Replies

>>>That's kinda what I was thinking. It seems most families don't think much of a family member being absent on important holidays IF they have a good excuse for it. He could have made up just about any story to explain his absence and no one would have likely remembered it.>>>

This is very true. I think the family (his brother and ex-wife) are assuming if he did this, he must have just not shown up, which probably wouldn't have been case.

I also keep hearing people say he 'couldn't have done that, it's not his type' excuse. "We know he's mentally disturbed but not THAT mentally disturbed", but I don't know about that. If a person could IMAGINE themselves doing something, couldn't they do it? I mean the THOUGHT of strangling a little girl is enough to repulse 99% of us, but to imagine that you COULD and DID means you have it in you to do it, right?

I'm still just trying to wrap my head around all this myself. I have been fascinated with serial killers and the way they think for years. In the third grade I was reading graphic books about Jack the Ripper and the Black Dahlia because it fascinated me that a human could do that to another human. Life is so precious to me, I try to move bugs outdoors (except poisonous ones, then you are just dead, lol), but I can't imagine harming another human to that extent!! And who would have known... I'm still in shock.

Yes, I think there is only a very fine line between the point of obsessing and fantasizing about something so vicious and actually doing it. That, of course, assumes we're talking about someone who is obsessed about something like that to the point that it's pathological.

I like to theorize and play 'whodunit' but there is only one thing I'm absolutely certain of in this case. Whoever did that is a monster. I don't have any other word for what I saw in the autopsy photos and the coroner's report. I can't fathom the thought processes of a monster like that.

Even if it was an accident and someone covered it up with a vicious but staged strangulation there is something very 'off' about that mindset. Some have commented that if it was an accident there is no motive for a risky cover-up but I think that really depends on the circumstances: Patsy Ramsey might well call it an accident; a jury might well call it manslaughter. It just depends on how it went down. So, even if it was an 'accident', something is really 'off' about whoever killed her. Somebody was out of their tree.