IDI and RDI, what do they agree upon?

[MurriFlower]

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?

Not sure if I understand your question WF.

What I'm asking is, is what happened here (posting a 'hypothetical script' naming the parents as murderers) considered acceptible behaviour on other forums?

 

[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!!!


Don't know.

I thought you were asking how we could accuse people of murder without being sued.

 

[MurriFlower]

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!!!


Don't know.

I thought you were asking how we could accuse people of murder without being sued.

Oh OK, you quoted my subsequent post (below) in your question and that's why I was confused.

Originally Posted by MurriFlower View Post
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?

Yes, absolutely, I my originally question was how people can accuse others without fear. Apparently it's to do with something in your constitution!!

 

[WHITEFANG]

Yep. Our Constitution guarantees the freedom of speech. Does that mean we can shout "fire" in a crowded movie theater, when no fire exists? No. There are limits on what can be said and you raise a good point about what can be said here.

Where are you from? Can you say?

 

[MurriFlower]

Yep. Our Constitution guarantees the freedom of speech. Does that mean we can shout "fire" in a crowded movie theater, when no fire exists? No. There are limits on what can be said and you raise a good point about what can be said here.

Where are you from? Can you say?

Does it really matter? I don't think that some of the people on this forum are particularly up front on their motives. Funnily enough I joined because I thought I could perhaps add some new thoughts and ideas, without having very much prior knowledge of the case to influence me, but it appears that there is a domination of people who have vested interest in the RDI theory. They turn each thread into a knit-picking DNA, fibre or sexual abuse argument (the only thing they have to 'support' their theory), which diverts attention from the 'big picture', and that is the solving of this killing. It appears one can say pretty much what ever one likes without having to suffer the consequences, if one just writes 'I'm protected by the constitution' at the end of their posts. References to hitting IDI's in the head with the 'baseball bat of truth' are amusing to say the least. Perhaps we'd be better to bash our own heads up against a wall. Sadly it appears there is an endless supply of people who hope to profit from this child's death.

 

[Mysteeri]

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).

True. Actually now that I think about it, it´s possible that the mental shock lasted for hours and included detachment and denial. In traumatic or life threatening situations, people can act rationally/on autimatic pilot but not remember much afterwards.

Hmm.

For your writing request I don`t have enough imagination or knowledge. I think intruder was a disturbed individual who was obsessed with the R family and perhaps had been in contact with them, at least with JB. He enjoyed being alone in the R house and writing the peculiar RN, adrenalin rush and all. But his kidnapping plan went somehow wrong, perhaps JB got away and/or recognized his identity and ran to the basement, where things took an unexpected turn and he killed her. Being disturbed he did a little more than necessary (it could be, that he was planning to kill and molest her anyway, but not in the R house). He attempted to leave through the basement window but realized it was too difficult, so he used the Butler´s door instead.

How he got inside etc.? Well, to make a decent theory, I`d have to fit in some details, but it doesn`t belong to this topic. Perhaps I`ll dig in to this case again in the summer (time sure does fly, I remember last summer and me reading and wondering about this case).

 

[BBB167893]

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.

That's right.

I'm not sure what you're doing here, Fang. If you're trying to say that this is a contradiction, I can tell you that it is most assuredly not. They're mutually reinforcing. In fact, I'm convinced that if charges were brought against her, she would have died from the stress before the trial ended or committed suicide. I'm not the only person who thinks that, either. Far from it.


But, to speak to this specifically, if I thought that I might not have very long to live, then sure as the gods made little green apples I wouldn't want to spend the time I had left in a rotten, stinking prison cell surrounded by people who want to torture and kill me! I'd rather spend at least some of it with the child I have left. I think there's a much broader context here. I admit I didn't do much to outline it. I accept responsibility for that.

 

[BBB167893]

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?

Whether it's foolish or not, Fang, it's common practice. Companies like this are insured to a certain amount against lawsuits. And the only thing they care about is bottom line. Most of them don't want to devote any attention to--as they see it--tiny issues like this. Better to just settle and go on with life.

And before you ask, I don't like it either.

 

[BBB167893]

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

The First Amendment allows freedom of speech. There's no right to not be offended. Sadly, too many people in this country think there is.

