Svetlana Aronov: Missing Woman ( and dog) in NYC
Every9man
Nothing much new.
Barbara
WHERE IS MY WIFE?
By IKIMULISA SOCKWELL-MASON and MURRAY WEISS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SVETLANA ARONOV
March 6, 2003 -- The husband of a missing Upper East Side book dealer made an
impassioned plea yesterday for help in finding his wife.
"If you might think you know anything . . . please call and contact the
police," said distraught physician Alexander Aronov, whose wife, Svetlana,
disappeared Monday as she walked her father's dog on tony York Avenue.
"It's devastating. I feel terrible," he said, adding: "I'm just living in a
parallel universe. Nothing is normal."
Cops yesterday had no leads into Svetlana Aronov's disappearance - and have
gotten no ransom demands.
The 44-year-old importer of rare Russian books had no known enemies, and her
family life seemed placid, police sources said.
"Nothing at all in her life, in my life, would hint at this or would point to
this event," said Alexander, who said he was married to Svetlana for 25 years.
"We go out together. We travel together. This is totally, shockingly out of the
ordinary."
When asked if he was nervous, he said: "Extremely is putting it mildly. It's
getting worse actually."
Svetlana Aronov was last seen at about 2 p.m. leaving her family's home at York
Avenue and East 62nd Street to walk her father's cocker spaniel, Bim.
It is not known where she went with the pooch, but when she failed to pick up
her father, Anatoly Byzov, at JFK Airport later that day - and had not turned
up by 10 p.m. - her husband called cops.
Bloodhounds tracked the mother of two's scent up York Avenue to 68th Street,
where it vanished.
Police sources said they believe it is unlikely she was abducted against her
will, because that would have caused a major commotion at the busy
intersection. They also doubt a violent abductor would have taken the dog.
Sources said detectives think she might have been lured into a vehicle,
possibly by someone she knew.
Cops say they don't believe Alexander Aronov had any hand in his wife's
disappearance.
"He's been completely cooperative," a police source said. "If he's involved,
he's giving an Academy Award-winning performance."
Meanwhile, Dr. Aronov, sounding desperate, went to the media. He said talking
publicly made him feel better because he felt he was doing something to find
his wife.
"Things have been going very well the last several years," said Aronov, who
moved with his wife from Russia in the early 1990s.
"We were living the life we imagined in America. We were fulfilling our
dreams."
Phoenix
mu.aol.com>, ever...@aol.com says...
Note the contrast between Dr. Aronov and Scott
Peterson's behavior. Not that there's any
hard paradigm for spousal demeanor after a
woman goes missing, but any man wanting to
find his wife (and believes she's possibly
still alive) will probably act a lot more like
Dr. Aranov.
bel
>
>
>
>
Karen
"Phoenix" <avian...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.18d1a344...@news-server.carolina.rr.com...
I noticed that, too! The difference is striking, isn't it?
Every9man
Yeah, if only there was a Grieved Spouse Handbook we'd be better equipped.
No, you're right, this is the *normal* way to react, and no it doesnt mean
anything in terms of the guilt or innocence.
I wonder if the police have asked to search the house and whether they've asked
Mr. Aranov to take a polygraph.
This is so weird, I dont know if Etan Patz was ever found but I think a sudden
disappearance is not the norm even in this crazy city.
Barbara
SageJelly
>possibly by someone she knew.
That sounds like the most reasonable guess to me, and hopefully this will help
them narrow down the list a bit. After all, there can't be that many people
from whom she would be willing to accept a ride, particularly if she was out
walking her dog, since that would mean she would have to put the dog in the
person's car (and not everyone likes that).
Fancy
Every9man <ever...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030306174147...@mb-mu.aol.com...
said 2:00 so it makes it one hour before Dr. Aronov's stepmother showed up.
Just wanted to clear things up and not mix up but other newspaper did say it
was 2:20, not me :-)
Fancy
Starword
"Every9man" wrote:
> >From: Phoenix
> >Note the contrast between Dr. Aronov and Scott
> >Peterson's behavior. Not that there's any
> >hard paradigm for spousal demeanor after a
> >woman goes missing, but any man wanting to
> >find his wife (and believes she's possibly
> >still alive) will probably act a lot more like
> >Dr. Aranov.
> Yeah, if only there was a Grieved Spouse Handbook we'd be better equipped.
