively fatal. The sole nonfatal assault bears strong evidence that it was a serial or repetitive activity. And we have two Ramsey suspects, conclusively tied to the crime scene evidence with no logical explanation, both of whom have consistently been deceptive, contradictive, hostile, uncooperative, and evasive in every way and far beyond just "lawyering up." They had the means and opportunity as well. The only thing lacking these last 8+ years in the case has been motive.

    As to motive, I opine that a longstanding, obsessive intent for a political career, coupled with a profound obsession for public prominence, notoriety, power and wealth, would provide more than sufficient motive for covering up chronic sexual assault and an accidental fatal head injury. Intentional, chronic sexual assault is a highly prosecutorial crime. An accidental but fatal skull fracture is also a highly prosecutorial crime. And ironically, that part of the staging that included asphyxiation is also a homicidal act for which that perpetrator should be prosecuted. Intentionally staging a crime scene and lying to investigators both form a profound obstruction charge.

    Evidence, at least for prosecutorial purposes, does not have to be conclusive in order for it to be useful. It does have to be sufficient to lead a reasonable person to conclude guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I believe the evidence in the Ramsey case more than sufficiently appeases that threshhold and, if some prosecutor with equally sufficient balls would take this case to a jury, I have no doubt it would successfully conclude. Overwhelming public opinion, despite expensive, concerted efforts to dissuade it, for the last 8 years proves the point.

    The only remaining question is why prosecution has never occurred. It is, IOW, not because of a lack of evidence. :banghead:
     
    Last edited: Apr 24, 2005
  19. The Punisher

    The Punisher Member

    Jayelles, thanks. Well, it's a matter of principle with me.

    Okay, now onto due business. JC, remember:

    YOU ASKED FOR IT!

    Add to the stuff I opened this thread with, we also have:

    -the date on the grave marker

    -The testimony that Hi-Tecs were in the house

    -the identification of random evidence since the crime (palmprint, etc.)

    -our Empress fully dressed an made up in less than 1/2 an hour after reading this note, making the call and getting hysterical

    -Refusal to cooperate with investigators

    -we have a bunch of self-contradictions: John claimed he had her call, then she said she decided to call; John said that no intruder fed JB, then recanted that one; Patsy went into great detail about the palm heart the first day, then obfuscated the second day; Burke said JB was awake, they said asleep, etc., etc.

    -We have the comments from several top profilers about it

    -I already mentioned the difference between what Smit has said about the window and what actually was, right? Well, if not, remember: he went through it with some difficulty with no winter clothing, plus the intruder would have to go out that way again, and would have left something

    -Someone would need lights to navigate the house. Even with lights, that was no mean feat

    -the lack of gratuitous injury to the body that an intruder would have left

    -Per an experiment, I have shown that the garrote would have to be constructed after the blow. Nobody's going to build the implement of death on somebody who's still fighting, especially since you've got to hold them face down and molest them with at least one hand. If you can tie a noose with one hand, I'd like to meet you. We could go on the talent show circuit!

    Put it all together and you've got something!

    Your Honor, the Prosecution rests! (for now!)
     
  20. Sylvia

    Sylvia FFJ Senior Member

    I think we are about on the same line of thinking. And also would like to add that the Ramseys were in a hurry to bury the body which was evidence and needed more testing done on it. Only before that could be done they started screaming ransoming the body. Geez, that was on the 27th, one day after the discovery of the body. Guess we have Hoffstrom to thank for that! :curse:
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice