If you could know the truth about any unsolved mystery, which would it be?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like Burke accidentally whacking JB too hard is most likely scenario, but what trips me up here is the staging of the body afterward. I can maybe see the parent(s) applying the duct tape and wrist ties... but not the business with the garotte and the paintbrush, nor can I see a little kid Burke's age coming up with that. I just can't picture loving parents doing that to their child even as part of staging a crime scene.

I just watched the first episode and it doesn’t add up. Her wrists were not lightly bound; but very tight. Those neck wounds from the garret (which took quite a bit of skill). She was alive when the garter was made (her hair was caught in it) and the neck torture occurred at about the same time as the head trauma. The autopsy tells a story of torture, not an accidental wack on the head after she stole a piece of Burke’s pineapple or a “cover up.” Patsy comes across as a complete liar and the Fad comes across as innocent-ish. Burke is clearly autistic but that doesn’t make him a psychopath. I would pick Patsy if it wasn’t for the sexual assault with the paintbrush. It had to be the Dad.

And the fact that the police got the DNA results that exonerated all three Ramseys and suppressed that? That DNA was found under her fingernails and on her underwear that belonged to an unidentified male? And that Boulder police planted stories with friendly reporters that were fake implying the Ramseys did it?

Do you have more info about the DNA? I had read that it was “touch DNA” that could have been from whoever manufactured the underwear, and that it was not enough to make the police think anyone else had really touched her body

Under her fingernails too?

The police were obsessed with explaining away the DNA and tried to trace it back to the manufacturer. But how would that have gotten under her nails?

I don’t know, that’s why I’m asking if you read anything different. I didn’t read that it was this large amount of DNA or even that it was skin under her nails. Just the same touch DNA which I read could have been just from her putting on the new underwear with her hands. But I don’t know of course.

You would then have to believe that Patsy put those panties on JB for the first time ever that night and without washing them. That’s ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like Burke accidentally whacking JB too hard is most likely scenario, but what trips me up here is the staging of the body afterward. I can maybe see the parent(s) applying the duct tape and wrist ties... but not the business with the garotte and the paintbrush, nor can I see a little kid Burke's age coming up with that. I just can't picture loving parents doing that to their child even as part of staging a crime scene.

I just watched the first episode and it doesn’t add up. Her wrists were not lightly bound; but very tight. Those neck wounds from the garret (which took quite a bit of skill). She was alive when the garter was made (her hair was caught in it) and the neck torture occurred at about the same time as the head trauma. The autopsy tells a story of torture, not an accidental wack on the head after she stole a piece of Burke’s pineapple or a “cover up.” Patsy comes across as a complete liar and the Fad comes across as innocent-ish. Burke is clearly autistic but that doesn’t make him a psychopath. I would pick Patsy if it wasn’t for the sexual assault with the paintbrush. It had to be the Dad.

And the fact that the police got the DNA results that exonerated all three Ramseys and suppressed that? That DNA was found under her fingernails and on her underwear that belonged to an unidentified male? And that Boulder police planted stories with friendly reporters that were fake implying the Ramseys did it?

Do you have more info about the DNA? I had read that it was “touch DNA” that could have been from whoever manufactured the underwear, and that it was not enough to make the police think anyone else had really touched her body

Under her fingernails too?

The police were obsessed with explaining away the DNA and tried to trace it back to the manufacturer. But how would that have gotten under her nails?

I don’t know, that’s why I’m asking if you read anything different. I didn’t read that it was this large amount of DNA or even that it was skin under her nails. Just the same touch DNA which I read could have been just from her putting on the new underwear with her hands. But I don’t know of course.

You would then have to believe that Patsy put those panties on JB for the first time ever that night and without washing them. That’s ridiculous.

To you or me, sure. But to have new clothes on Christmas and to wear them without washing them (including underwear) seems totally feasible to me considering what we know about that family. Their house was cluttered and borderline filthy.

[Anonymous]

The UVA college kid, Otto, who was detained for taking down a poster in North Korea and was released a vegetable a few years later. Did he really take down a poster or was it faked by the North Korean government? I don't think we will ever know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The UVA college kid, Otto, who was detained for taking down a poster in North Korea and was released a vegetable a few years later. Did he really take down a poster or was it faked by the North Korean government? I don't think we will ever know.

