What about all these 3's?

[MurriFlower]

Please, will one of you explain how it benefits any of us to not want this case solved unless it's a person who can never be prosecuted anyway? I'd really like to hear that.

Well I can't explain it. I'm more inclined to want to find who actually did it.

Oh, unless you've got a book already written where you have 'revealed' the killer?? Perhaps that would be reason.

 

[BBB167893]

Now you know how we feel.

What do you mean "now?" This is nothing new for me. I've been at this a little longer than you have, Murri. I know all about words like "frustration, aggravation" and "disappointment."

Ok, well, you must have a lot of IDI suspects that you've disregarded in favour of RDI.

Quite right! At one time, I considered ANYONE who wasn't a Ramsey.

Nothing new there.

Murri, why do you do these things?

You know, THIS is what makes me laugh whenever someone says that stress wouldn't make PR lash out. I can tell you that it IS! I've only been going back and forth with you and HOTYH for about two or three hours today, and it's enough to make a killer out of me!

 

[BBB167893]

Well I can't explain it. I'm more inclined to want to find who actually did it.

And just WHAT do you think WE want?

Far as I can see, RDI are the only ones who actually GIVE A DAMN about justice for this little angel!

Oh, unless you've got a book already written where you have 'revealed' the killer?? Perhaps that would be reason.

Well, you'd be wrong. Nothing new there.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

The Rs gave an overall classic profile of their intruder. There list even has people looking for anyone they know that might have moved or sold a car right after the crime.... Come on, why would this person need to do either of those things? Its the most ridiculous profile for this case....

This is their profile......

Personality traits that may be recognized by someone that knows an individual who was in Boulder, CO on Christmas day 1996:

Judgmental: strong or persistently expressed opinions about organized religion, capitalism and US participation in global affairs.

Cold: one perceived as capable of acting without compassion that very well may be violent toward others, set fires or killed animals in the past.

Kidnap interest: may have described a fantasy or the risks of what it would be like to abduct someone.

Fascination and fantasy regarding little girls and boys.

Secretive: maintains spaces or possessions he is extremely protective of that is strictly off limits to others.

Bondage: discussed, demonstrated or practiced the construction of garrotes and/or other strangulation devices and body restraints on himself or others.

Stun Gun: having a stun gun and paid excessive attention to it by frequent maintenance, display and practice using it.

Someone that knows the person that took JonBenét’s life may have noticed one or more of the following scenarios following JonBenét’s murder at Christmas 1996:

Superficial wounds: Bruises scrapes or scratches on the face, neck or hands that were unexplained or for which the explanations changed.

Absent: nonattendance at work, church, school or other routine habits or hobbies.

Isolation: a spontaneous trip or sudden need to spend time alone.

Change of physical appearance: sudden new hair style or alteration of facial hair.

Intense interest: following case updates and news releases with heightened attention and focus.

New or used vehicle: abrupt and perhaps seemingly impulsive change in the car or truck he usually drove.

Relocation: a hasty change in geography relating to his living, working or regular friends and hangouts.

Collector of memorabilia: saving images or videos of JonBenét from newspaper, television or the internet

Vengeance: stating or hinting that the Ramsey’s – or JonBenét – are getting what they deserved.

Complimentary toward killer: impressed with perpetrator as a criminal mastermind while attributing great intelligence, skill or even luck.

Possessions: has items that came from the Ramsey home.

This is for SuperDave

In bold are profile characteristics that match this MAAM: secretive, judgemental on capitalism, cold, and an interest in kidnapping.

Do you feel you can disqualify some of these characteristics as invalid? That they are criminal acts and not profile characteristics? Thus rendering the match invalid?

I just want you to be clear on why you chose to first omit parts of my statements and then identify the remainder as common. What was your motive to do that?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

First of all, Holdon, before responding, I'd like to make sure you are finished editing your post. As it happens so often, when I am about to respond to you, you have edited what you originally said before I have a chance to finish (Ok, maybe I am a little slow in responding.). Sometimes your posts have a completely different meaning by the time you finish editing.

Anyway, I'd like to ask where the "well documented profile characteristic of this MAAM" can be found. (I'm glad you changed that part of your original post, because originally it sounded like you were saying that kidnapping was a characteristic of all middle-aged Asian men.) Has this profile been published somewhere? Who compiled it? Douglas? Ressler? McCrary? Turvey? And just who is the MAAM you have in mind? Can you name him, or give us a hint? Or are you in fear that he may be able to seek retribution against you?
.

