IDI: Whats your problem?

[BBB167893]

OK.

There's no rationale behind it, but to each his own.

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean there isn't one.

Here's a very basic RDI scenario for you, and this doesn't take much imagination given the plot provided by the note they themselves wrote:

I can't wait.

JR calls the pilot and cancels the flight (easy). JR gets in his car at 9:00 to go to the bank. He dumps the garrote, tape, remnants and wrappers from both, knife, wrist ligatures, sharpie pens, pineapple bowls, or anything else he KNEW was connected to the crime except for JBR (that being too conspicuous).

Well, that assumes he knew that much at the time (or at least was focused enough to remember it all).

He gets 118K from the bank.

Back home, PR pretends to wait for the phone call.

Okay, that's where I have to hit the brakes. I'm assuming that at this point, no one knows that there's anything wrong. By that I mean that they haven't called anyone over to the house, neighbors or otherwise. So just WHO are they supposed to be pretending for?

JR walks in at 10:00 or 10:30. Then they call 911 because they know JBR is in the house and they need her to be discovered and taken away.

There's a huge advantage for RDI to NOT call 911 at 6, and instead comply with the note while removing possibly incriminating evidence from the crime scene. This would further make it appear an intruder did it, by having more items missing from the crime scene.

I could buy that, under certain conditions. One, if these weren't two amateurs in over their heads. Two, if I thought that they both trusted each other. Just because they stuck with each other doesn't mean they were completely united.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

What advantage does leaving the garrote around JBR's neck give the R's, in their effort to show an intruder killed JBR?

Remember that the garrote was fashioned from PR's paintbrush. What advantage does PR get by fabricating a weapon from an object that is obviously owned by her? Why would she do this while diverting attention from herself? This is just one more paradox in a long list of RDI paradoxes.

The cord isn't obviously hers, but the paintbrush is. Why would PR choose that item instead of something she could deny ownership?

 

[madeleine]

What advantage does leaving the garrote around JBR's neck give the R's, in their effort to show an intruder killed JBR?

Remember that the garrote was fashioned from PR's paintbrush. What advantage does PR get by fabricating a weapon from an object that is obviously owned by her? Why would she do this while diverting attention from herself? This is just one more paradox in a long list of RDI paradoxes.

The cord isn't obviously hers, but the paintbrush is. Why would PR choose that item instead of something she could deny ownership?

Same re pen&paper.
RDI claims that they bothered to get rid of the tape&rope,then why leave the other half of the brush there,why leave the pen&paper?Doesn't make sense.

 

[WHITEFANG]

What advantage does leaving the garrote around JBR's neck give the R's, in their effort to show an intruder killed JBR?

Remember that the garrote was fashioned from PR's paintbrush. What advantage does PR get by fabricating a weapon from an object that is obviously owned by her? Why would she do this while diverting attention from herself? This is just one more paradox in a long list of RDI paradoxes.

The cord isn't obviously hers, but the paintbrush is. Why would PR choose that item instead of something she could deny ownership?

Since the two killers were amateurs, you cannot expect to witness a great masterpiece murder. Even though they plotted and performed this highly intricate deception, intended to fool homicide detectives, it doesn't follow that they would think of things like, "What else should we do to cover our rear-ends?" Basic things like removing evidence is a bit too much to expect from this self-made millionaire and his college educated wife.

(Just in case.) That's a joke, I say, that's a joke, son. Wonderfully protected by America.

 

[MurriFlower]

Since the two killers were amateurs, you cannot expect to witness a great masterpiece murder. Yet, even though they plotted and performed this highly intricate deception, intended to fool homicide detectives, it doesn't follow that they would think of things like, "What else should we do to cover our rear-ends?" Basic things like removing evidence is a bit too much to expect from this self-made millionaire and his college educated wife.

Devious yes, but remember, also high on prescription drugs and alcohol!

 

[WHITEFANG]

Devious yes, but remember, also high on prescription drugs and alcohol!

Fellas, you know what is interesting? It really doesn't make any difference what arguments are made. The most important evidence is dismissed as irrelevant, barely important, not sufficient to draw any conclusions, etc., etc., Yet, when it comes to theories based on nonsense, conjecture and guessing at what may appear to be significant, etc., well now, that is a decidedly different story.

