IDI and RDI, what do they agree upon?

[Mysteeri]

I'm DAMN glad you brought that up! Assuming that they did check, there's a difference between someone who is knocked out (who would still have a discernable pulse and breathing) and someone in deep shock near death, whose pulse would be so weak and breathing so shallow that a layperson might miss them altogether.

It's times like this I'm grateful for being friends with an EMT, just in case any of you were wondering.

Okay, I`d still like a second opinion, but I`m willing to believe yours is valid. She died of asphyxiation so she was breathing while being strangled. I don`t believe Patsy and/or John would have made a quick decision to determine JB`s dead, nothing you can do about it, move on to staging and garroting. But that`s just imo.

 

[DeeDee249]

I cannot believe you guys can make up this stuff, accusing two people, (one of them still alive) of murder and get away with it without being sued! Incredible!!!

That's why at the bottom of every post should appear the words that appear below mine. Anyone can THINK anything they want. These are not accusations. They are theories.

There were plenty of innocent people accused publicly by the Rs.

 

[DeeDee249]

Okay, I`d still like a second opinion, but I`m willing to believe yours is valid. She died of asphyxiation so she was breathing while being strangled. I don`t believe Patsy and/or John would have made a quick decision to determine JB`s dead, nothing you can do about it, move on to staging and garroting. But that`s just imo.

Keep in ind through all this, adrenaline was pumping hard. When that hormone surges, it kind of puts you on automatic pilot.

I'd like to see the OTHER side have a chance here. Let's hear a blow-by-blow from IDI with suspects that were already questioned/or gave DNA/hair/saliva/writing samples.
Remember to use initials only except for those who have died. (Libel laws do not apply to the deceased).

 

[BOESP]

I Don't get it. All other things being equal, you don't settle when you can win.

Settling instead of winning happens every day. It is cheaper (and less stressful) in the long run.

 

[BBB167893]

I cannot believe you guys can make up this stuff, accusing two people, (one of them still alive) of murder and get away with it without being sued! Incredible!!!

Well, thereby hangs a tale, MurriFlower. Number one, where I live we have something called the first amendment.

Number two, at this point, it would be quite difficult to sue me on their behalf because one is dead and the other is a public figure. Actually, scratch that. You could make a case that he's a public figure.

Number three, they're very reticent to sue when certain issues are raised. I wonder why...

Number four, and perhaps most pregnant of all, it's not like it hasn't occured to me. In fact, if and when I get published, I wouldn't be too shocked. Lin Wood's Internet lapdog has already threatened me with that. But I'm not afraid.

 

[BBB167893]

Okay, I`d still like a second opinion, but I`m willing to believe yours is valid.

Thank you.

She died of asphyxiation so she was breathing while being strangled. I don`t believe Patsy and/or John would have made a quick decision to determine JB`s dead, nothing you can do about it, move on to staging and garroting. But that`s just imo.

I guess it depends on your definition of "quick."

 

[BBB167893]

Super-- are you sure this is your very best effort on this assignment? Is this your best shot? Remember, the task is not to say what you know, but to become Patsy in real time and to "think out loud" (on this site) with us as you deal with this situation. Is this really your very best effort to describe what Patsy was thinking/feeling as she slipped the garrote around her neck?

What were her thoughts as she searched for something that would work? Was it cold down there? Was there plenty of light? Did her muscles get tense?

I have to be honest with you, Fang: if I thought it was just one person responsible, it would be a lot easier. But since I think it was a joint effort, that adds a whole new dimension of difficulty, because there you have to consider conflicts, what did one person want to do vs. what the other wanted, differing motivations and so on.

Moreover, I still don't understand what the purpose of this exercise is.

Also, I didn't want it to sound like a badly written thriller novel. But I'm of the mind that it's going to end up that way no matter WHAT the scenario is or who's writing it. So, if you want to know what was most likely going through her head, here goes:

"It's just a body...it's just a body...I have to do it this way. I won't have to touch her or look at her face. God, I wish John would shut up! It's his fault we're in this trouble! He says if we don't do this, we'll both die in prison, but I can't bear the thought of ruining her little face. This way, at least she'll have a decent funeral where the world can see her for the angel she is and we all can remember her as forever young, forever beautiful. It doesn't make any difference now for me now. I might not live that long anyway. I can at least do this for her and for my son. He can't lose BOTH of us in one day..."

She yanks back on it.

"Oh, God, oh God, oh God! Please just let it be over! I can't pull anymore. I hope that's good enough. PLEASE let it be good enough. Why can't I breathe? Damn it, what demon from hell could do this?! I have to get it out of me! I have to make the demon real so I can face it."

So she does. She writes, making the demon a thing of reality. It's not her that did it, it was "the other." And that's who's writing this: "the other," the THING that took hold of her soul.

Wow. That was easier than I thought. MUCH easier than I'm comfortable with. Just because I can face the darkness doesn't mean I like it. Getting inside the heads of killers is a god-awful business, and I any idea that it's easy or amusing or fun. There isn't enough soap in the world to get me clean again. Those stains won't come out.

 

[WHITEFANG]

I cannot believe you guys can make up this stuff, accusing two people, (one of them still alive) of murder and get away with it without being sued! Incredible!!!

