IDI: Whats your problem?

[DeeDee249]

It is nearly a certainty that an intruder knew there were adults in the house who would protect JBR at any cost. Therefore its likely a gun was present, to counter JR's gun. A garrote doesn't cut it.

Remember that the garrote is a multi-purpose weapon. It probably silenced JBR and allowed her to be moved from her bedroom to the basement without disturbing the parents. Quite a feat for 5 bucks and some borrowed wood.

I haven't read that any of the Rs owned a gun, but can't rule it out. I'd have had one if I were them. Even when my kids were that small, I had guns, but kept them in a gun safe.

There are some photos on some other sites that show a strangulation victim who is NOT JB pictured next to JB's photo. The other strangulation victim, ho was said to have been strangled with a scarf, has a large, reddish triangular mark on her throat identical to JB's. I saw it first on Crimeshots, but it also appeared in Ruthee's Pages on ACR (in the JB archives in the "Other People's Pages" section. Ruthee has been dead s a few years now and her site may no longer be available. If I can find it I will post it here.

 

[DeeDee249]

What you say about PR would apply to a cold blooded killer who PLANNED the crime.

What is it then anyway,are they cold blooded parents who calmly staged the scene or did they do it (hence all the mistakes) in panic?
You swicth from one scenario to the other because actually none makes sense.

Had to have been in a panic. It's the only way I see it. Adrenaline full blast.

 

[WHITEFANG]

"Just how much about covering up a murder were they supposed to know, anyway? Of course, it occurred to them. But how effective would the attempt be when they had no real knowledge of how crime scene investigation works, and only books and TV to draw reference from?" Super

Getting rid of evidence is Crime 101. They faked a ransom note hoping to throw off future investigators but they couldn't be expected to appreciate the importance of tossing incriminating evidence?

They didn't have knowledge of the way crime scene investigations are conducted and they would and could make mistakes.

But, once again, here is a theory without substance. Does anyone in the world believe it would be a little too tough for them to realize that they should get rid of all the incriminating evidence?

Have any of us learned about crime scene investigations from other sources besides books and t.v.?

 

[BBB167893]

Well, I prefaced that statement by saying that I agree with Whitefang, so here it is again.

But that's my point, MurriFlower: I believe that Fang's argument proceeds from a faulty premise. It's not just my opinion; the FBI said it themselves: whomever did this was not cold or calculating, but panicked and--while intelligent--lacking in criminal savvy. I don't know what more to tell you.

I can't comment on how well you have scrutinised the evidence SD.

I'm not sure anyone could.

I am merely looking at evidence and opinions from another point of view and really there is nothing that makes sense to me in the RDI theory.

I understand. I was the same way once.

As I've said before, the main 'evidence' appears to be the RN and the 'expert' opinion that it was written by PR.

Hmm...that's not 100% accurate, MurriFlower, at least, not as far as I go. That's certainly an important part of it, but the RDI viewpoint does not rest on this or that piece of evidence. It's the combination of ALL things.

You have obviously built a whole scenario around their guilt, invested many hours in it's construction and are totally convinced of it's veracity.

I would agree with that characterization.

No, it was the lack of any convincing evidence.

Convincing for WHOM, MurriFlower? A DA who hadn't taken a case to trial in 10 years? Who was business partners with the Ramsey lawyers? Plenty of people have gone to prison on FAR less.

I think I have taken all RDI theories into consideration and have decided that it just doesn't do it for me.

I don't really know how to respond to that.

I hope you will consider other ideas

Will do. So far, yours is among the best.

 

[BBB167893]

Epstein cannot know that PR wrote the note. Can't be done.

Just so I have this straight, you're saying that all he can do is give his opinion, is that correct?

He can't dispute the DNA is not from an unknown male and where it was found.

Last I checked, nobody was disputing those two points. How it got there, though...

 

[WHITEFANG]

"I'm the pilot for someone. I fly his private jet. He's booked me WEEKS in advance to fly his family out the day after Christmas. With less than an hour's notice, he calls me and says he's calling it off. Naturally, I'll ask him why." Super


Super, the pilot works for the guy. A boss cancels an appointment and the employee/contractor doesn't say "Why?" It is none of his business.

He gives me a plausible story and I think nothing of it. A short time later (a day, a week) I hear that his daughter was found dead. I'm going to start putting two and two together!

2 and 2 together that the boss's daughter was just murdered! Holy....., the poor guy. I can't believe it!
Not, 2 plus 2 equals aha, figured he kill her some day. Please Super!

Wouldn't you?

 

[BBB167893]

Nah. No game.

I didn't mean that you were playing a game. I simply meant that you said it like it was a bad thing.

Getting rid of evidence is Crime 101. They faked a ransom note hoping to throw off future investigators but they couldn't be expected to appreciate the importance of tossing incriminating evidence?