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

Not quite that simple. A dead person truly does have no rights. There's a moral injunction, because we're taught not to speak ill of the dead, but there's no legal check on it. As for a public figure, that's where it gets interesting. They CAN sue for slander/libel, but the law accepts that because they made the decision to draw attention to themselves (which John did when he ran for public office), they have to expect that certain people won't like them. Thus, the standard for a public figure to prove defamation in court is much higher than it is for a private person. Thus, it's rare that public figures ever win. In fact, in John's case, it might be even harder because he went into politics, and political speech rights in America are considered inviolate. (At least by the courts.)

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

Yes, there were, but most of them were on behalf of BR. Which I agree with, by the way. What I was referring to was the fact that people like Cyril Wecht and Wendy Murphy have written about the Ramseys in MUCH worse terms than most people and no one ever sues them. In fact, the closest Wendy Murphy came was in 2006 when she got a threatening call from Lin Wood. She basically told him to kiss her butt and has since not backed off one bit.

In other words, when suing corporations, who treat nuisance lawsuits as little worse than burning toast, they get quick settlements and call it victory. When the target is someone who knows what they're doing in court, the Ramseys and their lapdogs turn tail faster than French soldiers in the face of a Panzer charge.

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

No fear, no regrets, MurriFlower.

 

[BBB167893]

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.

Right on both counts. I make DOUBLY sure to separate fact from (INFORMED) speculation.

 

[BBB167893]

A win is a win...

Yes, I'm positive that's how Wood sees it too!

 

[DeeDee249]

Does it really matter? I don't think that some of the people on this forum are particularly up front on their motives. Funnily enough I joined because I thought I could perhaps add some new thoughts and ideas, without having very much prior knowledge of the case to influence me, but it appears that there is a domination of people who have vested interest in the RDI theory. They turn each thread into a knit-picking DNA, fibre or sexual abuse argument (the only thing they have to 'support' their theory), which diverts attention from the 'big picture', and that is the solving of this killing. It appears one can say pretty much what ever one likes without having to suffer the consequences, if one just writes 'I'm protected by the constitution' at the end of their posts. References to hitting IDI's in the head with the 'baseball bat of truth' are amusing to say the least. Perhaps we'd be better to bash our own heads up against a wall. Sadly it appears there is an endless supply of people who hope to profit from this child's death.

I fail to see where any of us are attempting to profit from this child's death. We are not selling tickets to this forum. This forum, and many other crime forums like it, are a place to post OPINIONS. And we are told upon joining not to use names (except for deceased persons). Rarely is a name spelled out. ANYONE can think ANY person in Boulder that night may have killed JB. And free speech allows us to say what we think. IDI does the same things RDI does, they just approach from the other viewpoint. I don't think the two viewpoints will ever converge unless a NAME can be linked to the crime, and PROVEN to have been the killer.

BTW, no one HERE will ever solve this crime. To quote Dr. Henry Lee on this specific case "Rice already cooked". BY that he meant all the mistakes in procedure, and the contamination of the crime scene from the first moments LE arrived.
But that doesn't mean we shouldn't continue a dialog (on both sides). Because one day, hopefully, something or someone WILL be made known- some new evidence to shine a light on this case. And then, there is a chance.

 

[DeeDee249]

Does it really matter? I don't think that some of the people on this forum are particularly up front on their motives. Funnily enough I joined because I thought I could perhaps add some new thoughts and ideas, without having very much prior knowledge of the case to influence me, but it appears that there is a domination of people who have vested interest in the RDI theory. They turn each thread into a knit-picking DNA, fibre or sexual abuse argument (the only thing they have to 'support' their theory), which diverts attention from the 'big picture', and that is the solving of this killing. It appears one can say pretty much what ever one likes without having to suffer the consequences, if one just writes 'I'm protected by the constitution' at the end of their posts. References to hitting IDI's in the head with the 'baseball bat of truth' are amusing to say the least. Perhaps we'd be better to bash our own heads up against a wall. Sadly it appears there is an endless supply of people who hope to profit from this child's death.

I fail to see where any of us are attempting to profit from this child's death. We are not selling tickets to this forum. This forum, and many other crime forums like it, are a place to post OPINIONS. When we put that at the end of our posts, that means that what we say is NOT to be considered FACT (unless we are using known facts in the case, depositions, the autopsy, etc.) As I have said before, none of was THERE when JB was killed (as far as I know) so none of us KNOWS what happened. We KNOW what we have been told, and are free to form an opinion on it. And we are told upon joining not to use names (except for deceased persons). Rarely is a name spelled out. ANYONE can think ANY person in Boulder that night may have killed JB. And free speech allows us to say what we think. I don't know what you expected of the crime forums. That's what they ARE. A place to post opinions on the crime. You may not like what you read- well, I don't like a lot of it either, even the stuff I agree with. But it is still productive to think, research dissect, and form your own theory. Otherwise, what's the point of being here?

