New Dr. Bea thread. Post your questions here.

BobC

BobC - The nightgown had no business being in the basement room, but we don't know whether it was there intentionally or not. If we knew that it had been in a drawer somewhere, such that somebody would have had to have known it's potential significance, known where it was, and have intentionally gotten it, that would be MUCH more incriminating. As far as I recall, we haven't been told where the nightgown was located when JBR went to bed. If it were in bed with her, there is a real chance it was grabbed up by accident along with the blanket and JBR, rather than intentionally. That is just as likely to be indicative of an intruder than a killer parent.

Is there any real reason to think McCrary and Ressler necessarily have any more reliable information about the details than we do?

Bob, you haven't been "listening" if you haven't seem me mention holes in the parent did it scenarios - especially considering you've been on the forums with me for years. The multiple assaults, all while JBR was alive, and the nature of the assaults is one of the biggest. The lack of motive or past violent behavior. No trace of either the rest of the cord or the tape. The unidentified DNA (and bootprint). To some extent, the nature of the garotte.

None of those holes is necessarily unfillable, but that is also the case with the holes in the intruder theory. Some of the holes I've referred to in the past are specific to a particular parent scenario. The ones above are non-specific.

 

Fly. I am losing the will to live. Good God. There's fair, and then there's bending over backwards to explain away one hundred things as coincidences.

Gregg McCrarey himself said "the longer I work in this field, the less I believe in coincidences."

Fly what in the holy flamin' hell are the chances of the Barbie nightgown lying on the bed only to be scooped up by the killer who irrationally kills his cash prize and then writes a fake ransom note and then doesn't bother taking the body and then doesn't bother trying to collect the money? Come on a child with Downe's Syndrome isn't that stupid.

Put it all together, Fly and while you're at it try to remember that a little girl got her smashed in and deserves better than crackpot rationalizations.

Oh and FYI--it was the CBI who said the nightgown was indicative of parental involvement (or someone who cared about her) and yes they were privy to ALL the evidence.

 

Fly

Lack of motive or past violent behavior? What if there is a secret hidden so deep that the BPD hasn't gotten to the motive? There have been suggestions that Patsy may have been sexually abused as a child. There are no sources to verify this did or didn't happen to my knowledge. But, what if she was?

<u>Child Sexual Abuse</u> by Jerome A. Kroth, PH.D.

<b> Response of the Mother</b>

As mentioned earlier, adults molested as children primarily experienced intrafamilial molestation. If we continue to develop the hypothesis that adults molested as children represent a group that is suffering long-term consequences from childhood sexual abuse, then it is clear that a high degree of collusion by the mother and her inability to take any action to remedy the situation of which she had knowledge does appear to contribute to and define this long suffering client population and distinguish it from the present intrafamilial case load. In both types of cases, the victim informed the mother of the molestation at about equal rates (21% for intrafamilial cases vs. 24% for adults molested as children), and the mothers were ignorant of the molestation at approximately equal rates as well (20.4% for intrafamilial vs 24.1% for adults molested as children). The major differences between these two groups were far more collusive (24.% vs. 10%) and far more passive (3% vs. 31%) in doing anything about a molestation when they knew of it. This single variable appears extremely important in predicting the degree of long-term debilitating consequences child sexual abuse may involve. (P54;pp2)

"This single variable appears extremely important in predicting the degree of <u><i>long-term debilitating consequences</i></u> child sexual abuse may involve." <b>Motive? Trigger?</b>

 

For Dr. Bea

Patsy and John had a good working relationship. Often times, when one of the partners is an executive, time is very limited for household responsibilities. And if the relationship is based on more traditional rules, The wife carries the responsibilities of household and children. I understand this approach. I've experienced it, myself.

So, JR made the money and PR provided a beautiful home to live and entertain in. She had the luxury of a housekeeper, lucky her. But the scheduling, the children, involvement in their schools, the pageant stuff and fundraising activities must have taken a great deal of time and effort. I remember watching PR go, go, go. It made me tired.

I was most concerned about PR during her cancer days. She would often travel to Bethsda alone, unacccompanied. I kept wondering, "Where was John?" He did not seem to be involved. Patsy excused his behavior, because he was working so hard.