I didn't realize crime scenes came with an instruction manual.

All poor attempts at humor aside, it's like I said before, Fang: they'd have to know what evidence needed tossing and where to do it.

But, once again, here is a theory without substance.

How is it without substance?

Does anyone in the world believe it would be a little too tough for them to realize that they should get rid of all the incriminating evidence?

The issue is not whether or not they realized it. The question is, how effective would a pair of nearly-hysterical amateurs be?

Have any of us learned about crime scene investigations from other sources besides books and t.v.?

What does that have to do with anything?

 

[DeeDee249]

I am wondering if anyone here recalls when JR cancelled the flight. We know he called AFTER JB was found, but that was after 1 PM, hours after he would be expected at the airport, and that phone call (overheard by LE) was to arrange for the trip to Atlanta. He would have had to have cancelled his 7 AM flight before 7 AM, or his pilot would have called. If this had happened, I have no problem with the pilot being told there was an family emergency or something. I don't think the pilot would have doubted it. But I still haven't seen whether this first phone call was made.

 

[BBB167893]

"I'm the pilot for someone. I fly his private jet. He's booked me WEEKS in advance to fly his family out the day after Christmas. With less than an hour's notice, he calls me and says he's calling it off. Naturally, I'll ask him why." Super


Super, the pilot works for the guy. A boss cancels an appointment and the employee/contractor doesn't say "Why?" It is none of his business.

Yes, that's one thing you and HOTYH have convinced me of. Okay, so he wouldn't ask. He's still going to get hinky. I sure wouldn't just chalk it up to coincidence.

2 and 2 together that the boss's daughter was just murdered! Holy....., the poor guy. I can't believe it!

Maybe at first. But after the initial shock wears off, he could start going in other directions.

Not, 2 plus 2 equals aha, figured he kill her some day. Please Super!

THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M SAYING! Excuse me, but even my patience has its limits.

 

[WHITEFANG]

Originally Posted by MurriFlower View Post
Yes, I agree and I'm sure there were parents who did much worse things, but it was not these parents.

Why NOT? Super

Because they loved their children and proved they did constantly, in a variety of ways. Their was no hint they didn't love her and the others. Just the opposite. Someone's Patsy's size would not have had the mass and strength to break a section of her skull completely off and down into her brain. There is no speck of proof they had psychological deficiencies to become evil incarnate. Nothing. There is, however, absolute proof that a male contacted her little body where,(if I had seen him touching her there, I would have broken every g..........bone in his g...... .......... body and then I would have broken him in half and picked him up by the neck, smashed his face in and delivered him to the police) he had no legal, moral, possible reason except to touch her, but to harm her.

 

[BBB167893]

Because they loved their children and proved they did constantly, in a variety of ways. Their was no hint they didn't love her and the others.

Your argument would have more weight with me if I thought it was a premeditated murder, Fang. Even then, I'm sure Susan Smith loved her boys when she condemned them to a slow, watery death.

Someone's Patsy's size would not have had the mass and strength to break a section of her skull completely off and down into her brain.

I've heard that argument before, and it doesn't wash. One, the rush of strength brought on by anger is considerable. Two, an adult has the edge of leverage over a small child.

There is no speck of proof they had psychological deficiencies to become evil incarnate. Nothing.

For the hunderedth time, I'm telling you, they did NOT become evil incarnate. You see things in absolute terms: black and white, good and bad, this and that. But so often in life, that's not how it works.

There is, however, absolute proof that a male contacted her little body where, (if I had seen him touching her there, I would have broken every g..........bone in his g...... .......... body and then I would have broken him in half and picked him up by the neck, smashed his face in and delivered him to the police) he had no legal, moral, possible reason except to touch her, but to harm her.

I appreciate your zeal, Fang. And quite frankly, I wish JR had shown the kind of gumption you do. But I hate to tell you you're wrong: there's NO absolute proof that a male contacted her down there for the purposes you suggest. The specks of DNA you make so much out of could easily have been transferred there by JB herself in any number of ways. That's not just my opinion. That's not a dismissal. That's not brushing it off or whitewashing it or any other damn thing that you'll claim I'm doing (though you can, if it makes you happy); as it stands now, that's just how it is.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

But, once again, here is a theory without substance. Does anyone in the world believe it would be a little too tough for them to realize that they should get rid of all the incriminating evidence?

Right. A paradox. Staging a murder by intruder, by using items that they themselves clearly owned, seems somewhat self-defeating. Sort of like staging a child murder and then placing a handwritten letter next to it.

Theories that are fundamentally wrong are going to have this symptom-- paradoxes that can only be 'explained away' with guesses.