Oh I remember him. What was the “official” reason for his vegetative state? Also, why on earth would he go to North Korea and joke around like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I feel like Burke accidentally whacking JB too hard is most likely scenario, but what trips me up here is the staging of the body afterward. I can maybe see the parent(s) applying the duct tape and wrist ties... but not the business with the garotte and the paintbrush, nor can I see a little kid Burke's age coming up with that. I just can't picture loving parents doing that to their child even as part of staging a crime scene.

I just watched the first episode and it doesn’t add up. Her wrists were not lightly bound; but very tight. Those neck wounds from the garret (which took quite a bit of skill). She was alive when the garter was made (her hair was caught in it) and the neck torture occurred at about the same time as the head trauma. The autopsy tells a story of torture, not an accidental wack on the head after she stole a piece of Burke’s pineapple or a “cover up.” Patsy comes across as a complete liar and the Fad comes across as innocent-ish. Burke is clearly autistic but that doesn’t make him a psychopath. I would pick Patsy if it wasn’t for the sexual assault with the paintbrush. It had to be the Dad.

And the fact that the police got the DNA results that exonerated all three Ramseys and suppressed that? That DNA was found under her fingernails and on her underwear that belonged to an unidentified male? And that Boulder police planted stories with friendly reporters that were fake implying the Ramseys did it?

Do you have more info about the DNA? I had read that it was “touch DNA” that could have been from whoever manufactured the underwear, and that it was not enough to make the police think anyone else had really touched her body

Under her fingernails too?

The police were obsessed with explaining away the DNA and tried to trace it back to the manufacturer. But how would that have gotten under her nails?

It’s not the same DNA though. Two different DNAs one under nails which could be from anywhere at all, they’d been at a party that night, she could’ve touched anything. The other tiny trace on the underwear that was identified as possible trace dna. Not a tie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The UVA college kid, Otto, who was detained for taking down a poster in North Korea and was released a vegetable a few years later. Did he really take down a poster or was it faked by the North Korean government? I don't think we will ever know.

Oh I remember him. What was the “official” reason for his vegetative state? Also, why on earth would he go to North Korea and joke around like that.

I don't remember the reason. Regarding the joking around taking down the poster, no one really knows if this is true or was made up. He was a handsome, smart young man and I suspect the No Korean government made up the whole thing in order to try and get something from the U.S. for his release.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The UVA college kid, Otto, who was detained for taking down a poster in North Korea and was released a vegetable a few years later. Did he really take down a poster or was it faked by the North Korean government? I don't think we will ever know.

Oh I remember him. What was the “official” reason for his vegetative state? Also, why on earth would he go to North Korea and joke around like that.

I don't remember the reason. Regarding the joking around taking down the poster, no one really knows if this is true or was made up. He was a handsome, smart young man and I suspect the No Korean government made up the whole thing in order to try and get something from the U.S. for his release.

Seems like they’d have come up with a more convincing story of wrongdoing than taking a poster. But you’re right I’m sure they were trying to leverage him. Goes to show, don’t vacation in North Korea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lindbergh baby

That one was solved. The killer was convicted years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The UVA college kid, Otto, who was detained for taking down a poster in North Korea and was released a vegetable a few years later. Did he really take down a poster or was it faked by the North Korean government? I don't think we will ever know.

I’ve been to DPRK. I’m sure he took it down. If he was drunk in the “island” hotel for visitors he could have easily done something stupid, and they took it seriously and made an example of him. Also, the tour guides there aren’t your friends. They would report him or they’d get in trouble, if they’d seen it. Our group quietly questioned things in whispers away from people, but he was a kid and stupid, and probably drunk because there’s nothing to do there at night but drink in the hotel and do karaoke. You have zero freedom if you visit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:JFK because of the implications that resonate to this day.

Listen to the Who Killed JFK podcast.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The UVA college kid, Otto, who was detained for taking down a poster in North Korea and was released a vegetable a few years later. Did he really take down a poster or was it faked by the North Korean government? I don't think we will ever know.

I’ve been to DPRK. I’m sure he took it down. If he was drunk in the “island” hotel for visitors he could have easily done something stupid, and they took it seriously and made an example of him. Also, the tour guides there aren’t your friends. They would report him or they’d get in trouble, if they’d seen it. Our group quietly questioned things in whispers away from people, but he was a kid and stupid, and probably drunk because there’s nothing to do there at night but drink in the hotel and do karaoke. You have zero freedom if you visit.

North Koreans live up to their barbaric reputation.

Killing someone's child while he's a guest in their country, over a poster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Were the Menendez brothers legitimately molested by their Father or did they just use the “abuse excuse” to try to avoid prison time??

OF COURSE THEY WERE MOLESTED.

