IDI: Whats your problem?

[BBB167893]

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

Possibly. At the very least, in way over their heads.

 

[BBB167893]

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.

Yeah, and for the life of me, I don't know what's so hard to understand about that.

Sounds good

Yeah, especially when the feds say it.

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.

Now THERE's some circular reasoning for you.

Using the same reasoning, we could conclude that PR or JR wanted the intruder to appear amateurish.

There's an interesting idea.

Operating outside the facts, it goes on and on limited only by your imagination.

"People will stick to facts, Watson, even though they prove nothing. It is in the imagination that crimes are conceived and there that they must be solved."

 

[BBB167893]

HOTYH
That was the point. It was nonsense.

If it were nonsense, I wouldn't believe it.

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!

Yeah, it is ridiculous. But that's why I'm not saying it. I have NEVER claimed that they pulled off the hard part "brilliantly." FAR from it!

Let me lay this illustration on you: there's something you have to do, but you're scared to death/repulsed by it. But you summon up all of yourself and you do it. But once the "rush" wears off, you're shaking so badly you can barely stand. That's what I think happened here. They did the hard part, and it shook them to the core. I doubt they'd be thinking too clearly at that point.

If they could contrive and carry out the worst and most delicate part, they could figure out they needed to get rid of evidence.

I honestly don't follow. History is filled with examples of people who executed grand schemes only to be destroyed by mundane things. Napoleon's attack on Russia leaps to mind. And he DARN sure should have known better!

Let's be consistent in our evaluation of their skills, for Pete's sake.

I AM! A couple of bumblers who got damn lucky. And leave Pete out of this.

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

Not brilliant idiots, Fang. Lucky idiots. I think Lawrence Schiller said it best--and even then, he was quoting someone: this was not a perfect murder by design. It was a perfect murder by accident.

My mother used to say, "God watches out for idiots." Maybe she was on to something.

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.

That's true, and it's a fine piece of thinking. Couldn't have said it better myself. But it never hurts to have a Plan B.

 

[BBB167893]

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.

I'm not sure what you mean, madeleine. Henry Lee has said that if not for the intricacies of CO law, charges of obstruction of justice and evidence tampering could very well have been filed.

 

[BBB167893]

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.

I don't have to. I've seen enough of it in this case to last me the better part of three lifetimes.

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.

I apologize, Fang. You too, HOTYH. I thought HOTYH was saying that I had no rationale. I misinterpreted it as a direct challenge and answered accordingly. That doesn't excuse it, but I hope it explains it.

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's not what I'm doing. HOTYH has said several times in the past that he makes no attempt to understand me because he feels no need. Seems to be catching...

That kind of thing happens constantly in the statements made by some.

Yeah, I've noticed.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

"People will stick to facts, Watson, even though they prove nothing. It is in the imagination that crimes are conceived and there that they must be solved."

Facts prove nothing? Don't tell the DOJ they might be upset.

Where did you get this cr@&?

 

[MurriFlower]

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?

Not a crime HOTYH, goodness no, just their rights as citizens to express an opinion!! Meanwhile the real criminal must be ROFLAO (oops sorry forgot we aren't allowed to laugh here), perhaps just an evil smile then.

What is the restitution?

Can't think of anything that would make up for it, except perhaps people continuing to plug away and hopefully eventually finding the person responsible and the real killer (assuming they aren't one and the same person).

 

[BBB167893]

Facts prove nothing? Don't tell the DOJ they might be upset.

Where did you get this cr@&?

Not REMOTELY what I meant. You and Fang just talk such a game about imagination, I thought it would help to remind you that you NEED imagination to solve crimes because you have to get into the heads of perps.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Not REMOTELY what I meant. You and Fang just talk such a game about imagination, I thought it would help to remind you that you NEED imagination to solve crimes because you have to get into the heads of perps.

"People will stick to facts, Watson, even though they prove nothing."

But I wasn't kidding. More politely, where did you get that quote?

 

[BBB167893]

Not a crime HOTYH, goodness no, just their rights as citizens to express an opinion!!

No, it isn't a crime. Though I'm guessing you two think it should be.

And where news outlets are concerned, it's not their right as citizens. There's an unspoken agreement that news outlets are not supposed to express opinions (except where noted) but to give the cold facts to the public. (How successful they are at doing so is the subject of INTENSE debate.) Thus, when a falsehood is expressed, it's a big problem for them, especially if the editor greenlights a story when he/she knows it's false.

Meanwhile the real criminal must be ROFLAO

Maybe.

(oops sorry forgot we aren't allowed to laugh here),

It's not the laughing I mind. It's the fact that I didn't put 13-1/2 years of my blood and sweat into this to be made a fool of.

perhaps just an evil smile then.

Nothing wrong with that.

Can't think of anything that would make up for it, except perhaps people continuing to plug away and hopefully eventually finding the person responsible and the real killer (assuming they aren't one and the same person).

Isn't that what we're all trying to do?

 

[Tadpole12]

"People will stick to facts, Watson, even though they prove nothing."

But I wasn't kidding. More politely, where did you get that quote?

Hey Hotyh.

Cui bono

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cui_bono[/ame]


SH paraphrases Cui bono in many of Arthur Conan Doyle's stories, most notably in The Naval Treaty where he states "Answer the question of who benefits or profits most directly from an action, event, or outcome and you always have the starting point for your analysis or investigation, and sometimes, it will also give you the end point."

 

[BBB167893]

"People will stick to facts, Watson, even though they prove nothing."

