Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sweetheart_d why do people post out of emotion instead of fact? the way she was killed was not consistent with parental involvement. the method, where her body was found, the way her body was found, they weren't consistent with murder perputrated by parents/family and that was established years ago. do some research before you become kitchen table forensic scientists ffs. |
Err, who is this directed at? I wasn't "posting out of emotion". I said I did not believe it was her parents, without explaining or going into much detail as to how or why I came to that conclusion, which wasn't really a conclusion but a belief, based to some small degree on what you're saying.
Having said that, what research are you talking about? (For the record, I've read one book on this case and at least one alleged "expert" said the method and the way she was found WAS consistent with the killer being a parent/family member. I took it with a heavy grain of salt, since at the time nobody, "expert" or otherwise, appeared to have a clue who the killer was and the entire book was pretty much idle conjecture.)
As I said, for multiple reasons I've never believed it had anything to do with her parents, but I can't for the life of me see how "the method, where her body was found, the way her body was found" is inconsistent with murder perpetuated by parents/family. It certainly never sounded entirely
inconsistent. Not on the face of things, at least.
Remember, the case was initially treated as a kidnapping. It's extremely unusual for a kidnap victim (dead or alive) to be discovered in her own home. Even though her father found her body, which is obviously not indicative of a man with something to hide (a murdered daughter), you can't really blame the police for their
initial suspicion. It was and still is a bizarre case. It sounds to me like the cops got tunnel vision over it, with disastrous results. (If the guy is guilty, how many other children have been sexually abused by him in the past 10 years?)
I would presume that if the killer wasn't a family member or close associate (invited to stay the night, perhaps, with an excuse for being there), they'd have been far more likely to abduct, rape and kill a child some-where, any-where, other than in her own home, with her parents and brother present and sleeping upstairs. He could have been interrupted and caught at any time.
Yet this killer not only did what he did to the poor child, he allegedly hung around the house long enough to find a note~book belonging to Patsy Ramsey, whereupon he wrote that long, bizarre ransom note ~ surely pretty unusual (not to mention audacious) behaviour when the perpetrator is a random intruder.
Moreover the vast majority of (known) child abuse ~ ranging from sexual abuse to murder ~ is perpetuated by a parent, family member or close family associate. You very seldom hear of a child rapist/murderer who uses an MO like this. I suspect that this killer's MO is a statistical anomaly, not the "norm".
Truth, as always, is stranger than fiction.
Linear Mode
