I’m saying there is no reason to hypothsize that the Ramseys abetted the killer.
You could hypothesize that ANY parents of abducted or murdered children were in on it, but without evidence, those hypotheses are so much smoke.
I never suggested that could be done. I simply said that just because Ramsey had no known pedo associates, it doesn’t mean he didn’t know any, or wasn’t one himself.
Buddy, you just don’t know what you’re talking about. You’re making this up as a you go along. You could not be further from being right. For some reason, you have decided that not only must the Ramseys be innocent, there mustn’t be any evidence against them. I don’t know why it’s so hard for you to recognize that evidence does not equal proof and different evidence is afforded different wieght.
Let me rephrase. The ransom demand was in amount consistent with Jon’s bonus. This amount was known to the Ramseys and few others.
There is no evidence of either, and these possibilities were thoroughly investigated.
Maybe you think that conceding something is “evidence” is giving up too much ground. It’s not. I can dismiss circumstantial evidence as being remote or explain it away (as you’ve done with the note). That doesn’t mean it’s not evidence any longer. It just measn that the evidence does not have much weight.
Could we get bricker to wiegh in? This is right in his wheelhouse
You mean by determining that John Ramsey didn’t associate with any known pedophiles? Go on, how exactly was this part of the investigation carried out?
I’m just stating the objective fact that there is no evdience against them. That’s why they were officially cleared. That’s why they are no longer under suspicion. That’s why they are no longer being investigated.
This does not mean the writer ofth note knew that to be the case, nor would it be all that difficult or extraordinary for a motivated indiviual to find out somebody’s bonus if he really wanted to. It wasn’t like finding out the launch codes for the nukes aimed at Moscow or anything.
I don’t understand what you’re suggesting wasn’t done. Everybody the Ramseys knew was investigated.
Fa foo flitta flitta flang yang…
I’m not saying it’s not evidence, I’m saying it doesn’t point at the Ramseys.
I presume there was an estimated time of death, so did this leave a window of opportunity for the unknown intruder to hide her body and make the ransom note worth writing out? Or is there a slight suggestion that if any of the parents were involved, they couldn’t bear the idea of the killer taking her body and hiding it?
I wonder if the police questioned suspects on their knowledge of the movie “Speed?” It’s interesting that the ransom note uses the phrase, “Do not grow a brain, John,” which Dennis Hopper says to Keanu Reeves in that particular movie which was released two years before Ramsey was killed. I don’t remember it ever really becoming a common phrase, but maybe I’m wrong.
Anyone know if that’s ever come up in any of the discussions of the case?
This is not an objective fact. There is “evidence” that implicates them. I’ve given it to you. It does not implicate them to the exlcusion of all others. That does not mean it is not evidence.
. . . or the evidence was not sufficient to warrant further investigation. We don;t know and it’s irrelevant to the dicussion of what constitutes evidence.
Irrelevant. I seriously suggest you take the time to read up on “circumstantial evidence.” It does not have to be to dispositive. You are so far out of your depth on this, you really should quit.
and that’s where you’re wrong - it points to the Ramseys
Are you suggesting that the movie “Speed” has as much relevance to this case as the potential of pedophile activity? I just need to be clear how far you are stretching.
Hypothetically, what would be circumstantial non dispositve evidence of the Ramsey’s invovlement?
Cite? People keep saying this, but I’m beginning to doubt it’s true. Is there a good source for this factoid (where it was confirmed by police), or just breathless third-hand tabloid accounts?
I’ll be highly surprised if he offers anything, as he is fully invested - it seems - in assuming their innocence.
How?
Easy there, Sparky. I’m not stretching one way nor the other.
I’m curious, as I thought it was a strange phrase to use. That’s it.
Thanks.