BTW, no one HERE will ever solve this crime. Not with the limited evidence we have access to. To quote Dr. Henry Lee on this specific case "Rice already cooked". By that he meant all the mistakes in procedure, and the contamination of the crime scene from the first moments LE arrived.
But that doesn't mean we shouldn't continue a dialog (on both sides). Because one day, hopefully, something or someone WILL be made known- some new evidence to shine a light on this case. And then, there is a chance.

 

[BBB167893]

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."

That's right. I did say that.

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.

Fang, pardon me if I come off as a bit testy, but you're killing the messenger here. I'm not the one you need to be arguing with. It's not a question for you or me; it's a question for the pathologists. And they've already made their ruling: JB was alive when she was struck and continued to live, in deep shock, for anywhere from 20 minutes to an hour before she was strangled to death. Werner Spitz even said in these exact words: "someone took time to stage strangulation and sexual assault after she was unconscious." These people are on record in various places as saying this.

As for me, I've spent a lot of time on this talking to doctors, surgeons, EMTs, ER nurses. They agree with me. Look, I said it once already: head wounds are the quirkiest injuries the body can sustain. We have a Denver neurologist on record as saying that there's really no rhyme or reason why one head wound bleeds tremendously and another one hardly at all.

If all of that's not enough for you, then I don't know what to tell you, Fang. I've spent 13-1/2 years on this case in almost constant research. I've even conducted painful experiments on myself in the name of justice. A few years ago, I had myself zapped repeatedly with a stun gun to see if I could replicate what IDI claims to have happened to JB. The results were very strongly on my side. A few days ago, in response to what madeleine said about the lip prints on the tape, I taped up my own mouth twice with duct tape to study a struggling pair of lips against a non-struggling pair. Again, the results favor me.

But for this, the only thing I can think of it to shave my head with a fine razor and have someone smash me in the head with a baseball bat. I'm sorry, but as dedicated as I am, I have to draw the line someplace.

I'm sorry, Fang. I didn't mean to yell at you or anyone else. It's just that I've given until it hurts, Fang. LITERALLY. I've asked things of myself no one should ask of anyone. I honestly don't know how much there is left to give. And it's STILL NOT ENOUGH.

 

[BBB167893]

Does it really matter?

Depends. Sometimes people from other countries don't fully appreciate the nuances of American law.

I don't think that some of the people on this forum are particularly up front on their motives.

What is that supposed to mean?

Funnily enough I joined because I thought I could perhaps add some new thoughts and ideas, without having very much prior knowledge of the case to influence me,

The danger of going off half-cocked is you can shoot yourself in the foot.

but it appears that there is a domination of people who have vested interest in the RDI theory.

I would go out on a limb and say that every single believer in the RDI theory would be quite happy to be wrong.

They turn each thread into a knit-picking DNA, fibre or sexual abuse argument (the only thing they have to 'support' their theory), which diverts attention from the 'big picture', and that is the solving of this killing.

That strikes me as an ironic condemnation, since we're the ones who stress the need to look at the big picture and see how the things we "nitpick" make up that broader canvas. And as for solving this killing, let me ask you this, MurriFlower: can you unscramble an egg? No. And this egg got scrambled, burnt and scraped out into the waste can a long time ago.

It appears one can say pretty much what ever one likes without having to suffer the consequences, if one just writes 'I'm protected by the constitution' at the end of their posts.

It beats the he** out of the alternative.

References to hitting IDI's in the head with the 'baseball bat of truth' are amusing to say the least.

My INTENT was to be amusing! Sadly, I think it went over most people's heads.

Perhaps we'd be better to bash our own heads up against a wall.

As opposed to what we've BEEN doing?

Sadly it appears there is an endless supply of people who hope to profit from this child's death.

Lin Wood formost among them. Trust me, MurriFlower: that's an area you don't want to pursue too deeply.

 

[WHITEFANG]

True. Actually now that I think about it, it´s possible that the mental shock lasted for hours and included detachment and denial. In traumatic or life threatening situations, people can act rationally/on autimatic pilot but not remember much afterwards.

Hmm.