> No, you're right, this is the *normal* way to react, and no it doesnt mean
> anything in terms of the guilt or innocence.
> I wonder if the police have asked to search the house and whether they've
asked
> Mr. Aranov to take a polygraph.
I'm sorry, I'm missing something here...how is that you and Bel think Scott
Peterson is behaving differently from Dr. Aranov? I heard Peterson made
tearful appeals for his wife's return on camera and gave tearful media
interviews. I saw a couple of them. I heard, initially, he cooperated fully
w/ the police and talked w/ them repeatedly. Only when he fell under
increasing suspicion did he reportedly retreat from voluntary interviews w/
police, etc. and break off communications w/ his wife's family.
I just don't see how Peterson's early behavior differed much from this NYC
husband, whose wife has only been missing since the beginning of the week.
> This is so weird, I dont know if Etan Patz was ever found but I think a
sudden
> disappearance is not the norm even in this crazy city.
No, Etan was never found. I just read something on his case last summer. In
May 2001, Etan's parents, Julie and Stan, went to a Manhattan court to have
their son declared legally dead. The judge issued the death certificate,
dated the day of his disappearance (May 27, 1979).
Etan's disappearance has now been linked pretty decisively to convicted
pedaphile Antonio Jose Ramos, now serving time in a Pa. prison on child
molestation charges in another case. How the connection was made in this
very, very old and very tragic case w/ no activity on it for many years is
actually quite fascinating. I'd be happy to share more of the details w/ you
and the NG, if you're (or anyone else is) interested.
In regard to your comment, however, which I assume is in reference to how a
person can be snatched off a busy Manhattan street w/ no one seeing or
hearing anything out of the ordinary, I notice the Aranov investigation is
operating on the premise that she was lured somehow off the street, possibly
by someone she knows. In the Patz disappearance, if Ramos is guilty (and
there's compelling evidence against him), it seems a similar tactic was
used. Ramos told police "off-the-record" that he approached Etan, telling
him he lost his dog and would pay Etan $5 if he helped him search for the
dog and that Etan quickly agreed to help and went off w/ Ramos. But Ramos
claims he only kept Etan w/ him for a "few hours" at his apartment, where he
gave him a glass of juice and "held him on his lap w/o hurting him a little
while." He claims Etan then asked to go home and Ramos says he returned Etan
to the sidewalk where he picked him up and has no idea what happened to the
little boy after that. (Yeah, right!) An old cell mate of Ramos' claims
Ramos bragged to him of killing Etan, saying he put the body somewhere it
would never be found.
Ramos later recanted his story and has refused to cooperate further. Police
lack sufficient evidence to bring charges, and the case has stalled in the
water again. When the Patz' first heard of Ramos' claims of luring Etan away
w/o resistance, they rejected it, insisting Etan would never go willingly w/
a stranger. But experts in the area of child abduction have proven again and
again how easy it is for con artists of this type to convince a child to go
w/ them willingly. Parents who would swear up and down their children are
well-trained and absolutely no better than to go off w/ a stranger, no
matter what the story, have been shocked to see on videotape how easily an
expert using abductor's tactics was able to lure their child off.
Since that time, the Patzes obviously have come to terms w/ the reality that
Etan is dead and was most likely lured, molested and murdered by Jose Ramos.
The main reason they sought a legal declaration of death was so that they
could bring a wrongful death civil suit against Ramos. He has no assets, but
a convinction of wrongful death could be used against him when he comes up
for parole in 2005. In bringing the suit, the Patzes stated, if nothing
else, they want to insure that Ramos remains behind bars the rest of his
life.
KimStar
Every9man
The New York Post is a rag, you cant depend on the *facts* that they publish--I
came across it before I came across the Times and the News.
Sorry:)
Barbara
BethF
"Starword" <star...@attbiNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:ke5aa.392878$vm2.293146@rwcrnsc54...
> Etan's disappearance has now been linked pretty decisively to convicted
> pedaphile Antonio Jose Ramos, now serving time in a Pa. prison on child
> molestation charges in another case. How the connection was made in this
> very, very old and very tragic case w/ no activity on it for many years is
> actually quite fascinating. I'd be happy to share more of the details w/
you
> and the NG, if you're (or anyone else is) interested.
oooh ooh, yes please.