If not - they did a pretty decent acting performance during their first trial.

Their recent claims that the main reason the killed their parents was because they were afraid their Father was going to murder them so they killed their parents as a form of self~defense.

But they were both adults - if they truly feared for their lives they could have just left home.
YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE DYNAMICS OF ABUSE.

And why did they feel the need to spend so. much. money so soon after being forced to shoot their parents in self-defense?

IT WAS THE LATE 80S IN BEVERLY HILLS. THIS WAS THE CULTURE. EVERYONE WAS SPENDING LIKE THIS.

When if the letter to the cousin re: being molested was intentionally written 9 mos. prior to the murders as part of the murder plan?
When if they had planned the murders ahead of time then waited the nine mos. so the letter could not be used as a motive for the murder in its initial stage??

OCCUM'S RAZOR. YOU THINK THEY PLANNED THIS FOR 9 MONTHS? NO WAY.

Why did Erik confess to murdering his folks to his therapist yet made no mention of being molested?
I mean, if you feel comfortable confessing something as huge as murdering your own parents to a therapist then you should also feel 💯% comfortable discussing sexual abuse.

NO.

I am the same age as the brothers are now (55) and I disagree with the fact that sexual molestation was super taboo during 1989.
While it wasn’t discussed as much as it is these days - it certainly wasn’t taboo.

I'M 54. IT WAS VERY MUCH TABOO, ESPECIALLY FOR MEN.

I would love to know the mystery of if any incest actually took place prior to the murders….

Still, they were 18 and 21 when they shot their parents. They could have easily rented a place together, so whatever happened in the house doesn't excuse the horrible crime. Remember they also threatened to kill their shrink. These two should never be released.

+1 And if you believe they were abused and they’re justified for killing their father, it’s not an excuse for killing their mother.

A mother who allows this to happen to her children deserves it even more than the one who committed the abuse. The abuser is clearly sick. The mother? She allowed it because it was easier for her. Hotter place in hell for her. Plenty of reason, let alone excuse, to kill her.

I’m sorry but this sort of anti woman BS makes my blood boil. So a father repeatedly r*pes his son, and the mother is too scared to stop it, and the MOTHER deserves MORE blame than… the r*pist? What??

What? This is an anti-woman at all. You cannot bring children into this world and then fail to protect them to that degree. Full stop.

But the father also brought them into this world and actively raped and tortured them. And yet the mother , according to PP, deserves MORE blame than the father despite the father being the actual rapist. Tell me how this is not anti woman.

Ok:

If a mother is the parent who is horribly abusing her children (which is not the case with the Menendez brothers, but, sadly, is often the case), and the father is aware of it and does nothing -- then that father deserves the hottest circle of hell. If you are the (relatively) capable parent, you get your child out of there, you protect your child at all costs instead of allowing the abuse to happen. You do whatever you have to do instead of allowing it to go on for years, and years, and years, destroying the psyche of your child(ren).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The UVA college kid, Otto, who was detained for taking down a poster in North Korea and was released a vegetable a few years later. Did he really take down a poster or was it faked by the North Korean government? I don't think we will ever know.

I’ve been to DPRK. I’m sure he took it down. If he was drunk in the “island” hotel for visitors he could have easily done something stupid, and they took it seriously and made an example of him. Also, the tour guides there aren’t your friends. They would report him or they’d get in trouble, if they’d seen it. Our group quietly questioned things in whispers away from people, but he was a kid and stupid, and probably drunk because there’s nothing to do there at night but drink in the hotel and do karaoke. You have zero freedom if you visit.

I don't want to derail this thread but I do want to know all about this. Please consider putting a post in the travel forum about your trip there? I'm sure many of us would love to read it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Were the Menendez brothers legitimately molested by their Father or did they just use the “abuse excuse” to try to avoid prison time??

OF COURSE THEY WERE MOLESTED.

If not - they did a pretty decent acting performance during their first trial.

Their recent claims that the main reason the killed their parents was because they were afraid their Father was going to murder them so they killed their parents as a form of self~defense.

But they were both adults - if they truly feared for their lives they could have just left home.
YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE DYNAMICS OF ABUSE.

And why did they feel the need to spend so. much. money so soon after being forced to shoot their parents in self-defense?

IT WAS THE LATE 80S IN BEVERLY HILLS. THIS WAS THE CULTURE. EVERYONE WAS SPENDING LIKE THIS.

