We're going around in circles, folks. And there are way too many posts expressing frustration and indignation with other participants in this increasingly futile discussion. I too am getting both frustrated and impatient.
Monday, April 24, 2017
Friday, April 21, 2017
Making Sense
No intruder theory makes sense. I think most posting here would agree.
BDI does seem to make sense. But only if we assume that both Patsy and John Ramsey were involved in the staging and coverup, including the writing of the "ransom note." The logic goes as follows: if Patsy killed her daughter then it's impossible to believe John would have supported her in covering that up; similarly, if John was the one who did it, it's impossible to believe Patsy would have covered for him; thus BDI provides us with the ONLY "logical" explanation for the evidence suggesting that BOTH John and Patsy were collaborating to hide the truth. An attempt to protect their son from public disgrace, and their family name from utter humiliation, presents us with the only possible motive for both to agree on a cover-up. And, of course, sibling rivalry provides us with a convenient motive for murder.
BDI does seem to make sense. But only if we assume that both Patsy and John Ramsey were involved in the staging and coverup, including the writing of the "ransom note." The logic goes as follows: if Patsy killed her daughter then it's impossible to believe John would have supported her in covering that up; similarly, if John was the one who did it, it's impossible to believe Patsy would have covered for him; thus BDI provides us with the ONLY "logical" explanation for the evidence suggesting that BOTH John and Patsy were collaborating to hide the truth. An attempt to protect their son from public disgrace, and their family name from utter humiliation, presents us with the only possible motive for both to agree on a cover-up. And, of course, sibling rivalry provides us with a convenient motive for murder.
Tuesday, April 18, 2017
Still more else
Seems like we've arrived at an impasse regarding Patsy's role in this case. And that's fine by me. I've done my best to make my points, and some others here are doing a great job of clarifying and amplifying the case for JDI, for which I am both grateful and impressed. What bothers me is not that certain others disagree, which is to be expected, but the assumption that somehow, by our refusal to bow before arguments that seem deeply flawed, those of us convinced of John's guilt and Patsy's innocence are somehow imposing our views on everyone else.
Since I have never made any effort to censor or modify any post containing an argument for any position on this case I find such accusations totally unfair. This is an open blog and all points of view are and always have been welcome. But at the same time I, for one, reserve the right to defend my position, why shouldn't I? So please lay off the offensive (and defensive) rhetoric, folks, and stick to a meaningful consideration of the facts, evidence and logic of the case. Thank you.
Tuesday, April 11, 2017
Saturday, April 8, 2017
What Else - continued
Any more else? So far no one has even attempted to respond to any of my responses to the accusations leveled at Patsy. You guys chicken or what?
Wednesday, April 5, 2017
What else?
I just spent two posts listing several things that have made people suspicious of Patsy Ramsey, offering my own take on each, and demonstrating why, imo, none can be seen as evidence of guilt, even when, in some cases, they might actually be counterfactual. I feel sure I missed some, however, so now is your chance to fill in the blanks. Those of you who are still bothered by Patsy's "lies" and "deceptions," by all means add more items to the list that's already been compiled, and let's consider them one by one.