If we tagged each piece of speculation and each bit of evidence with pound signs, placing all the theories on one side, and the evidence, court admissible evidence, on the other side, the theoretical side blimps high in the sky. The evidence sinks like a stone, beneath the wisdom of the vast majority.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Since the two killers were amateurs, you cannot expect to witness a great masterpiece murder. Even though they plotted and performed this highly intricate deception, intended to fool homicide detectives, it doesn't follow that they would think of things like, "What else should we do to cover our rear-ends?" Basic things like removing evidence is a bit too much to expect from this self-made millionaire and his college educated wife.

(Just in case.) That's a joke, I say, that's a joke, son. Wonderfully protected by America.

Hmm. This sounds like more RDI wildcard reasoning. We have the paradoxical phenomenon that PR is using her own belongings to stage a murder by intruder. But, since they were amateurs, any paradoxical phenomenon is OK--we should expect them. Sounds good but its flawed, circular reasoning unless you 'already knew' they were amateurs or have an independent way to know (besides the murder itself) what their staging abilities are.

What proof do you have that PR or JR staging a murder would appear amateurish? Using the same reasoning, we could conclude that PR or JR wanted the intruder to appear amateurish. Operating outside the facts, it goes on and on limited only by your imagination.

 

[WHITEFANG]

Hmm. This sounds like more RDI wildcard reasoning. We have the paradoxical phenomenon that PR is using her own belongings to stage a murder by intruder. But, since they were amateurs, any paradoxical phenomenon is OK--we should expect them. Sounds good but its flawed, circular reasoning unless you 'already knew' they were amateurs or have an independent way to know (besides the murder itself) what their staging abilities are.

What proof do you have that PR or JR staging a murder would appear amateurish? Using the same reasoning, we could conclude that PR or JR wanted the intruder to appear amateurish. Operating outside the facts, it goes on and on limited only by your imagination.

HOTYH
That was the point. It was nonsense. I was aiming at those bizarre arguments that use that "logic." As in, the Ramsey's pulled off the hard part of the scheme brilliantly, but they couldn't figure out how to throw out evidence which only makes sense cause they were amateurs. Ridiculous!

You said, if the Ramsey's had done this killing, why wouldn't they get rid of all the evidence? To wit,

"I could buy that, under certain conditions. One, if these weren't two amateurs in over their heads." If they could contrive and carry out the worst and most delicate part, they could figure out they needed to get rid of evidence. Let's be consistent in our evaluation of their skills, for Pete's sake. (A major flaw often found in their arguments.)

This is where I was interjecting, facetiously, that they were brilliant idiots, just kidding.

"Two, if I thought that they both trusted each other. Just because they stuck with each other doesn't mean they were completely united."

If they didn't, they were goners.

This is another deeply flawed idea. Trust based on mutually assured destruction kind of trust is what they absolutely had to have. Not a lovie dovie, sweet, feeling-good kind of trust. They killed together. They had better cooperate with each other. One slip of contradiction between them, and it was curtains, or so they had to believe, if they were co-conspirators.

 

[madeleine]

Something else just crossed my mind.Hunter asked Lee and Scheck for help,two guys who we know can make a "case" outta nothing...if these two couldn't find anything you can at least base a great spin on then yeah I guess there was nothing there and the rice is cooked indeed.
The fact that these two said what they said tells me a LOT now that I think about it.And I mean what they said back then after reviewing the evidence not what they said on shows later for bucks.

 

[WHITEFANG]

There's no rationale behind it, but to each his own. HOTYH


Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean there isn't one. SD


Wait a minute! Talk about smug. He said there was "no" rationale behind it. That doesn't mean he didn't understand what they wanted the rationale to be. He said there was none. To dismiss his argument because he merely didn't understand it, doesn't mean there was none. That doesn't address what he said. It just minimizes it, as though it had no substance. That kind of thing happens constantly in the statements made by some.

Example, "Here's proof" and the dismissive response, "The price of eggs in Oshkosh wasn't any more than it was in Boulder in 1996. You are quite obviously a bone-head."