Patty
>
>
> > >From: Phoenix
> > >Note the contrast between Dr. Aronov and Scott
> > >Peterson's behavior. Not that there's any
> > >hard paradigm for spousal demeanor after a
> > >woman goes missing, but any man wanting to
> > >find his wife (and believes she's possibly
> > >still alive) will probably act a lot more like
> > >Dr. Aranov.
>
> > No, you're right, this is the *normal* way to react, and no it doesnt mean
> > anything in terms of the guilt or innocence.
> > I wonder if the police have asked to search the house and whether they've
> asked
> > Mr. Aranov to take a polygraph.
>
> I'm sorry, I'm missing something here...how is that you and Bel think Scott
> Peterson is behaving differently from Dr. Aranov? I heard Peterson made
> tearful appeals for his wife's return on camera and gave tearful media
> interviews. I saw a couple of them. I heard, initially, he cooperated fully
> w/ the police and talked w/ them repeatedly. Only when he fell under
> increasing suspicion did he reportedly retreat from voluntary interviews w/
> police, etc. and break off communications w/ his wife's family.
>
> I just don't see how Peterson's early behavior differed much from this NYC
> husband, whose wife has only been missing since the beginning of the week.
Sorry but Scott didn't do that in the first days after his wife went
missing. He made one appeal on Dec 26th on camera. Unfortunately I
didn't get to see it and it has not been replayed. I live in the Bay
Area and my sister saw it and said he spoke very matter of factly, no
emotion, no tears. My sister couldn't believe it and even at that
time she believed he was innocent, and still carries some doubt if
he's guilty. I think he is, and my sister will say "but how could he
kill his own child."
He didn't start doing media interviews until after it came out that he
had had an affair and he thought he needed to do some damage control.
In fact I believe the interviews were after Amber made her appearance
on camera. Early on, most of what we heard about Scott's behavior
were from the Rochas who were standing by him at that time.
Patty
Every9man
>"Every9man" wrote:
>
>> >From: Phoenix
>> >Note the contrast between Dr. Aronov and Scott
>> >Peterson's behavior. Not that there's any
>> >hard paradigm for spousal demeanor after a
>> >woman goes missing, but any man wanting to
>> >find his wife (and believes she's possibly
>> >still alive) will probably act a lot more like
>> >Dr. Aranov.
>
>> Yeah, if only there was a Grieved Spouse Handbook we'd be better equipped.
>> No, you're right, this is the *normal* way to react, and no it doesnt
>mean
>> anything in terms of the guilt or innocence.
>> I wonder if the police have asked to search the house and whether they've
>asked
>> Mr. Aranov to take a polygraph.
>
>I'm sorry, I'm missing something here...how is that you and Bel think Scott
>Peterson is behaving differently from Dr. Aranov? I heard Peterson made
>tearful appeals for his wife's return on camera and gave tearful media
>interviews. I saw a couple of them. I heard, initially, he cooperated fully
>w/ the police and talked w/ them repeatedly. Only when he fell under
>increasing suspicion did he reportedly retreat from voluntary interviews
>w/
>police, etc. and break off communications w/ his wife's family.
I'm at a disadvantage Kim. I wasnt focussing on this story until it heated up
and all I really have to go on are the reports I've heard from posters here who
I think have a good record of credibilty in reporting any facts in the news.
Perhaps I shouldnt have.
>I just don't see how Peterson's early behavior differed much from this NYC
>husband, whose wife has only been missing since the beginning of the week.
>
>> This is so weird, I dont know if Etan Patz was ever found but I think
>a
>sudden
>> disappearance is not the norm even in this crazy city.
>
>No, Etan was never found. I just read something on his case last summer.
>In
>May 2001, Etan's parents, Julie and Stan, went to a Manhattan court to have
>their son declared legally dead. The judge issued the death certificate,
>dated the day of his disappearance (May 27, 1979).
Thank you so much for the update on Etan. I recall the atmosphere here when he
disappeared, the total disbelief. In one of the news stories I read the
reporter said something like , as weird as this town is this is over the top.
I dont think it's necessarily true because all we ever find out about are the
stories that the media deem important enough for us to read about and just like
anything else I wouldnt be surprised if they left out stories that just dont
have the *bizazz* of these two.
skeptic that I am.
