Posted on 08/20/2006 5:37:25 AM PDT by Rte66
OH MY...
What makes me skeptical of PR's explanations is not that she can't explain this or that detail but that she didn't say so long and loud immediately after the crime when her memory would have been freshest. The delays in submitting to questioning by LE are what make people suspicious. Does that make her guilty of anything? No. But it does make a person wonder. I would think that even someone that thinks there is no possibility that PR was involved in JBR's death would have to admit that.
I got over that, already. I look at the case through a much broader lens of possibilities and probabilities than constant suspicion of the Ramseys because they didn't do x or say y. Ten years ago, that's about all I thought of, whenever I thought of it.
And there are large numbers of things about the case that don't fit the Ramseys as perps, at all.
I've mentioned some of them in my various posts and to me, they are totally exculpatory of the Ramseys, yet some have thought they nailed the Ramseys. This has left me utterly mystified and quite disappointed, to say the least.
I hurt for the Ramseys.
You might want to ask that this tread be locked with a link to the next.
I'm sorry, but I would have lawyered up same as Ramsey's once I got the vibe that the investigation wasn't about excluding me so they could move on but about proving it was me and that no moving on was going to occur. I think that shift of focus from excluding to proving came prematurely to the investigation and distorted it from then on.
Just because *you* would handle things differently is not proof of guilt or grounds for suspicion. There is no *normal* way to handle or respond to an event like this.
I was just pinging all who were involved in that particular conversation.
I don't claim to know what or who did this horrible thing - I am just not ready to rule anything out without looking at all the info. I have said it before and will say it again, I would be THRILLED to learn that JMK is actually the guy. Why? Because it is easier on this mom of two NOT to have to even consider the possibility that JBR's parents were in any way responsible.
I disagree.
have YOU seen the exemplar, side by side with the ransom note? its stunning, anyone who says its "4.5 out of 5" for elimination, needs new glasses.
I have seen it. I thought it was similar at first glance. When I began to compare letter by letter, I agreed with the analysis. There were many, many differences.
have you ever seen anyone make a "q" like that?
I don't recall the "q". What I noticed were the slants of the "e"s and other letters. They all looked blockish, but there were many little differences.
I looked it up again to refresh my memory since the q's didn't stand out to me. I have to say, that's how I made q's. It's how I was taught to as the appropriate form. I don't write in cursive much now. My handwriting was always bad, so I just started using manuscript in college. But, that is the way that I was taught to make the letter q, and how I did so until I abandoned cursive all together. It may be different now. The styles of some letters have changed over the years.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.