 

[WHITEFANG]

"This new scientific evidence convinces us...to state that we do not consider your immediate family, including you, your wife, Patsy, and your son, Burke, to be under any suspicion in the commission of this crime.

... The match of Male DNA on two separate items of clothing worn by the victim at the time of the murder makes it clear to us that an unknown male handled these items. There is no innocent explanation for its incriminating presence at three sites on these two different items of clothing that JonBenét was wearing at the time of her murder. ... To the extent that we may have contributed in any way to the public perception that you might have been involved in this crime, I am deeply sorry. No innocent person should have to endure such an extensive trial in the court of public opinion, especially when public officials have not had sufficient evidence to initiate a trial in a court of law. ... We intend in the future to treat you as the victims of this crime, with the sympathy due you because of the horrific loss you suffered. ... I am aware that there will be those who will choose to continue to differ with our conclusion. But DNA is very often the most reliable forensic evidence we can hope to find and we rely on it often to bring to justice those who have committed crimes. I am very comfortable that our conclusion that this evidence has vindicated your family is based firmly on all of the evidence,
2L2L2bad?

To the extent that we may have contributed in any way to the public perception that you might have been involved in this crime, I am sorry.

You should cover yourselves in sackcloth and ashes, all of you, for one year, at least. You led a couple who lost a child under the most vile circumstances into the most unimaginable suffering through your "contribution."

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

To the extent that we may have contributed in any way to the public perception that you might have been involved in this crime, I am sorry.

You should cover yourselves in sackcloth and ashes, all of you, for one year, at least. You led a couple who lost a child under the most vile circumstances into the most unimaginable suffering through your "contribution."

Consider every single checkout stand at every single supermarket--lipstick photos of JBR next to pictures of the suspect of the week. Its like a crime. How did they get away with it?

What is the restitution?

 

[Tadpole12]

To the extent that we may have contributed in any way to the public perception that you might have been involved in this crime, I am sorry.

You should cover yourselves in sackcloth and ashes, all of you, for one year, at least. You led a couple who lost a child under the most vile circumstances into the most unimaginable suffering through your "contribution."

Hi WhiteFang.

Hey! Welcome to the board.

Doling out condemnations adds nothing to any discussion. IMO

As I read your postings I find it difficult to wade through to the pertinent info, wedged between the multiple unassigned quotes. It would be a way better read if you could master the quote function, as I do enjoy reading your perspective.

 

[WHITEFANG]

It is problematic for me, at least, if the panty DNA was found to match the longjohns. To me, this rules out DNA left by someone involved in the handling/manufacturing process before the panties were bought by Patsy.
BUT it still does not prove the DNA is the killers or someone who was there when she was killed.
The way I see it, the panty DNA could still be the same skin cells as the longjohns, which became mixed with the liquid drop of JB's blood. The blood wouldn't "liquify" the skin cells, but the skin cells presence in the drop of blood could yield the two profiles from that drop of blood.

The presence of blood would be on that DNA, too. The DNA discovered on Joni's underwear, where absolutely no unknown male had any business, whatsoever, at all, for any reason, was found in three different places on/in these undergarments. This is extremely valuable, admissible evidence. It is a simple, one step, logical path to expect it belongs to the perpetrator. If DNA in the same amount and quality and in the exact same locations, was found on a different murdered six year old girl, and it was proven to belong to JR, his fanny would be in stir. I would love to help put it there!

Why was DNA from an unknown male in Joni's blood? Don't answer. Just a rhetorical thing.

 

[WHITEFANG]

Hi WhiteFang.

Hey! Welcome to the board.

Doling out condemnations adds nothing to any discussion. IMO

As I read your postings I find it difficult to wade through to the pertinent info, wedged between the multiple unassigned quotes. It would be a way better read if you could master the quote function, as I do enjoy reading your perspective.

Wait just a minute there Tadpole12! You mean to tell me by handing out appreciation for what others are posting I fail to achieve extra brownie points? None, at all? They add nothing at all to the discussions? Are you serious? No medals? No accommodations? No win a trip to Florida? What?
Well, just for that, I will not master the quoting functions. But, I do "Thank You" for the supportive words.