>Etan's disappearance has now been linked pretty decisively to convicted
>pedaphile Antonio Jose Ramos, now serving time in a Pa. prison on child
>molestation charges in another case. How the connection was made in this
>very, very old and very tragic case w/ no activity on it for many years
>is
>actually quite fascinating. I'd be happy to share more of the details w/
>you
>and the NG, if you're (or anyone else is) interested.
Sure, I'd love to know more.
>
>In regard to your comment, however, which I assume is in reference to how
>a
>person can be snatched off a busy Manhattan street w/ no one seeing or
>hearing anything out of the ordinary, I notice the Aranov investigation
>is
>operating on the premise that she was lured somehow off the street, possibly
>by someone she knows.
It makes the most sense mainly because the dog disappeared as well and no one
seems interested in my *theory* of how it could still have been a kidnapping
with the dog still missing >G<.
In the Patz disappearance, if Ramos is guilty (and
>there's compelling evidence against him), it seems a similar tactic was
>used.
Oh I'm convinced that one can *grab* someone off the street easiliy here with
or without dog.
The sad thing is that even if someone notices it wouldnt be unlikely if they
did nothing and didnt want to become involved.
I forget the name of the woman out in Queens who screamed loud enough for
everyone in the neighborhood to hear and no one did anything to help out of
the same concern? It was ghastly.
OOOOPS! instead of retyping--it was Kitty Genovese. ( ( ah ! victory no matter
how fleeing, over advancing Alzheimers:{
Ramos told police "off-the-record" that he approached Etan, telling
>him he lost his dog and would pay Etan $5 if he helped him search for the
>dog and that Etan quickly agreed to help and went off w/ Ramos. But Ramos
>claims he only kept Etan w/ him for a "few hours" at his apartment, where
>he
>gave him a glass of juice and "held him on his lap w/o hurting him a little
>while." He claims Etan then asked to go home and Ramos says he returned
>Etan
>to the sidewalk where he picked him up and has no idea what happened to
>the
>little boy after that. (Yeah, right!)
Even moi, who is willing to give almost anyone the benefit of the doubt, dont
buy that one.
An old cell mate of Ramos' claims
>Ramos bragged to him of killing Etan, saying he put the body somewhere it
>would never be found.
>
>Ramos later recanted his story and has refused to cooperate further. Police
>lack sufficient evidence to bring charges, and the case has stalled in the
>water again. When the Patz' first heard of Ramos' claims of luring Etan
>away
>w/o resistance, they rejected it, insisting Etan would never go willingly
>w/
>a stranger. But experts in the area of child abduction have proven again
>and
>again how easy it is for con artists of this type to convince a child to
>go
>w/ them willingly. Parents who would swear up and down their children are
>well-trained and absolutely no better than to go off w/ a stranger, no
>matter what the story, have been shocked to see on videotape how easily
>an
>expert using abductor's tactics was able to lure their child off.
Yes, it's frighteningly true, parents let a false sense of security creep in
mostly out of a need IMO of not having to be on guard all the time. Obviously
it would be impossible.
It's also one of the reason's I dont like Megan's Law, I think it gives a false
sense of security, being that IMO most of the abuse happens at home.
>Since that time, the Patzes obviously have come to terms w/ the reality
>that
>Etan is dead and was most likely lured, molested and murdered by Jose Ramos.
>The main reason they sought a legal declaration of death was so that they
>could bring a wrongful death civil suit against Ramos. He has no assets,
>but
>a convinction of wrongful death could be used against him when he comes
>up
>for parole in 2005.
You mean of course assuming they win? Or just because of the information that
could be used with the Parole Board which is far less than what would be needed
to find him guilty and actually, the same goes for the lower standard
used to find him *liable* in a trial.
In bringing the suit, the Patzes stated, if nothing
>else, they want to insure that Ramos remains behind bars the rest of his
>life.
I can understand that. I wonder what if any treatment he's getting . I imagine
none.
Barbara
>
>KimStar
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Kris Baker
"Patty" <eartha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f0e77308.03030...@posting.google.com...
> "Starword" <star...@attbiNOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:ke5aa.392878$vm2.293146@rwcrnsc54...
> >
> > tearful appeals for his wife's return on camera and gave tearful media
> > interviews. I saw a couple of them. I heard, initially, he cooperated
fully
> > w/ the police and talked w/ them repeatedly. Only when he fell under
> > increasing suspicion did he reportedly retreat from voluntary interviews
w/
> > police, etc. and break off communications w/ his wife's family.