When if the letter to the cousin re: being molested was intentionally written 9 mos. prior to the murders as part of the murder plan?
When if they had planned the murders ahead of time then waited the nine mos. so the letter could not be used as a motive for the murder in its initial stage??

OCCUM'S RAZOR. YOU THINK THEY PLANNED THIS FOR 9 MONTHS? NO WAY.

Why did Erik confess to murdering his folks to his therapist yet made no mention of being molested?
I mean, if you feel comfortable confessing something as huge as murdering your own parents to a therapist then you should also feel 💯% comfortable discussing sexual abuse.

NO.

I am the same age as the brothers are now (55) and I disagree with the fact that sexual molestation was super taboo during 1989.
While it wasn’t discussed as much as it is these days - it certainly wasn’t taboo.

I'M 54. IT WAS VERY MUCH TABOO, ESPECIALLY FOR MEN.

I would love to know the mystery of if any incest actually took place prior to the murders….

Still, they were 18 and 21 when they shot their parents. They could have easily rented a place together, so whatever happened in the house doesn't excuse the horrible crime. Remember they also threatened to kill their shrink. These two should never be released.

+1 And if you believe they were abused and they’re justified for killing their father, it’s not an excuse for killing their mother.

A mother who allows this to happen to her children deserves it even more than the one who committed the abuse. The abuser is clearly sick. The mother? She allowed it because it was easier for her. Hotter place in hell for her. Plenty of reason, let alone excuse, to kill her.

I’m sorry but this sort of anti woman BS makes my blood boil. So a father repeatedly r*pes his son, and the mother is too scared to stop it, and the MOTHER deserves MORE blame than… the r*pist? What??

What? This is an anti-woman at all. You cannot bring children into this world and then fail to protect them to that degree. Full stop.

But the father also brought them into this world and actively raped and tortured them. And yet the mother , according to PP, deserves MORE blame than the father despite the father being the actual rapist. Tell me how this is not anti woman.

Ok:

If a mother is the parent who is horribly abusing her children (which is not the case with the Menendez brothers, but, sadly, is often the case), and the father is aware of it and does nothing -- then that father deserves the hottest circle of hell. If you are the (relatively) capable parent, you get your child out of there, you protect your child at all costs instead of allowing the abuse to happen. You do whatever you have to do instead of allowing it to go on for years, and years, and years, destroying the psyche of your child(ren).

I just think it’s absolutely wild that you’d hold the non raping parent to a higher level of punishment than the actual rapist parent, letting the rapist off the hook because they are “disturbed”. As if a parent who knows the other parent is abusing their child in this way and can’t bring themselves to stop it isn’t also absolutely mentally disturbed and traumatized. Why let the rapist use this excuse of being unwell but not the other parent?

Glad you aren’t a judge, over there letting the rapists and murderers off and sending their family members to jail instead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The UVA college kid, Otto, who was detained for taking down a poster in North Korea and was released a vegetable a few years later. Did he really take down a poster or was it faked by the North Korean government? I don't think we will ever know.

Oh I remember him. What was the “official” reason for his vegetative state? Also, why on earth would he go to North Korea and joke around like that.

NP. I think they claimed bizarre allergic reaction or something.

I think he probably did take the poster. It's exactly the kind of silly minor thing a college kid would do on a trip, maybe not fully appreciating the warnings or thinking it would probably work out OK just this once. Even going to North Korea in the first place shows a bit of a risk taker. And then my guess is after the North Koreans trumped it up and sentenced him to 15 years of hard labor, there was quite possibly a total plunge into despair and a suicide attempt that was interrupted (maybe with resuscitation that was too late for his brain), since it happened right after the staged court hearing. He likely and quite reasonably didn't realize that it was probably not actually going to be 15 years and the ploy was to keep him as a bargaining chip for a few months. And who knows what kind of psychological torment they'd been subjecting him to up to that point.

This is the narrative that makes the most sense to me. He was worth far more to the North Koreans alive and well than dead or totally disabled. They wanted to use him as a prop and a bargaining chip like they have with others. When he was brought home, the North Koreans provided actual MRI images and he didn't have bed sores and was adequately tube-fed; the parents probably decided he would not want to live like that and pulled hydration like Terri Schiavo's husband, which is why he died relatively soon after. But the care prior to that indicates to me that North Korea did NOT want what had happened and had expended time and resources keeping him physically alive and trying to keep the situation from worsening--how easy is it to find a functioning MRI machine in Pyongyang? I would imagine that whoever was supposed to be guarding him when the incident happened was probably executed themselves for allowing it to occur and putting them in a bad position.