For your writing request I don`t have enough imagination or knowledge. I think intruder was a disturbed individual who was obsessed with the R family and perhaps had been in contact with them, at least with JB. He enjoyed being alone in the R house and writing the peculiar RN, adrenalin rush and all. But his kidnapping plan went somehow wrong, perhaps JB got away and/or recognized his identity and ran to the basement, where things took an unexpected turn and he killed her. Being disturbed he did a little more than necessary (it could be, that he was planning to kill and molest her anyway, but not in the R house). He attempted to leave through the basement window but realized it was too difficult, so he used the Butler´s door instead.

How he got inside etc.? Well, to make a decent theory, I`d have to fit in some details, but it doesn`t belong to this topic. Perhaps I`ll dig in to this case again in the summer (time sure does fly, I remember last summer and me reading and wondering about this case).

I was merely curious about your location. Just ignore.

You did a very good job on this. Thanks for it. Can see the "rush" you refer to, as well. Disturbed is a good adjective for this *********. Would love to get my hands on him.

 

[WHITEFANG]

Super
Awesome stuff. Talk about determination! Amazing.

Once blood vessels burst, blood begins to leak from them immediately. It occurs instantly and bruising is noticeable as the blood discolors and pools. Shock or not, there will be evidence that rupturing of her circulatory system took place.

 

[MurriFlower]

BTW, no one HERE will ever solve this crime. Not with the limited evidence we have access to. To quote Dr. Henry Lee on this specific case "Rice already cooked". By that he meant all the mistakes in procedure, and the contamination of the crime scene from the first moments LE arrived.
But that doesn't mean we shouldn't continue a dialog (on both sides). Because one day, hopefully, something or someone WILL be made known- some new evidence to shine a light on this case. And then, there is a chance.

Well I think it IS possible to come up with the correct answer. You are right of course, then someone would need to investigate, gather the evidence, charge the suspect, so we can't follow through to a conclusion. But if I thought it was just endless discussion without a resolution I wouldn't have joined and if that becomes obvious in future then I expect I will retire from the forum.

"Rice already cooked", I like that one LOL. I also have done a bit of genealogical research and one thing I've come to realise is that despite the passage of time and the amount of evidence that is lost, sufficient evidence is usually still there and sometimes access to information actually improves with age. One example is that WWI service records are now on line (free), and these would not have been available 5-10 years ago.

So, as this is only 14 years ago (not 90) and some people have passed on, a whole lot of others are still here. They still know what they know and we also have a wonderful resource in all the on-line information gathered, as well as a large number of people who have researched this over time. Future testing and examination may turn up new evidence as science improves the technologies.

My one area of concern is that it appears that many cling to their 'theories' and defend them endlessly without considering that there might be alternatives, or heaven forbid, they could be 'wrong'. Still, even people who hold theories I do not agree with, have given serious thought to the evidence and they turn up little 'gems' occasionally that help me along with the development of my theory.

 

[WHITEFANG]

That's kind of my point, Fang. Wood wasn't talking about how much money he made for them. He was talking about how much money he had made toward his personal finances. Now, I admit it's been a while since I cracked a law book, but last I knew, filing lawsuits for the purpose of enriching one's own personal finances is called barratry, and it grounds for having one's law license pulled.



Judging from the available tax records, my guess is that "fund" was purely for their own use. Pretty despicable, any way you slice it.

Can you tell us what the tax records say? If not, where can we find them? Do they itemize expenditures for legal costs? I wouldn't think so. Thanks

 

[WHITEFANG]

It IS odd that JR would hire a lawyer for his ex-wife in Georgia. I would say that is very suspicious and to me, the only reason he would do this is so that his ex-wife (with whom his son JAR lived) would not have to talk to LE about the whereabouts of her son that day.

Her lawyer would block LE from finding out where JAR was that day?

For as much as they claimed JAR was in Atlanta with his mother that day, I believe neighbor the late Joe Barnhill was correct in saying he saw him outside the R home. He was there, and he may have been in Christmas photos or movies taken that day, which is why the Rs claimed their camera had no batteries and they didn't take any.

That's the reason they lied about batteries? Joe Barnhill was a pretty solid citizen who knew JAR, or least could have picked him out of a line-up?

You mean to say that J wouldn't want JAR to be a suspect and eventually convicted of the murder?

The lawyer would also prevent his ex-wife from producing any photos that may have been taken at her own home Christmas day, which might show her son was not there.

How would her lawyer do that?
Pictures of Christmas at her house that didn't include JAR "might show" he wasn't there.