> >
> > I just don't see how Peterson's early behavior differed much from this
NYC
> > husband, whose wife has only been missing since the beginning of the
week.
>
>
> Sorry but Scott didn't do that in the first days after his wife went
> missing. He made one appeal on Dec 26th on camera.
> He didn't start doing media interviews until after it came out that he
> had had an affair and he thought he needed to do some damage control.
> In fact I believe the interviews were after Amber made her appearance
> on camera. Early on, most of what we heard about Scott's behavior
> were from the Rochas who were standing by him at that time.
>
> Patty
Patty is absolutely correct.
If you listen to the Peterson family mouthpieces (some of whom seem
to have landed here recently), you'll hear things like "He's been totally
cooperative".
If you listen to LE, however, you'll find that Scott *has* talked to them
when they've asked him to, but the best characterization has been
"he's not been entirely forthcoming". In other words, LE obviously
has some information, and Scott won't explain or even discuss it.
Kris
Starword
"Every9man wrote:
> >From: "Starword"
> >I'm sorry, I'm missing something here...how is that you and Bel think
Scott
> >Peterson is behaving differently from Dr. Aranov? I heard Peterson made
> >tearful appeals for his wife's return on camera and gave tearful media
> >interviews. I saw a couple of them. I heard, initially, he cooperated
fully
> >w/ the police and talked w/ them repeatedly. Only when he fell under
> >increasing suspicion did he reportedly retreat from voluntary interviews
> >w/ police, etc. and break off communications w/ his wife's family.
> I'm at a disadvantage Kim. I wasnt focussing on this story until it heated
up
> and all I really have to go on are the reports I've heard from posters
here who
> I think have a good record of credibilty in reporting any facts in the
news.
> Perhaps I shouldnt have.
Well, I don't know because I haven't seen any of the posts. I haven't looked
at the NG in a few months, and thought I'd drop in today to see if anyone
knows what's up w/ the Laci Peterson investigation. But what I did hear is
that, initially, Scott seemed very forthcoming and cooperative...he joined
in several of the ground searches and staffed the command center on various
days. He talked extensively to the police and w/ family. He went on camera
weeping and pleading for his wife's safe return.
AFAIK, the police didn't suspect him until the info about the secret
girlfriend and the life insurance policy he took out conveniently on his
wife last June turned up. The relationship w/ him and the police and Laci's
family chilled considerably after that.
Now I'm 98% convinced Peterson is guilty, and I'm not saying I suspect Dr.
Aranov in his wife's disappearance (although this is the first I've heard of
the story...just today). I guess my only point is, I don't think, from what
I read, the Aranov husband is acting much differently than Scott Peterson
was in the first days following his wife's disappearance....or from Susan
Smith in the days following her children's (false) reported kidnapping.
I'm just saying...it's too early to say anything definitively, I think.
> >> This is so weird, I dont know if Etan Patz was ever found but I think
> >a sudden
> >> disappearance is not the norm even in this crazy city.
> >No, Etan was never found. I just read something on his case last summer.
> >In
> >May 2001, Etan's parents, Julie and Stan, went to a Manhattan court to
have
> >their son declared legally dead. The judge issued the death certificate,
> >dated the day of his disappearance (May 25, 1979).
> Thank you so much for the update on Etan. I recall the atmosphere here
when he
> disappeared, the total disbelief. In one of the news stories I read the
> reporter said something like , as weird as this town is this is over the
top.
> I dont think it's necessarily true because all we ever find out about are
the
> stories that the media deem important enough for us to read about and just
like
> anything else I wouldnt be surprised if they left out stories that just
dont
> have the *bizazz* of these two.
> skeptic that I am.
Call me a skeptic than, too, cuz I'm w/ you on that!
> >Etan's disappearance has now been linked pretty decisively to convicted
> >pedaphile Jose Antonio Ramos, now serving time in a Pa. prison on child
> >molestation charges in another case. How the connection was made in this
> >very, very old and very tragic case w/ no activity on it for many years
> >is
> >actually quite fascinating. I'd be happy to share more of the details w/
> >you
> >and the NG, if you're (or anyone else is) interested.
> Sure, I'd love to know more.
Since you and Beth express interest, I'll give you both a quick run-down.