But I wasn't kidding.

I know, but it wasn't your fault. My attempts at wit are 50/50.

More politely, where did you get that quote?

Sherlock Holmes.

"Answer the question of who benefits or profits most directly from an action, event, or outcome and you always have the starting point for your analysis or investigation, and sometimes, it will also give you the end point."

That says it all, right there.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Sherlock Holmes.

But that wasn't my question. Here, I'll slow down:

WHERE did you get that quote?

"Answer the question of who benefits or profits most directly from an action, event, or outcome and you always have the starting point for your analysis or investigation, and sometimes, it will also give you the end point."

That says it all, right there.

OK that says it all. I'll reverse-engineer that one into IDI and let you know. Whats good for the goose, right?

 

[MurriFlower]

Hey Hotyh.
"Answer the question of who benefits or profits most directly from an action, event, or outcome and you always have the starting point for your analysis or investigation, and sometimes, it will also give you the end point."

This is a very interesting quote TP.

Let's see if it can be applied here.

RDI would need to tell how the R's profited. I expect their answer may be that their 'profit' was in successfully covering up an 'accident' with a murder, thus keeping themselves above suspicion of being child abusers!! Umm, oops that didn't work for them did it?

IDI would need to tell how the I(s) profited. This probably depends on whose theory you go with. HOTYH might say that the SFF failed to profit in $$$ but the publicity furthered their cause. Of course, no one knows who this SFF was or what their cause may have been, so this didn't work for them either. The Gang of Pedophiles naturally profited by abusing JBR for their own perveted pleasure. What profit did they gain from the RN though? This doesn't seem to work either. My own theory of a botched extortion attempt by a blackmailer could fit, but the profit ($118,000) did not happen because they 'failed' to take JBR's body. Any 'profit' for them was only that they haven't been caught.

So, we are left with a conundrum. The Lawyers profited, the book writers profited, the tabloids profited, some of the investigators probably profited, but I doubt we can implicate any of these in the murder.

Could we just be left with the 'profit' being in the deliberate implication of the R's?? Was the conspiracy merely to disgrace JR? Was he seen as a threat to someone, becoming too powerful, too cocky? Could it have been a 'warning' to/not to do something (we can take all your family, one at a time)?

Food for thought.

 

[WHITEFANG]

Not a crime HOTYH, goodness no, just their rights as citizens to express an opinion!! Meanwhile the real criminal must be ROFLAO (oops sorry forgot we aren't allowed to laugh here), perhaps just an evil smile then.



Can't think of anything that would make up for it, except perhaps people continuing to plug away and hopefully eventually finding the person responsible and the real killer (assuming they aren't one and the same person).

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.[/QUOT

Not a crime HOTYH, goodness no, just their rights as citizens to express an opinion!! Meanwhile the real criminal must be ROFLAO (oops sorry forgot we aren't allowed to laugh here), perhaps just an evil smile then.



Can't think of anything that would make up for it, except perhaps people continuing to plug away and hopefully eventually finding the person responsible and the real killer (assuming they aren't one and the same person).

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

I am computer challenged. I don't know how to use the quoting "button." That's my problem. I am flattered you find my efforts at coherence something worthwhile. BTW, I read it "commendations" not "condemnations."

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

So, we are left with a conundrum. The Lawyers profited, the book writers profited, the tabloids profited, some of the investigators probably profited, but I doubt we can implicate any of these in the murder.

Could we just be left with the 'profit' being in the deliberate implication of the R's?? Was the conspiracy merely to disgrace JR? Was he seen as a threat to someone, becoming too powerful, too cocky? Could it have been a 'warning' to/not to do something (we can take all your family, one at a time)?

Food for thought.

This is no small potatoes.

The tabloids profited bigtime from a child murder when it wasn't even known what happened to her, who did it, or why. This profit eclipsed the authors, lawyers, etc.

JBR would've been seen as an excellent candidate for profit/exploitation by the tabloids, what with the photos already in the public domain that could be juxtaposed with adult males. Yes, this is a lot to go on while investigators still don't know what happened to JBR.



CULTURE POP: COVER STORY: JONBENET KEEPS HOLD ON MAGAZINES

Published: November 10, 1997

A new flurry of speculation about the unsolved death of JonBenet Ramsey landed the case on five magazine covers in October, enough to capture the Cover Story lead for the month. The pre-adolescent beauty queen, found slain in her home last Christmas, garnered 6.5 points. The case earned a triple play on the National Enquirer, and one-time appearances on People and Star, as suspicions continued to linger around her parents' involvement.

 

[Tadpole12]

Hey WHITEFANG.

Fresh perspective is always interesting.

aside,
I was a Grumpaloo,
:blushing:

 

[madeleine]

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."

Come on,Dave.You say it was an accident.How on earth can two people who loved their child be so cold blooded and so calculated.She disguised her handwriting,she strangled the kid so that she'll throw at LE an excuse like I dont't know how to tie such knots,she penetrated her child's vagina so that LE thinks it was some pedo.
She threw herself on her child's body so she can explain fibers later.

Do you really BELIEVE all this stuff?

 

[madeleine]

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.

 

[madeleine]

One of the things that made LE&FBI suspect the parents /staged scene/cover-up was JB being wrapped in the blanket.Why did they chose to believe JR re this when they didn't believe anything else coming out of his mouth?Same old,same old,pick only what you can fit in your own theory.
If he was lying about everything else,why not consider that he might be lying about this as well.Because this one fits RDI,right?