"because originally it sounded like you were saying that kidnapping was a characteristic of all middle-aged Asian men"

:floorlaugh:

How did it sound like I was saying kidnapping was a characteristic of all middle aged asian men??? Please show the post that you construed this way.

 

[BOESP]

The MAAM matches four out of the first five characteristics. What about that?

Its textbook/cookie cutter straight out of Criminal Psychology and Deviant Behavior 101.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Its textbook/cookie cutter straight out of Criminal Psychology and Deviant Behavior 101.

The profile you'd like to see:

mild mannered facade
wealthy
interested in business and journalism
might have been under holiday stress
might have planned a trip out of state after the holiday

:floorlaugh:

 

[BBB167893]

This is for SuperDave

Aw, a present for me! You shouldn't have.

In bold are profile characteristics that match this MAAM: secretive, judgemental on capitalism, cold, and an interest in kidnapping.

If you say so. Never let it be said that RDI are the only ones with imagination.

Do you feel you can disqualify some of these characteristics as invalid? That they are criminal acts and not profile characteristics? Thus rendering the match invalid?

Is that a trick question? That's kind of my point, HOTYH: it's so elastic, you have a good chance that SOMEONE in Boulder CO that night matches up with it.

I just want you to be clear on why you chose to first omit parts of my statements and then identify the remainder as common. What was your motive to do that?

What was my motive? That's easy: keeping us within reason. I find it hard to believe that there was ever an attempt at kidnapping because it's all wrong. We've certainly covered that before. As for identifying the rest as common, aren't they? Heck, I'm sure people would describe me as cold, judgmental, and secretive. Sometimes I am! That doesn't mean I killed her.

 

[BBB167893]

OK, SD, relax.

Don't tell me to relax. In the last few hours, I've been subjected to absolutely grievous insults, implying that I'm motivated by every base thing from greed to my own ego, everything except the notion that maybe I actually want some justice!

And now you're telling me to relax?

The Rs did it. Feel better?

NO! I don't feel the least bit better! Why on earth do you think that would make me feel better?

That's the part I don't think IDI understands: I don't WANT to be right! I give anything to be wrong! If it turns out I'm right, I'll feel WORSE!

Just for the record, whether or not someone disagrees with me is NOT what has me so mad. I can forgive any insult. What makes me mad is the feeling that IDI care more about arguing with me than they do about JonBenet!

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Then link his crimes so we may all sleuth to see if he was anywhere near or in Boulder that night! Or do you have that proof already? If so, I for one would love to see it.

And no stating you can't link someone. A lot of people have been discussed as potentially being involved. If you have a suspect, state he is a suspect, to you, and tell us who it may be. You don't have to and shouldn't say he is guilty, of course, as you have no proof. Remember, the R's threw anyone and everyone under the bus. If you have a viable suspect, let's sleuth him!

Nope, cant place him in Boulder CO. But he's probably a viable suspect because he matches Douglas and VanZandt profiling remarks and then some.

First of all, Holdon, before responding, I'd like to make sure you are finished editing your post. As it happens so often, when I am about to respond to you, you have edited what you originally said before I have a chance to finish (Ok, maybe I am a little slow in responding.). Sometimes your posts have a completely different meaning by the time you finish editing.

Anyway, I'd like to ask where the "well documented profile characteristic of this MAAM" can be found. (I'm glad you changed that part of your original post, because originally it sounded like you were saying that kidnapping was a characteristic of all middle-aged Asian men.) Has this profile been published somewhere? Who compiled it? Douglas? Ressler? McCrary? Turvey? And just who is the MAAM you have in mind? Can you name him, or give us a hint? Or are you in fear that he may be able to seek retribution against you?
.

Posts are subject to editing however long the forum allows. If you're that worried about it then wait the hour or whatever it is to respond, OK?

Sure, he's mentioned by name on this forum and you already know him as I know him: publicly.

 

[BBB167893]

The profile you'd like to see:

mild mannered facade
wealthy
interested in business and journalism
might have been under holiday stress
might have planned a trip out of state after the holiday

:floorlaugh:

Laugh if you must, HOTYH. You might be interested in what the profilers who had access said.