In the early 1990s, Stuart GraBois, who had been the lead investigator in
the DA's office on the Patz case, and who had been haunted, almost obsessed,
w/ the case of the beautiful little missing boy who was never found, was
going over some arrest reports in old cases one afternoon. He found one on a
man who was caught luring young boys off a playground in a residential
neighborhood in one of the burroughs. The man was Jose Antonio Ramos. When
the police picked him up, he was off in one of those giant storm drainage
pipes w/ a little blond boy, about 6. The boy told police Ramos was trying
to get him to pull his pants down. Neighbors close to the playground said
they had seen Ramos hanging around there for months and noted that he
approached several boys about the same age as the one he was caught w/ and
who had blond or blondish hair.
Etan was very blond and was 6 when he disappeared. GraBois' sixth sense told
him it could be significant and he ran Ramos' on the computer. There was a
long list of complaints lodged against him related to pedaphilic behavior
involving young boys. A very early one was from a Hispanic woman in the late
1970s who said Ramos was her bf for several months until her young son told
her Ramos had molested him several times. She had charges brought against
him, but they were later thrown out in court. The woman moved and got a
restraining order against Ramos, charging that he was stalking her and her
son. The restraining order was granted. The woman's name rang a vague bell
for GraBois. He was sure he'd heard it before and thought it was somehow
connected to the Patz investigation. He pulled the old file and ran through
a list of people questioned, which was extensive. The woman's name was on
the list. GraBois said, when he saw her name, the hairs on the back of his
neck stood up.
The woman was listed as someone who had done occasional child care for the
Patzes. She was picked up by police and brought in for questioning. Under
heavy interrogation, she broke down in tears and made an astonishing
confession. She had moved w/ her son to keep Ramos away from them, since the
case was thrown out. During the time she was doing child care for the
Patzes, she says there were several occasions when she saw Ramos out of the
corner of her eye as she entered and left the Patz' building. On some of
these occasions, she was taking Etan and his two sisters to the park down
the street. Her instinct told her Ramos was watching for her to leave the
apartment and followed them. She assumed he wanted to follow her home to see
where she lived. The woman stopped working for the Patzes several months
before Etan disappeared, and eventually Ramos ceased to appear where she
went. When Etan disappeared, some time later, all sitters who had worked for
them were questioned. She told police at the later interview that she
suspected all along that Ramos might be responsible because she knew he had
seen Etan w/ her and felt he was the type of child Ramos might prey upon.
But she said she kept it to herself in fear she might somehow be implicated
herself if she told them anything about Ramos. Had she spoken up at the
time, Ramos might have been investigated when there was still evidence
against him and might have prevented other children being harmed in the
interim. Additionally, she could have saved Etan's parents many years of
agonizing wondering where Etan was and what might have happened to him.
Since the time of the arrest GraBois learned of, Ramos had moved to Pa. and
had been charged w/ and convicted of molesting a young boy there. He's
currently serving a long sentence in a prison there. NYC authorities
arranged a pretense for bringing him to their jurisdiction, under the guise
of talking to him about crimes other people had been accused of and for
which he might gain a reduction in his sentence if he cooperated. Of course
it was all a ruse just to get him in custody to question him about Etan.
While he was in their custody, the subject of Etan came up and they showed
Ramos pictures of the child. Ramos refused to talk on the record, but said
he had taken a little boy who looked like Etan from around that same
neighborhood back to his place. He said he used the lure of a money offer to
help look for his lost dog and that the boy went cheerfully. As I said in my
earlier post, Ramos insists he gave Etan a drink of juice and held him on
his lap for a little while, and that's all that happened and that he never
harmed him. When Etan asked to return home, Ramos claims he escorted Etan
back to the place he had met him, was assured by Etan the boy could find his
way home and they parted. Ramos said that a few days later, he saw Etan's
picture in the newspapers and on the TV and that he was missing from his
SoHo neighborhood. He thought the boy he had brought home might be Etan, and
says he assumed that something else must've happened to him after they
parted. But Ramos said he chose not to report what he knew to the police,
for fear of drawing suspicion on himself.
When police tried to force a confession out of him, Ramos "shut down",
refused to say anything further and later recanted the entire story. But
detectives questioned two former cell mates of Ramos', and both reported
that Ramos had spoke of the Patz kidanpping and bragged of how the body
would never be found. One cell mate shared details he says Ramos told him
about the crime that were consistent w/ specifics in the Patz disappearance,
not all of which were made public.
