Do I sense a condescending tone? Arrogant much? How charming...
You know what? Your tone is condescending. Did you spend years and your own money investigating this case, and then write a book about it? I think not. SuperDave and I are tired of all the falsehoods spread around by the IDIs.
There are things that are known facts about Alex Hunter and we get told they are not true. We get told he was the most honorable District Attorney ever. Yeah, right, maybe do some real research into how is office was run in the 1980s and 1990s, and you'll get a whole different view. I know, I lived through some of his mistakes. The real reason Steve Thomas resigned is because of the way Alex Hunter ran his office. Not because he wanted Patsy to be tried for the murder of JonBenet. I have sat back for the last four months and read this carp, and frankly I am sick of it. I am sick of watching one poster after another get "alerted" on because they stand up to one of the IDIs. It's beyond anything I have ever seen in my life.
Meanwhile, the IDIs get to name people as suspects who have been cleared. Karr, Santa Bill, and the list goes on and on. The only problem with that is, those cleared suspects weren't named in either of the indictments, the Ramseys were. Santa Bill is dead now, probably because of all the stress that knowing this family caused him. He can't defend himself. Put yourself in his wife's shoes. How would you feel?
I've seen a good friend of John Ramsey named in a blog (he was named as the writer of the ransom "book" and maybe even as JB's murderer), that was linked to this website. A friend who was in Mississippi at the time of the murder, but yet, he was still maimed because of the someone being irresponsible. It just sickens me.
But, what sickens me more, is to watch one poster after another just shake their heads and leave the debate because of one or two posters. There are those of us who personally know some of the people that have been maimed by the IDIs, but we can't say anything about our relationship with these people because that would be considered "baiting." But yet, the IDIs can bait. It's not fair, and it's not fair that the RDIs are held to a different standard of evidence than the IDIs.
If you wanted a speculative "likelihood" based on assumptions made by anonymous sources in 1999, then you shouldn't have asked.