 

[Toltec]

The MAAM matches four out of the first five characteristics. What about that?

Excuse my ignorance...but what is MAAM?

 

[Agatha_C]

Excuse my ignorance...but what is MAAM?

Middle Aged Asian Man! LOL... I know right!

 

[otg]

"because originally it sounded like you were saying that kidnapping was a characteristic of all middle-aged Asian men"

:floorlaugh:

How did it sound like I was saying kidnapping was a characteristic of all middle aged asian men??? Please show the post that you construed this way.

Obviously, I can't "show" it because you edited it -- TWICE! But in the first edit, you added the word "this" to the sentence. Originally, it said, "Kidnap is a well documented profile characteristic of MAAM. "

The second time you edited it, you added a few more adjectives in the middle of your post, and all the other stuff at the end.

I'm just pointing out that it's not the first time I've noticed your making lots of edits without explanation -- oftentimes changing the meaning of what you originally said.
.

 

[Agatha_C]

Obviously, I can't "show" it because you edited it -- TWICE! But in the first edit, you added the word "this" to the sentence. Originally, it said, "Kidnap is a well documented profile characteristic of MAAM. "

The second time you edited it, you added a few more adjectives in the middle of your post, and all the other stuff at the end.

I'm just pointing out that it's not the first time I've noticed your making lots of edits without explanation -- oftentimes changing the meaning of what you originally said.
.

I read it too Otg and noticed when it changed....

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

The Rs gave an overall classic profile of their intruder. There list even has people looking for anyone they know that might have moved or sold a car right after the crime.... Come on, why would this person need to do either of those things? Its the most ridiculous profile for this case....

This is their profile......

Personality traits that may be recognized by someone that knows an individual who was in Boulder, CO on Christmas day 1996:

Judgmental: strong or persistently expressed opinions about organized religion, capitalism and US participation in global affairs.

Cold: one perceived as capable of acting without compassion that very well may be violent toward others, set fires or killed animals in the past.

Kidnap interest: may have described a fantasy or the risks of what it would be like to abduct someone.

Fascination and fantasy regarding little girls and boys.

Secretive: maintains spaces or possessions he is extremely protective of that is strictly off limits to others.

Bondage: discussed, demonstrated or practiced the construction of garrotes and/or other strangulation devices and body restraints on himself or others.

Stun Gun: having a stun gun and paid excessive attention to it by frequent maintenance, display and practice using it.

Someone that knows the person that took JonBenét’s life may have noticed one or more of the following scenarios following JonBenét’s murder at Christmas 1996:

Superficial wounds: Bruises scrapes or scratches on the face, neck or hands that were unexplained or for which the explanations changed.

Absent: nonattendance at work, church, school or other routine habits or hobbies.

Isolation: a spontaneous trip or sudden need to spend time alone.

Change of physical appearance: sudden new hair style or alteration of facial hair.

Intense interest: following case updates and news releases with heightened attention and focus.

New or used vehicle: abrupt and perhaps seemingly impulsive change in the car or truck he usually drove.

Relocation: a hasty change in geography relating to his living, working or regular friends and hangouts.

Collector of memorabilia: saving images or videos of JonBenét from newspaper, television or the internet

Vengeance: stating or hinting that the Ramsey’s – or JonBenét – are getting what they deserved.

Complimentary toward killer: impressed with perpetrator as a criminal mastermind while attributing great intelligence, skill or even luck.

Possessions: has items that came from the Ramsey home.

OK four of these items on your list (bold) are well documented multi-sourced matches to this MAAM's profile. And, this list isn't from the original profile published by the R's and their team of investigators back in 1997.

Obviously, I can't "show" it because you edited it -- TWICE! But in the first edit, you added the word "this" to the sentence. Originally, it said, "Kidnap is a well documented profile characteristic of MAAM. "

The second time you edited it, you added a few more adjectives in the middle of your post, and all the other stuff at the end.

I'm just pointing out that it's not the first time I've noticed your making lots of edits without explanation -- oftentimes changing the meaning of what you originally said.
.

Ad hominem.

If you had gone back far enough to the main part of our discussion (that you interjected into rudely), I was clear on my meaning.

The conversation since then has been somewhat redundant.

Another poster then arbitrarily and quietly subtracted from this original content because it made an argument against the content easier. Interesting strategy. He said it was because kidnap is a crime not a profile characteristic, and should be dropped to keep the discussion within reason. Interesting to say the least.