Police did not have enough to hold Ramos on, and returned him to the Pa.
prison. Some time later, an ABC TV news reporter obtained an exclusive
interview w/ Ramos in which Ramos admitted to the crime, but refused to go
on the record. It was around this time Stan and Julie Patz filed in the
courts to have Etan declared legally dead and made the decision to pursue a
wrongful death suit against Ramos.
If you're curious about other specifics, here's a Yahoo search page that
contains links to the most recent articles I could find on what I've shared
above:
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=%22jose+antonio+ramos%22+%2B+%22etan+patz%2
2
> >In regard to your comment, however, which I assume is in reference to how
> >a
> >person can be snatched off a busy Manhattan street w/ no one seeing or
> >hearing anything out of the ordinary, I notice the Aranov investigation
> >is
> >operating on the premise that she was lured somehow off the street,
possibly
> >by someone she knows.
> It makes the most sense mainly because the dog disappeared as well and no
one
> seems interested in my *theory* of how it could still have been a
kidnapping
> with the dog still missing >G<.
I'm interested! Please elaborate!
> In the Patz disappearance, if Ramos is guilty (and
> >there's compelling evidence against him), it seems a similar tactic was
> >used.
> Oh I'm convinced that one can *grab* someone off the street easiliy here
with
> or without dog.
> The sad thing is that even if someone notices it wouldnt be unlikely if
they
> did nothing and didnt want to become involved.
That's probably true, but it's still much easier to get someone off a busy
street w/o attracting attention if the abductor can devise a strategy for
getting the person to go willingly.
But there are known cases of people being forcibly abducted off a busy
street w/o anyone reporting anything unusual. Ted Bundy lured some of his
victims to get in his car, or near his car, voluntarily, but it's presumed
that wasn't always the case. There are instances which indicated strongly
the victim was taken swiftly by force before she could scream or fight back.
> I forget the name of the woman out in Queens who screamed loud enough for
> everyone in the neighborhood to hear and no one did anything to help out
of
> the same concern? It was ghastly.
> OOOOPS! instead of retyping--it was Kitty Genovese. ( ( ah ! victory no
matter
> how fleeing, over advancing Alzheimers:{
LOL! Yes, it was Kitty Genovese. Horrible, horrible story. But the most
horrible thing in that case was all the people who reported later hearing
the screams, but for some reason, chose not to call police or investigate
themselves. In this case (Aranov), no one is reporting that saw or heard
anything, even though she was last known to be walking in a densely
populated neighborhood on weekday afternoon.
> Ramos told police "off-the-record" that he approached Etan, <snip>
> >while." He claims Etan then asked to go home and Ramos says he returned
> >Etan
> >to the sidewalk where he picked him up and has no idea what happened to
> >the
> >little boy after that. (Yeah, right!)
> Even moi, who is willing to give almost anyone the benefit of the doubt,
dont
> buy that one.
Yeah, how ridiculous. What are the odds the child went off in the morning w/
a pedaphile, but was returned a short time later to the spot where they left
from by the pedaphile, unharmed, and someone else happen to snatch the kid
for other reasons, immediately after that?
What's particularly chilling is, it does seem, in light of what the former
child care provider told police, that Ramos had spotted Etan months earlier,
liked what he saw and was probably stalking the family, unbeknownst to
them...scoping out the situation, watching for when the boy left the house,
waiting, waiting, waiting for a moment to make his depraved move.
It makes a lot more sense than the idea some random pedaphile just
*happened* to be on the street that day, the first and only time Etan walked
the two blocks to the school bus on his own, unaccompanied by a parent. I
always thought that aspect of the story seemed bizarre. It seems far more
logical that this sicko was waiting out in front of the Patz' apartment
building many mornings, just looking for an opportunity to strike. Poor
little thing. Heartbreaking.
> > Parents who would swear up and down their children are
> >well-trained and absolutely no better than to go off w/ a stranger, no
> >matter what the story, have been shocked to see on videotape how easily
> >an
> >expert using abductor's tactics was able to lure their child off.
> Yes, it's frighteningly true, parents let a false sense of security creep
in
> mostly out of a need IMO of not having to be on guard all the time.
Obviously
> it would be impossible.