Its worth noting right now that RDI has theories only, and while these theories used to dominate the media, that is no longer the case. RDI has worked very hard to maintain some plausible deniability for anything that seems anti-RDI on the face of it.

By now the list of RDI paradoxes is huge.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Serious as I can be. This means nothing.



Don't you remember? You shot that one down because you didn't agree with my format. Try me.



I gave you one: the emergence of Osama bin Laden as a major news item in America. Wow, we have a ransom note with no religion, no sex, lots of violence, and political references, but we stop at only one news item for the entire year? Certainly somebody was pi$$ed off at JR, LM, AG, or the US. during that time.



I've only given you that a hundred times. Not once. Nobody has outlined a scenario that includes a path from DNA owner to three (3) locations. We'll assume the fingernail DNA isn't related, for your sake.



Okay, here you go: because she wrote it left-handed and wasn't as used to it.

She misspelled left handed AND right handed.



Got it. Got what?

Responses in blue.

 

[BBB167893]

Right. A paradox. Staging a murder by intruder, by using items that they themselves clearly owned, seems somewhat self-defeating. Sort of like staging a child murder and then placing a handwritten letter next to it.

The kinds of goof-ups I'd expect an adrenaline-fueled amateur short on options would make. It's not rocket science, here.

Its worth noting right now that RDI has theories only,

That makes us even.

Theories that are fundamentally wrong are going to have this symptom-- paradoxes that can only be 'explained away' with guesses. RDI has worked very hard to maintain some plausible deniability for anything that seems anti-RDI on the face of it.

Except they're not MY guesses...

Don't you remember? You shot that one down because you didn't agree with my format. Try me.

You don't remember? We couldn't get any objective judges.

I gave you one: the emergence of Osama bin Laden as a major news item in America. Wow, we have a ransom note with no religion, no sex, lots of violence, and political references, but we stop at only one news item for the entire year? Certainly somebody was pi$$ed off at JR, LM, AG, or the US. during that time.

Nothing at all certain about it.

I've only given you that a hundred times. Not once. Nobody has outlined a scenario that includes a path from DNA owner to three (3) locations. We'll assume the fingernail DNA isn't related, for your sake.

Okay, here goes: it came from one of JB's playmates.

Okay, here you go: because she wrote it left-handed and wasn't as used to it.
She misspelled left handed.

Mm-hmm.

Got it. Got what?

A monster headache!

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

The kinds of goof-ups I'd expect an adrenaline-fueled amateur short on options would make. It's not a big leap of imagination.



That makes us even.



And done a darn good job of it, in my view. Job of nothing. Where are the results? Nobody takes RDI to the press anymore.



You don't remember? We couldn't get any objective judges. Oh, OK.



Nothing at all certain about it. Nothing at all certain about what? Are we not even going to make sense here?



Okay, here goes: it came from one of JB's playmates.

Mm-hmm. What are you talking about? She misspelled left handed AND right handed.

I think you're just playing around here. Either that or we don't communicate on any level.

"it came from one of JB's playmates' isn't a path.

'adrenaline-fueled amateur' is a guess in response to a paradox, just like I said.

 

[BBB167893]

And done a darn good job of it, in my view. Job of nothing. Where are the results? Nobody takes RDI to the press anymore.

Give me some time. Then we'll see that the people think.

Nothing at all certain about it. Nothing at all certain about what? Are we not even going to make sense here?

Nothing at all certain that anyone had it in for JR, LM, AG or anything else. That's definitely not the impression I get from the RN.

I think you're just playing around here.

Sorry, HOTYH. I'm tired and my patience is wearing thin.

Either that or we don't communicate on any level.

I'm starting to think I'm not communicating with anybody, HOTYH.

"it came from one of JB's playmates' isn't a path.

Quite frankly, HOTYH, there are so many possibilities, I have trouble keeping track of them. Just bear with me, please.

'adrenaline-fueled amateur' is a guess in response to a paradox, just like I said.

It's a common-sense observation based on what we have to work with.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Give me some time. Then we'll see that the people think. Take all the time you need, hows forever?



Nothing at all certain that anyone had it in for JR, LM, AG or anything else. That's definitely not the impression I get from the RN. You didn't get the impression that the ransom note author doesn't like the U.S.? I think that part is in the first paragraph. Should make the news search easier, doncha think?



Sorry, HOTYH. I'm tired and my patience is wearing thin.



I'm starting to think I'm not communicating with anybody, HOTYH.



Quite frankly, HOTYH, there are so many possibilities, I have trouble keeping track of them. Just bear with me, please. Just one or two is all I need. Shouldn't be a problem. Remember it has to be a complete path from DNA owner to inside crotch of JBR's underwear and two opposing sides to her leggings.



Hey, don't rain on me. Take it up with the FBI.