Is there any confusion now, after reading the first part of this post, as to what the profile characteristics are, and which ones this MAAM is matching? By now I dont believe there's very much confusion over who we are talking about.

 

[MurriFlower]

Don't tell me to relax. In the last few hours, I've been subjected to absolutely grievous insults, implying that I'm motivated by every base thing from greed to my own ego, everything except the notion that maybe I actually want some justice!

And now you're telling me to relax?

Hmmm, got all sensitive all of a sudden? What the RDI 'army' flings at IDI is far and away worse (and there's more of them, not surprisingly).

NO! I don't feel the least bit better! Why on earth do you think that would make me feel better?

If you have written a book, with a foregone conclusion of 'who dun it' (no prizes for guessing) then you aren't likely to take an opposing stance eh? You have a vested interest in wanting to maintain the status quo. It'd be a bit of a setback if it was solved now and the killer was an IDI?? So, for us IDI, it is very easy to see that many (including yourself) do not want to see the killer found UNLESS it is RDI.

That's the part I don't think IDI understands: I don't WANT to be right! I give anything to be wrong! If it turns out I'm right, I'll feel WORSE!

Pull the other one!!

Just for the record, whether or not someone disagrees with me is NOT what has me so mad. I can forgive any insult. What makes me mad is the feeling that IDI care more about arguing with me than they do about JonBenet!

I wouldn't take all this cr@p if I didn't want to find the killer. No, I'd much rather discuss REAL evidence that is likely to solve the case, not the half baked nonsense that RDI comes up with.

If RDI didn't have any IDI to argue with they'd soon disappear, mark my words.

 

[otg]

Today, 09:23 PM
Ad hominem.

OMG I really added the word 'this'?

Thats despicable. Prove it.

Posted Today, 09:23 PM
Last edited by Holdontoyourhat; Today at 10:18 PM.

Ad hominem.

If you had gone back far enough to the main part of our discussion (that you interjected into rudely), I was clear on my meaning.

The conversation since then has been somewhat redundant.

Another poster then arbitrarily and quietly subtracted from this original content because it made an argument against the content easier. Interesting strategy. He said it was because kidnap is a crime not a profile characteristic, and should be dropped to keep the discussion within reason. Interesting to say the least.

Is there any confusion now, after reading the first part of this post, as to what the profile characteristics are, and which ones this MAAM is matching? By now I dont believe there's very much confusion over who we are talking about.

Posted Today, 10:36 PM
Last edited by Holdontoyourhat; Today at 10:45 PM.

If you would like to use a latin term, please learn first what it actually means:

One of the most widely misused terms on the Net is "ad hominem". It is most often introduced into a discussion by certain delicate types, delicate of personality and mind, whenever their opponents resort to a bit of sarcasm. As soon as the suspicion of an insult appears, they summon the angels of ad hominem to smite down their foes, before ascending to argument heaven in a blaze of sanctimonious glory. They may not have much up top, but by God, they don't need it when they've got ad hominem on their side. It's the secret weapon that delivers them from any argument unscathed.

In reality, ad hominem is unrelated to sarcasm or personal abuse. Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments.

Therefore, if you can't demonstrate that your opponent is trying to counter your argument by attacking you, you can't demonstrate that he is resorting to ad hominem. If your opponent's sarcasm is not an attempt to counter your argument, but merely an attempt to insult you (or amuse the bystanders), then it is not part of an ad hominem argument.

Actual instances of argumentum ad hominem are relatively rare. Ironically, the fallacy is most often committed by those who accuse their opponents of ad hominem, since they try to dismiss the opposition not by engaging with their arguments, but by claiming that they resort to personal attacks. Those who are quick to squeal "ad hominem" are often guilty of several other logical fallacies, including one of the worst of all: the fallacious belief that introducing an impressive-sounding Latin term somehow gives one the decisive edge in an argument.

http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html
​

I believe the term here should be ad hominem tu quoque.
.

 

[Kimster]

Can we get back on topic please?

And I don't know what the picture has to do with this case so I'm removing it.

 

[RTC]

There is nothing here. You cant solve a crime with the crap posted on this 3 thread. The intent is to make a solvable murder unsolvable with stuff that can create doubt. In my world it is called Propaganda. JR is the Master.