#0, Kane in the Globe
Posted by jameson on Aug-01-02 at 04:55 PM
<BR> <b> "I think it was something (that came about) through an accident and then everything else was staged - and the staging was so overdone," reveals Kane. "Patsy is a very theatrical person and it was a very theatrical production."<BR></b><P>I won't be able to get the tabloid until next week - - but that's the main point.... <P>Kane couldn't make the case before but he wants everyone now to believe his spin. <P>Jerk
#1, So he's saying everybody
Posted by tipper on Aug-01-02 at 05:21 PM
In response to message #0
in the DA's office including Keenan now agrees it was an intruder???
#2, No
Posted by jameson on Aug-01-02 at 06:29 PM
In response to message #1
Kane has always thought it was Patsy - - he was rabid towards her.<P>
#3, Yes?
Posted by jameson on Aug-01-02 at 07:11 PM
In response to message #1
I am surprised he is admitting it. <P>Kane - "Everybody in the D.A.'s office is convinced that there was an intruder, including Keenan."<P> <P>
#4, Theatrical staging?
Posted by DonBradley on Aug-01-02 at 11:57 PM
In response to message #0
Just how does one go about theatrically staging rogue dna? Particularly, how does one do it in the wee hours of the morning? And after such an emotional ordeal of some sort of 'accident' for which they suddenly decided not to seek medical attention as was their custom, how did they come up with so many movie quotes from movies of a type not normally viewed by families with young children.<P>Theatrical staging? <BR>Yeah... I think thats what went on in the Grand Jury: Theatrical staging...by Kane.<BR>
#5, Interesting
Posted by jameson on Aug-02-02 at 08:59 PM
In response to message #4
Candy posted on another forum that she had heard from someone she obviously trusts and respects, that "Kane believes Patsy was involved in the staging aspects, but not the crime." <P>If that is true, I don't know who he thought did it. Very confusing since he really had NO interest in questioning John Ramsey when he had the chance.<P>You think the jerk is accusing BURKE??
#6, Do the police
Posted by Myself on Aug-02-02 at 09:37 PM
In response to message #5
have any reason to think it would be the Ramseys jams? Do they have a lot of evidence that we don't know about, that isn't clear to the public, including yourself? Just a question... <P>It seems as if he does think that it was a family member. maybe you could surmise that he thinks it was Burke. It's true that the whole thing was overstaged but why that has to be by the Ramsey's, I have no idea. <P>Maybe he spent too much time talking to Thomas?
#7, It is clear to me
Posted by jameson on Aug-03-02 at 05:35 PM
In response to message #6
The police focused on the parents because statistics AT THE TIME said that if a child of such tender years found dead, the killer is probably family. The fact that she was in bed and not in a playground when the killer took her sure didn't help. <P>Back then, people just didn't want to think a child might be taken from her bed - - even though there WERE other cases where a child had been taken from their beds and killed (Lindburg and Dowaliby for example.) <P><BR>Had she been taken from the house, the ransom note would have been taken seriously - - and even if there was no phone call from the kidnappers and a body found later, they would have thought the kidnappers got cold feet about picking up the money. With the FBI, CBI and US Secret service saying that they couldn't match anyone's writing to the note would have helped clear both Ramseys.<BR>But the child was not taken from the home so the cops started thinking backwards and without logic - - that JBR was killed and the killer thought it made sense to leave a note AND body.<P>I think Lou had it right - - it was supposed to be a real kidnapping but the killer couldn't get out with her so did the dirty deed in that distant basement. <P>Now we know SickPuppies DO take children from their beds as well as from the streets - - and not all reansoms are demanded in writing.
|