I think you hit the nail dead on...we tell ourselves all sorts of things to
reassure us that the worst things we imagine can't happen to us simply
because there are circumstances truly beyond anyone's control. We'd go off
the wall if we allowed ourselves to accept the horrible truth that terrible
things can happen and may happen, no matter what we do. Especially where are
children are concerned.
But children are so incredibly vulnerable. Their minds are so innocent, they
really can be conned pretty easily...and their size alone makes them so
vulnerable. It really is necessary to watch them every second and never let
them farther than an arm's length from you to truly protect them from a
predator. And like you say, obviously, no one can do that all the time.
> It's also one of the reason's I dont like Megan's Law, I think it gives a
false
> sense of security, being that IMO most of the abuse happens at home.
Statistically, that's true. But there are pedaphiles out there, and you have
to start somewhere. You have to do what you can to safeguard your children
and your community. We can't go into people's homes, but we might be able to
keep a random predator from victimizing our community...or even our own
kids.
> >Since that time, the Patzes obviously have come to terms w/ the reality
> >that
> >Etan is dead and was most likely lured, molested and murdered by Jose
Ramos.
> >The main reason they sought a legal declaration of death was so that they
> >could bring a wrongful death civil suit against Ramos. He has no assets,
> >but
> >a convinction of wrongful death could be used against him when he comes
> >up
> >for parole in 2005.
> You mean of course assuming they win? Or just because of the information
that
> could be used with the Parole Board which is far less than what would be
needed
> to find him guilty and actually, the same goes for the lower standard
> used to find him *liable* in a trial.
Right. The burden of proof in a wrongful death suit is much lower than in a
criminal case (a preponderence of the evidence, i.e, better than 50-50 vs.
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt---witness OJ Simpson) and a guilty verdict
in the civil suit could be used against Ramos at the time of a parole
hearing to ensure he's denied.
From what I've read, I think the Patzes have sufficient evidence to win a
judgment against Ramos, which would not yield any monetary award---but
that's not why they want it. Even so, the sleazebag will apparently be able
to leave prison in 2015, parole or no parole. I sure wish I could arrange an
"unfortunate" accident for him in prison. It sickens me more than I can say
to think of scum like that free to walk the streets.
> I can understand that. I wonder what if any treatment he's getting . I
imagine
> none.
You mean, psychiatric treatment, for his pedaphilic behavior? I don't know.
Convicted sex offenders are supposed to get treatment for their
predilictions while serving sentence, but I don't know the specific terms
for Ramos' sentence. I also know many of these programs to rehabilitate or
treat sex offenders have been eliminated due to funding cut backs. It's also
true that, while some past offenders can be treated successfully so they
don't strike again after release from prison, the majority of these types
are so deeply entrenched w/ the behavior, nothing can help them. It's part
of who they are, at their core. Very, very sad.
I sure know I would not want to see this creature (Ramos) on the outside
ever again. Sadly, though, unless some natural or unnatural event intervenes
between now and then, that's exactly what will happen in just 12 years.
Horrible.
KimStar
Pocahontas
"SageJelly" <sage...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030306225523...@mb-cf.aol.com...
There are literally 100's of taxis that are around the intersection of York
and 68th all the time. The conjecture among the locals is that she
(willingly) got into a taxi.
Patty
> > >possibly by someone she knew.
> >
> help
> > them narrow down the list a bit. After all, there can't be that many
> people
> > from whom she would be willing to accept a ride, particularly if she was
> out
> > walking her dog, since that would mean she would have to put the dog in
> the
> > person's car (and not everyone likes that).
>
> There are literally 100's of taxis that are around the intersection of York
> and 68th all the time. The conjecture among the locals is that she
> (willingly) got into a taxi.
>
>
Are there unmarked taxis like at the airport?
Patty
Starword
"Kris Baker wrote:
> "Patty" wrote:
Oh, ok. Thanks Patty and Kris. That makes things a lot more clear.
NS
Every9man
You mean the car services, that are only allowed to drop off and pick up their
passengers but a lot them park and go inside with a sign with the passenger's
name on it.
You can get one but not on the street. You have to call for them unless as
happens on occasion one of them picks you up on the street when they're not
supposed to.
They dont just cruise around like regular cabs.
Why?
Barbara
Fancy
Hey no sorry needed by you, lookie what I posted * 2:20 * instead of 2:30,
and I'm not on the rag but sound like it, lol.
Fancy