1. It is hypothetical.

2. That is what is done on this website day and night.

 

[DeeDee249]

1. It is hypothetical.

2. That is what is done on this website day and night.

This and other websites as well, and not just this crime.

 

[WHITEFANG]

The motive? To avoid prison.

"It doesn't make any difference now for me now. I might not live that long anyway."

The killer said to herself.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I cannot believe you guys can make up this stuff, accusing two people, (one of them still alive) of murder and get away with it without being sued! Incredible!!!

1. It is hypothetical.

2. That is what is done on this website day and night.

LOL you're right WF.

Not only does IDI represent the more contemporary documented official statements, but it also doesn't falsely accuse.

 

[WHITEFANG]

Your argument might have more merit, Fang, if not for the fact that Lin Wood has a habit of seeking settlements. BOESP is right.

If the Ramseys didn't have a case, the publisher would be foolish to settle. When they defend themselves successfully, they bill the Ramseys for their all legal costs. The Ramseys have the means to pay. Why settle?

 

[MurriFlower]

Well, thereby hangs a tale, MurriFlower. Number one, where I live we have something called the first amendment.

Number two, at this point, it would be quite difficult to sue me on their behalf because one is dead and the other is a public figure. Actually, scratch that. You could make a case that he's a public figure.

Number three, they're very reticent to sue when certain issues are raised. I wonder why...

Number four, and perhaps most pregnant of all, it's not like it hasn't occured to me. In fact, if and when I get published, I wouldn't be too shocked. Lin Wood's Internet lapdog has already threatened me with that. But I'm not afraid.

1. Ah, so the first amendment allows you to say anything about anyone and get away with it? Now I understand.

2. Dead people and public figures have no rights in the USA?

3. Hmm I thought there were several lawsuits against tabloids?

4. Perhaps they are just waiting until you sell a few books and accumulate a few $$ and they something to sue for?

 

[DeeDee249]

1. Ah, so the first amendment allows you to say anything about anyone and get away with it? Now I understand.

2. Dead people and public figures have no rights in the USA?

3. Hmm I thought there were several lawsuits against tabloids?

4. Perhaps they are just waiting until you sell a few books and accumulate a few $$ and they something to sue for?

1. The First Amendment allows Free Speech.
2. Actually, dead people don't. Their "rights" ended when they died. Pubic figures have rights, but because of their status as public figures opinions about them can be stated publicly. FALSE statements can be challenged, but the public figure has to be sure they are actually false.
3. The lawsuits I am familiar with involved stolen autopsy photos, not accusations against the Rs. If you have knowledge of others, please post.
4. Maybe, but SD is still entitled to write his OPINION about the case. I am sure he will not be presenting his opinion and/or theory as fact. But I am also sure his book will contain a lot of factual information.

 

[MurriFlower]

1. It is hypothetical.

2. That is what is done on this website day and night.

This is the only forum I've been on in Websleuths, but I know of one other (which I think is suspended) MMcC.

So what I think you are saying is that it would be quite in order for someone on that forum to post a 'hypothetical' scenario which names the parents of that child as murders, child molesters and liars, who fabricated her disappearance and corrupted the investigation?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

1. Ah, so the first amendment allows you to say anything about anyone and get away with it? Now I understand.

2. Dead people and public figures have no rights in the USA?

3. Hmm I thought there were several lawsuits against tabloids?

4. Perhaps they are just waiting until you sell a few books and accumulate a few $$ and they something to sue for?

:clap:

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

If the Ramseys didn't have a case, the publisher would be foolish to settle. When they defend themselves successfully, they bill the Ramseys for their all legal costs. The Ramseys have the means to pay. Why settle?

A win is a win...

 

[WHITEFANG]

SuperDave said, "Secondly, in order for an external sign to appear (whether it be a bruise or a bump or the like), one has to consider the body's defense systems at work. But what if the body were in a state of trauma-induced hibernation, known as shock? Metabolic functions would be greatly reduced."

As soon as blood vessels rupture, blood leaks from them. A blow to the head which caused a fracture several inches long and a comminuted fracture broke many, many blood vessels on the scalp which would be visible.

 

[WHITEFANG]

A win is a win..



The publisher caved. If the R's didn't have a powerful case, they wouldn't have, IMO. So, they did win, in a sense. If their lawyer preferred settling, it doesn't necessarily follow they didn't have an excellent chance to win. Maybe it was the Ramseys who wanted to settle more than their lawyer. We don't know. The only point I want to make is that given what we know, I think the Ramseys may have been on solid ground when they brought suit against the defendants.

 

[WHITEFANG]

This is the only forum I've been on in Websleuths, but I know of one other (which I think is suspended) MMcC.

So what I think you are saying is that it would be quite in order for someone on that forum to post a 'hypothetical' scenario which names the parents of that child as murders, child molesters and liars, who fabricated her disappearance and corrupted the investigation?

Let's try it from a different perspective for a second. Did you, by framing your question as you just did, imply that certain individuals on this website made untrue, malicious statements of fact with the intent to harm others-who are not public figures? Does your question receive protection under the law?