Yes, everything I said was IMO. But, I stand firm in my belief that "disbelief in IDI is the only thing RDI has in common." Of course, I realize things aren’t as simple or b&w as that, but...
RDI is composed of PDI, JDI, BDI, and every permutation of those that one can think of, so when you strip it all away what you’re left with is "disbelief in IDI.” Some, a Docg for example, base their theories on this belief. it is a common theme.
It certainly isnt as black and white as that, for sure! Nothing in this case is. And as far as disbelief in IDI being a common theme among RDI, isn't disbelief in RDI the common theme among IDI? And see, I'm not making a blanket statement, I'm asking a question.
Who wrote the note? Some think Mrs Ramsey wrote the note, some think Mr Ramsey wrote the note, some think Mr Ramsey dictated it to Mrs Ramsey, some think one of them wrote it without the other’s knowledge. Some think the note was a message from one Ramsey to the other... etc. So, what’s the commonality? No IDI.
The disbelief in IDI is the direct result of the evidence and where many of us believe it leads. On this board at least I think it's fair to say that a majority of RDIs believed in the Rs innocence at first. Some, like me, believed it for years, b/c despite MSM and the Rs themselves reporting that they were "under suspicion," neither ever really backed up those claims as to why that suspicion existed. And Dodie brings up a very valid point. Refusing to cooperate, and "muddying the waters" doesn't make LE and the public believe your sincere about finding the perpetrator. Having a lawyer is not the issue. Willingness to talk with police in a timely manner is critical in these types of cases. Complete cooperation in a timely manner would have gone a long way in proving their innocence. Not brokering deals in exchange for those interviews, and waiting 4 months to talk with investigators before doing so does not make one look innocent. They have to be cleared regardless of how distasteful the experience is, it has to be done, period. For example there was a discussion the other day about the broken window as a possible point of entry, and the way so many of the "details" were explained in the Rs later statements versus what was said initially. I believe it may have been you (??) who commented that they couldn't be accused of not being forth coming, b/c they relayed the information during their interviews. IA that initially some details could be forgotten or even minimized due to the emotions of the situation, but this is exactly why LE wants to interview immediately, and for as long as it takes. Instead there was never before Info revealed much later, such as the clever chair, and Johns "observance" of strange vehicles in the neighborhood. Those things could have been jumped on immediately, it does very little to forward the investigation when such info is revealed 18 months after the crime. Kolar discusses these opportunies lost, and laments that we'll never know if that info could have proved useful.
Instead of cooperating with police the Rs preferred to go on TV, issue press releases and assemble a team whose main goal was "keeping them out of jail," all while creating a narrative that can never be disputed in a court of law.
I think the bulk of the investigation and evidence gathering was done in Thomas’ time. He may not know the details of what went on with the grand jury, but he certainly would have known, beforehand, much of what was presented to them! Seriously. Most of what would have happened after Thomas left was probably DNA related, and neither Thomas nor Kolar were affected by that.
Indeed, I’d bet money that Kolar’s theory wasn’t influenced by anything that Thomas wasn’t already aware of. If so, what could it be? What piece of evidence (excluding DNA) do you think Kolar saw that Thomas didn’t? I think that piece of evidence would have to be pretty significant because the difference between the two theories is pretty significant. But, I don’t think any such piece of evidence exists. I think these two guys looked at pretty much the same thing and they both saw it in a different way. The only thing they really agreed on was disbelief in IDI.
.
I disagree that Kolar didn't learn anything new, or that despite being excluded from the GJ proceedings Thomas knew what went on. Sure he had a good idea, but he didn't know what was presented as evidence, or more importantly what potential new info was gleaned from testimony.
Thomas never considers Burke's potential involvement. He was never considered, or looked at by anyone in the investigation. Thomas stated this during Larry King. Kolar writes, "My review of the investigation revealed that little attention had been paid to Burke Ramsey’s possible involvement in the events of December 25th and 26th." Bill Nagal admits this to Kolar, and goes on to say how LW "campaigned" Hunter to exonerate Burke. And Gov Owens prodded the DAs office to respond to Kolar's 2nd attempt to get Lacy to consider his theory. her reply to Kolar was scathing as you know, as you recently posted it to discredit him. But what I found more interesting in that letter was that amid her condemnation she clearly illustrates that she had little interest in advancing the case to begin with.
I hired you as my Chief Investigator in July 2005. At that time, we discussed your role regarding the Ramsey case. I was clear in my direction to you that we would follow-up leads from law enforcement and other credible sources that had indicia of reliability. That decision was based upon recent history that involved Chief Investigator Bennett having to spend an inordinate amount of time responding to leads that were marginal at best. We made a deliberate decision to put our investigatory priorities on recent cases. You obviously disregarded my direction. You proceeded without my approval and without consulting with me. You were clearly acting outside of your defined role. Finally, I need to remind you that as of the date of your resignation from the Boulder District Attorney’s Office, you are no longer protected by any immunity from civil litigation based on your conduct as an investigator. I recommend that you discuss your unauthorized activities with the City of Telluride’s Risk Management Office to determine what if any liability you current employer might have as a result of your activities.
So in Lacy's view leads from her own lead investigator don't rise to "indicia of reliability?" Why is that? Is she actually saying that Bennett brought leads to her attention developed by law enforcement, and that they were "marginal at best?" All he asked was to explore the possibility of new info. He never claimed, "arrest these people, they're guilty as hell, lock 'em up before they kill again!" And then taken directly from the Rs play book, she throws in the threat of him being sued
RDI’s are expected to present a more detailed theory because RDI claim to know who committed the crime. When IDI have an identified suspect then they will share the same burden. Some IDI have a firm suspect, Karr for example. Those IDI are expected, and are continually demanded, to provide a detailed description of every aspect of this case, too.
This has nothing to do with RDI, and it is not a special burden put upon you that others are exempt from. It is a burden out on those who accuse and/or condemn another for committing a horrendous act. It’s a very serious accusation, and that sort of accusation – against anyone – is a weighty thing, and should carry a heavy burden.
(excuse errors; rushed... )
...
AK
Stating "RDIs claim to know who committed this crime" is an over simplification. Most believe (sorry if I'm speaking for anyone who doesn't hold this view) there was family involvement. And yes, the specifics vary, as they do with IDI. We theorize based on what we know--not a lot--and that's about it. It's all any of us can do regardless of what theory we believe in. Someone commented elsewhere that it all comes down to finding credibility in one set of evidence versus the other. We're not in a court of law here, as RDI I don't have the burden of beyond a reasonable doubt, yet we're treated as if we need to operate under that constraint. I don't have all the answers, nor does anyone else. Barring a confession--and even then--we'll never know the whole story. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask IDI to be held to the same standards as is expected of RDI. Replying, "it's not a theory, I'm just throwing it out there," is exactly what RDI is doing. As far as RDI being a serious accusation, well IMO, they have no one to blame but themselves