 

[WHITEFANG]

Consider every single checkout stand at every single supermarket--lipstick photos of JBR next to pictures of the suspect of the week. Its like a crime. How did they get away with it?

What is the restitution?

DIG IT HOTYH! don't you walk away uneasy, you poor old sod you see it's only me.


Restitution here is an old gesture expressing deep remorse and sorrow for breaking spiritual laws. Is that what you meant, "sackcloth and ashes?" Or are you wondering what would be appropriate?

Yep, every time they went to a store, or tried to, every time they went outside for anything they were assaulted by an unruly mob of fiendish punks. For those who have never experienced such merciless combat by our free press, it is not possible to understand what they had to go through. If they won the largest lottery ever, it would have been a nightmare. This was criminal.

 

[Tadpole12]

Wait just a minute there Tadpole12! You mean to tell me by handing out appreciation for what others are posting I fail to achieve extra brownie points? None, at all? They add nothing at all to the discussions? Are you serious? No medals? No accommodations? No win a trip to Florida? What?
Well, just for that, I will not master the quoting functions. But, I do "Thank You" for the supportive words.

Hey Whitefang.

Project what you will to my comments, whatever tickles your fancy.
Brownie points, medals, trips to florida, if that's your way with words, then self indulge.

If obstinance prevents you from making your posts readable by using the quote function, then I guess I will just have to accomodate and decipher your posts.

"You should cover yourselves in sackcloth and ashes, all of you, for one year, at least. You led a couple who lost a child under the most vile circumstances into the most unimaginable suffering through your "contribution." - WF

carry on! then.

 

[BBB167893]

What advantage does leaving the garrote around JBR's neck give the R's, in their effort to show an intruder killed JBR?

Are you kidding? It gives them an obvious means of death, AND a chance to later say, "I can't tie a knot like that."

Remember that the garrote was fashioned from PR's paintbrush. What advantage does PR get by fabricating a weapon from an object that is obviously owned by her? Why would she do this while diverting attention from herself?

I've already told you why: because there might have already been a "fall-guy" in mind who might know about these things.

Moreover, who says there HAS to be an advantage? Nobody ever committed the perfect crime. Every killer screws up someplace.

This is just one more paradox in a long list of RDI paradoxes.

No, not really.

Why would PR choose that item instead of something she could deny ownership?

Because it was right there. This isn't rocket science.

 

[BBB167893]

Same re pen&paper.

Exactly.

RDI claims that they bothered to get rid of the tape&rope,then why leave the other half of the brush there,why leave the pen&paper?Doesn't make sense.

It makes plenty of sense to me. Also, that assumes there was any other cord and tape to be gotten rid of.

 

[BBB167893]

Since the two killers were amateurs, you cannot expect to witness a great masterpiece murder.

THANK YOU! It's nice to see that someone understands what I'm trying to say!

Hmm. Seems I spoke too soon. I'd ask what's so hard to understand about everything you just said but the only thing I can do is take this one a piece at a time.

Even though they plotted and performed this highly intricate deception, intended to fool homicide detectives,

Ever hear that bit about the best laid plans? I'm serious. Just because they planned something doesn't mean it will go off without a hitch. Especially when you're making it up as you go along. Indeed, the arrogance required to think they could fool the law practically guarantees a mess-up. What's that old expression? "Pride goeth before a fall?"

That assumes that one was not trying to set-up the other one, just in case something went wrong.

it doesn't follow that they would think of things like, "What else should we do to cover our rear-ends?"

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?

Basic things like removing evidence is a bit too much to expect from this self-made millionaire and his college educated wife.

Intelligence does not equal wisdom. When you say it's "too much to expect," if helps to remember that JR was a businessman and PR a former journalism student and beauty queen. Neither had any real knowledge or experience with crime in any fashion. Expecting them to flawlessly execute a murder cover-up is like putting a blind man behind the wheel of a stock car and expecting him to take first place at Talladega!

Like I've said before, it's not as if I have't thought of all this stuff.

(Just in case.) That's a joke, I say, that's a joke, son. Wonderfully protected by America.

I don't know about you guys, but I'm deadly serious about all of this. It's not a joke to me.