More on the sisters later.

Dr. Bea, if you wish to email me, I would be more than happy to share some observations of PR with you that I hesitate to post on a public forum.

 

just a second

BobC - I am fully willing to believe a parent killed JBR. I still have that as the most likely scenario, so how about not acting like I'm saying an intruder did it?

If there were no holes in the parent did it scenario, as you seem to feel, then we'd have somebody under arrest right now. Even Kane admitted that they can't prove their case. Seems pretty clear to me that this represents an honest recognition that there are holes (perhaps others than we're even aware of) in the case against the Ramseys that a jury will not be willing to ignore.
The DNA is the most obvious, IMO, and will trump any calls of "too many coincidences," or "staging" or "beloved nightgown" unless it can be thoroughly explained away. I'm eagerly awaiting such explanation. I think the lack of a motive and any history of violence or abuse represent other serious, but slightly smaller, problems.

JR - Sure, folks have suggested PR might have been abused. Nobody has any evidence that was the case, do they? It's just a way to try to explain such aberrant behavior in a mother. We might as well say maybe PR was kicked in the head by a horse as a child, and killed JBR during a temporal lobe seizure. We have just as much reason to believe that is the case as the PR was a victim of sexual abuse (or any abuse).

What ifs don't mean squat unless there is some evidence that leads us to that idea.

 

uuuuhhhhhhhh

Fly. I am quite clear that the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt was not there. And frankly I think that was a good choice. That being said--just because the evidence hasn't yet risen to that threshold doesn't mean that an intruder theory makes sense.


No intruder theory is coherent. No intruder theory explains this staged crime scene. Now--why don't you try giving me a coherent intruder theory that explains all the evidence? I mean I wanna hear it. Explain the ransom note, Barbie nigtgown, ink from Patsy's pen returned to it's proper place, blah blah blah.

I really doubt the Barbie nightgown drifted into the basement room on a draft or something. When I buried Delta I buried her with her comforter and a cookie, which she loved. That was my way of saying goodbye and trying to comfort her.

I think the R's felt extreme guilt and pain that night, and were going to dump that body in the mountains along with the Barbie nightgown for comfort. When the time came to dump it, I think one of them couldn't do it, probably Patsy. So they concocted a different paln...

 

Why not?

For Fly,
When you and Tricia post next to each other, I look at those wings flapping together and it is mesmerizing!

Fly, why don't you post a question to the Dr. about the chances of child abuse in a family that "seeming" had not history or appearance ot it. I would interested in the answer.

 

Dr. Bea

Dr. Bea

QUESTION #1.
Why, after five years, would an innocent parent still be spending money on lawyers to keep themselves from jail, if they are innocent?

QUESTION: #2.
What might be considered NORMAL behavior for millionaire parents to better use their millions, than spending $$ on lawyers to keep themselves out of jail?

QUESTION: #3.
Would it not be more sensible for the millionaire parents to spend money in helping other children, to help salve their sadness, IF they are indeed innocent, or even if they were not innocent?

 

good grief!

BobC - And where the heck have I said that there is an intruder theory with no holes? You won't find that if you looked at every post I've made in the past 5+ years. I think I've said once that the intruder theory might have fewer holes, but never that it had no major problems.

Heck, just recently didn't I post to you that the facts surrounding the ransom note are awfully hard to explain in an intruder theory? Not necessarily impossible, just like some of the big issues in the PDI scenario are not impossible, either, but bothersome.

The intruder theory can account for the DNA and for their being no sign of additional cord or tape. Those are serious problems in the PDI view, and they are handled by the intruder view. The lack of abusive history and the overkill are hard to account for in a PDI theory, but so is the idea of an intruder writing a note on Ramsey paper and leaving the body behind.

Cookie - I don't need to ask Dr. Bea that. I'm fully aware that there can be abuse that is undetected. HOwever, in retrospect, there is often some indication that was not given great attention previously that people can point to as subtle signs of abuse. That hasn't really occurred here, though, has it? I'm not saying it's impossible that PR was abused, or that she abused JBR regularly without it being detected. I'm not saying you have to have a history of abuse in order to kill your kid.

Camper - The Ramseys parted with their defense lawyers long ago. Wood is handling civil suits, not trying to keep them out of jail, IMO.