The FBI makes guesses when their theories are challenged too?

 

[WHITEFANG]

Had to have been in a panic. It's the only way I see it. Adrenaline full blast.

I understand that RDI would like the path of the genetic material from the unknown male to JBR to be as vague as possible, thereby avoiding commitment to a flawed or less likely scenario than the prima facie scenario.

Just so I have this straight, you're saying that all he can do is give his opinion, is that correct?



I am saying that he can say he is positive Patsy wrote it. He can swear up and down and on 10 bibles and on his mother's grave and it still don't make it so. It is not provable by the techniques available today.


Last I checked, nobody was disputing those two points. How it got there, though...

Perfect Super. How it got there, though...
We only have to incorporate the majority's standard of proof and it's a done deal.
Watch this. How it got there? How do you think it got there?

See them fibers?
How'd they get there?

Naturally, the DNA got there the same way.

"

But that's my point, MurriFlower: I believe that Fang's argument proceeds from a faulty premise. It's not just my opinion; the FBI said it themselves: whomever did this was not cold or calculating, but panicked and--while intelligent--lacking in criminal savvy."

Dear God, our best and our brightest believe that the person who did this unspeakable, hideous, incomprehensible, sick murder was not "cold." Not "calculating" either, as he tightened the garrote just enough to make it appear to be the cause of death?

I have a confession. I have been deceiving you all from the start. From now on I expect you to address me by my real name, Winnie, for I am none other than Winston Churchill. Thank you.

The FBI? The entire Department of the Federal Bureau of Investigation? Gotta tell ya. They are a bunch of at times.

 

[BBB167893]

Give me some time. Then we'll see that the people think. Take all the time you need, hows forever?

Thanks, but I don't think I'll need that long!

Nothing at all certain that anyone had it in for JR, LM, AG or anything else. That's definitely not the impression I get from the RN. You didn't get the impression that the ransom note author doesn't like the U.S.? I think that part is in the first paragraph. Should make the news search easier, doncha think?

No, I didn't get that impression, HOTYH. Neither did many other people, from what I know. I got the impression someone was trying to create that effect, though. Which comes back to cui bono--who profits? I have a feeling we're going to come back to that a lot...

Quite frankly, HOTYH, there are so many possibilities, I have trouble keeping track of them. Just bear with me, please. Just one or two is all I need. Shouldn't be a problem. Remember it has to be a complete path from DNA owner to inside crotch of JBR's underwear and two opposing sides to her leggings.

"Shouldn't be a problem," he says. Like I've told you before, HOTYH: I consider the angles before I come to a decision.

The FBI makes guesses when their theories are challenged too?

I simply meant that they addressed a lot of this already.

 

[BBB167893]

Perfect Super. How it got there, though...
We only have to incorporate the majority's standard of proof and it's a done deal.
Watch this. How it got there? How do you think it got there?

See them fibers?
How'd they get there?

Naturally, the DNA got there the same way.

Sorry, Fang, but it's apples and handgrenades. Maybe you haven't noticed, but your comment about the "majority standard" reveals a certain misunderstanding (it also makes some implications which are DEFINITELY not appreciated.) In fact, your comparison of the DNA and fibers illustrates my point superbly. Allow me to elaborate: with the fibers, we KNOW the people who wore those clothes was there that night. We KNOW they can't account for them (in some instances, just adding more inconsistencies). We don't know ANY of that about the DNA. Not how it got there, not how long it was there, nothing like that at all. So I'm puzzled as to how you and the other IDIs assert it so adamantly when you haven't got a leg to stand on.

In fact, let me offer an olive branch and say this:

1) The DNA would be the clincher if a suspect was caught, no doubt. But it's zero for excluding suspects.

2) Moreover, let's speak the unspeakable here. Let's say you arrest someone. He has no alibi, his story is garbage, he has a record and his handwriting is a strong match-up...but his DNA doesn't match. What then? You've got quite a pickle!

So in response to your assertion that it's a done deal, all I can say is "don't bet on it."

Dear God, our best and our brightest believe that the person who did this unspeakable, hideous, incomprehensible, sick murder was not "cold." Not "calculating" either, as he tightened the garrote just enough to make it appear to be the cause of death?

Yup! Kind of puts a new light on things, doesn't it?

Would you like me to post what they said?

I have a confession. I have been deceiving you all from the start. From now on I expect you to address me by my real name, Winnie, for I am none other than Winston Churchill. Thank you.

And I'm Elvis Presley!

The FBI? The entire Department of the Federal Bureau of Investigation?

No, just the unit that specializes in kidnappings, serial killers and child murders. As in, the people who handle these cases every day.

Gotta tell ya. They are a bunch of at times.

Wow, if I didn't know better, I'd call that a wildcard...