Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Crime solving 101.
What I have asked thus far and it not been answered (and please stop using bias when pretending to talk about confirmation bias, they are two entirely different things)
What REASON what MOTIVE do you have that evidence supports for the Ramsey's doing this?
Follow it all the way through with EVIDENCE Not suspicion and made up mumbo jumbo and emotional projection, but actual evidence.
What motive and where is the evidence to support that motive?
If your argument is that the Ramseys are psycopaths, great so what evidence do you have?
Was it a sex game perversion OK what evidence do you have?
Was it an accident that was covered up? Ok what evidence do you have?
What you all have is a bag of miss matched bits of evidence that halfway support any number of accusations but never entirely support one whole.
And that's good enough for people working with confirmation bias.
It's not good enough for me. Or have you forgotten how the court systems in this country work? Innocent until proven guilty.
That's why they have never been arrested.
We can all go on forever as forum participants with what each of us considers his/her reason and motive for the R's committing this crime. None of our opinions matter to LE, and since they are the ones who must bring forth a prosecution of this crime, we really should just defer to them to provide the REASON AND MOTIVE if an arrest is made.
Here is some interesting copy from PMPT, pg 475 following the information about the police accepting pro bono legal help while working on the case as the relationship with the DA's office had become compromised: "It was a relief to the police to have their own attorneys. Like Caplis, these attorneys had no agenda of their own. The police could now get an objective opinion about whether they had a case against the Ramseys or should move on.
The FBI had told the detectives that they had enough evidence for probable cause, but now Eller, Like Hunter, wanted to know if they had enough to
convict beyond a reasonable doubt."
Doesn't this indicate that LE, even if they might not have known the real REASON AND MOTIVE at that point in time, knew there was enough
evidence to consider the Ramseys could be charged?
And doesn't it also point out that Hunter, with even the slightest bit of challenge in front of him, would not have pursued a prosecution unless the grand jury would have handed him the R's on a silver platter? He had LE in his corner with evidence, and yet his own fear of failure in the courtroom was the downfall of any hope of justice for JB.
There was/is enough evidence in the hands of LE to deem the Ramseys culpable. There should have been an arrest. The FBI knew it, the detectives knew it, and believe it or not, even the Ramsey lawyers expected it - according to this from PMPT, pg 485: "In fact, the Ramseys' attorneys had,
from the very beginning, treated their clients as if they were guilty."
One man had the ability to put this case in the tank, and that is exactly what happened. Sad, so so sad.
Now, here is something else from PMPT, pg 486:
"Under Colorado law, any citizen can challenge the decision of the District Attorney in a particular case by filing a motion to compel prosecution." Would this mean that this could be done in the JBR case, since the DA declined to call for an indictment? Has too much time gone by?