 

Fly--I didn't ask you for an intruder with "no holes"--I just want a general scenario that explains all the things found at the crime scene.

 

The way I see it, to clarify:

You have to look at each piece of evidence individually and ask questions about it--you do that very well. But what I never hear you do, however, is collect up all the pieces and ask how they ALL fit in the big picture.

Looking at the TOTALITY of the evidence is the key.

If I hear one more time that "no one theory accounts for ALL the evidence" I am going to spit up. The randomness of the evidence IS TEXTBOOK STAGING. Inexperienced killers are infamous for mixing and matching various motives while they are staging a scene (in this case mixing a sexual assault with a ransom scenario).

The FBI teaches that this kind of mixing and matching is a huge red flag and speaks to a perpetrator who really doesn't know a thing about real sexual assault or ransom situations. The person who wrote this note is an inexperienced killer trying to hide what really happened.

 

Thank you BobC

That explains it so simply and clearly. TOTALITY. The sum of all the parts.

Patsy did it, nobody cared to prove it. Or to even try.

Poor kid, dead in the basement at six and it looks like only a bunch of strangers on the internet care...

 

Thanks Vic! But I can tell you that the BPD busted their butts, and so did Mike Kane. They fought like dogs but the legal wall was too high, and there were too many mistakes made in the begining. As Fedora pointed out, Hunter at least brought in Scheck and Lee, which wasn't free. It was that crucial few hours where everything got messed up, and the rest is history. AS Chief Beckner pointed out--the BPD just wasn't ready for a monster like this. Hell, the LAPD wasn't ready for OJ! But it happened. I know some of those guys made themselves physically sick trying to solve this.

Who knows--maybe it'll still be solved. But don't hold your breath.

 

i have no doubt....it will still be solved..

some day.

and i feel it will be solved when burke is old enough to
"emotionally" free himself from his parents.

and tell all!!!!

the ramseys may never be in a physical prison, but
they live in a prison every day of their lives.
their guilt holds them in.

their actions speak volumes to that......

dont you know!!!

kudos to BobC for his words of logic!!!

 

Hmmmm

Fly Re,

"Camper - The Ramseys parted with their defense lawyers long ago. Wood is handling civil suits, not trying to keep them out of jail, IMO."


Well I guess if charges were not filed in 3 years or 4 years or 5 years, and some income is dribbling in from other suits they have filed, this would make them okey dokey, and officially angelfied.

Now exactly where did their $100,000 reward go, for the conviction of the REAL KILLER, hmmm? Perhaps they should have offerred $118,000.

Heck even the Enquirer's 1 million dollar reward is now not offered, I hope that I have not mis spoken on that score, someone correct me if it is still up for grabs.

I guess if I figured that I had stumped the police and the DA, I would let my defence lawyers go also.

Oh and the fact is that the intruder theory is pretty bum in my view. He/she/it/they spent a lot of time in that home, huh, er. How come a definite decision was not made during all that free time, while Ramseys were at the party, on whether they were actually going to murder the little girl, or just kidnap her, hmmm.
Just a simple grab and run with her, and earn $118,000.00. Tape on the mouth, tape her to a chair somewhere. Kidnappings are really quite passe these days, there is no future for the kidnapper.

No child, no money, on the other hand they got free pineapple, free paper, free use of the pen, free rope, free broken paint brush, free nightgown, free blanket/s ?, heck they got a free red pen, because the red pen was not found was it? Hmmm.

On the other hand, the Ramseys will always have one empty chair at the dinner table, for the three of them to contemplate for many years.

 

BobC

You wrote: They fought like dogs but the legal wall was too high, and there were too many mistakes made in the begining.

IMHO, the <b>political wall</b> was much higher than the legal wall.

 

Yeah politics too. Lots of little things.

 

Fly

Overkill isn't seen in parents who kill their kids? Now that's a real knee-slapper.

 

Overkill?

I don't know that I'd call what happened to JB overkill.

I think the head blow dropped her like a rock and all the rest was staging, staging, staging.

Overkill would be (to me) multiple head blows, beaten to a pulp, stabbed repeatedly...

Fly, what is your definition of "overkill"?