IDI: Whats your problem?

[MurriFlower]

Hi guys

Not getting much feedback on anything that doesn't involve the R's being guilty, but I'll just keep plugging on.

I posted a while back (can't remember which thread) about my 'examination' of the photographic evidence of the marks on JBR's body. I suggesed at the time, that the face mark resembled a four hole button (similar to a those on workmen's clothes). The marks on the back, the supposed stun gun marks still resemble burn marks. The bruise/abrasion on the neck has had me thinking though. When I enhanced it, changed the exposure and basically fiddled with colour etc, a shape emerged. It was a rectangle, but narrower at the bottom with a lighter mark in the middle at the top. I've racked my brains trying to think what this could be, but I think I now know. It looks very much like an imprint of the barrel (muzzle) of a handgun! Something similar to a Glock although I'm sure there are people with more knowledge of these things than me who could identify it.

Now, if I'm right, this puts a different spin on it doesn't it?

 

[BBB167893]

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

WHERE did you get that quote?

HOTYH, you're pushing me, you know that? If you must know, it comes from "The Hound of the Baskervilles."

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

Go for it, HOTYH. But that's sort of my point: I know from personal experience that it doesn't work too well for IDI. I wish you the best of luck.

 

[WHITEFANG]

Hi guys

Not getting much feedback on anything that doesn't involve the R's being guilty, but I'll just keep plugging on.

I posted a while back (can't remember which thread) about my 'examination' of the photographic evidence of the marks on JBR's body. I suggesed at the time, that the face mark resembled a four hole button (similar to a those on workmen's clothes). The marks on the back, the supposed stun gun marks still resemble burn marks. The bruise/abrasion on the neck has had me thinking though. When I enhanced it, changed the exposure and basically fiddled with colour etc, a shape emerged. It was a rectangle, but narrower at the bottom with a lighter mark in the middle at the top. I've racked my brains trying to think what this could be, but I think I now know. It looks very much like an imprint of the barrel of a handgun! Something similar to a Glock although I'm sure there are people with more knowledge of these things than me who could identify it.

Now, if I'm right, this puts a different spin on it doesn't it?

You make a good point. It is a fascinating display of selective bias. They cannot or will not see it. Everything is minimized or dismissed that suggests they are wrong. Then, they say that is what others do who disagree with them. Stalemate? Not really. Their perspective is final. All bases are covered.

To be open minded is to see this tragedy beyond the smokescreen of unending speculation. To keep an open mind offers us the opportunity to see through a glass darkly. We can see that the cold, calculating savagery that took the life of Joni had absolutely nothing to do with two parents who loved her. They, neither one of them, ever showed a hint of such brutal, murderous rage, no matter how fine you slice their alleged behavior, prescription use, alcohol consumption, egocentricity, hormone fluctuations, etc. These people could turn Mother Teresa into the Inquisitor if given half a chance. And, they absolutely will not or cannot see it.
Because they find a measure of credibility in a theory here and there and the credibility of a theory built on those assumptions, they add another hypothetical layer of theory, that in time becomes like fact. And away we go, on and on, until they have created hardened, inhuman, vicious killers of their own flesh and blood without one single ounce of proof. PROOF! When you dare to mention that dirty word, you are reminded that that is not what we do here. We proffer opinions. Opinion this. They didn't do it! Don't challenge that, it is my opinion. LOL

 

[BBB167893]

Let's see if it can be applied here.

I think you've got something there. That sounds like a worthwhile project.

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!!

That's a very rough version of it. Perhaps I can put it in perspective:

Okay, here goes (not that anyone will care): It's tough to see how the Rs would profit from JB's death, as such. In fact, it's nigh-impossible. But if you were to ask me how they would profit from making covering up an "accident" (even I'm not too keen on that phrase) with what looked like a sex-crimes murder, then I would say your assertion of keeping themselves above suspicion is partly correct. It would be more accurate to say that it would allow them to portray themselves as victims in the hope that at least someone would believe them. It also allows them to save face with their relatives, especially their son.

As a side-note, if you examine my thread on "Loved to Death," I describe the possibility that PR profited in the sense that JB made her famous, which is what she seemed to be after the whole time.

But the way they profit most is that it keeps them out of prison because it creates just enough reasonable doubt. All you need is ONE person on a jury to see things your way. (Having the money to hire people who can create that doubt for you doesn't hurt any.)

It's not so difficult when you open your mind to the possibilities.

Umm, oops that didn't work for them did it?

From where I stand, it worked better than it had any right to work. To me, the idea was that even if they DID come under suspicion, they could just use that as further proof of how badly they've been victimized. Which is what they have been doing, now that I think of it. Remember: when a person stages a crime, they are telling a story. And as any good journalism mahor would know, a hero is only as good as the villain is evil. In this case, the Ramseys' story has two villains: the killer him/herself, and the awful fascist police.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that, they didn't have to convince the cops; they didn't have to convince the public at large; they just had to convince ONE person out of twelve. They watched the OJ trial. From that, they learned two things:

1) Someone out there would believe them if they just stuck to their story long enough (and employed the right team of legal experts and PR people). Some people will be quick to demonize police and FBI agents, no matter what.

2) The American legal system often degenerates into a contest between the prosecutor and defense counsel over which has the better debating prowess and which one the jury likes more.

IDI would need to tell how the I(s) profited.

Yes, they would.

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.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

So, we are left with a conundrum.

You said it.

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.

Truth be told, it IS food for thought. I'm serious, that's pretty good.

 

[BBB167893]

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."

No problem, man. I can help you. Just highlight the section of text you want to quote, then hit the quote button at the top of the toolbar just above the writing space.

Or, you can do it manually. At the start of the passage you want to quote, type QUOTE inside the brackets, which look like this: [ ]

Then, at the end, type the same thing, but put a forward slash before the Q. Like this:

[/Q

And if you want to attribute a name to the quote, just type in =theperson'sname after the [QUOT

 

[BBB167893]

Come on,Dave.You say it was an accident.

I'm saying that's how it started.

How on earth can two people who loved their child be so cold blooded and so calculated.

What do you mean? I'm not claiming that at all. I'm claiming they made it up as they went along. But, to be fair, perhaps I did not phrase it as well as I wanted to. You have to distnguish between what they might have thought at the time and what they thought of later. I failed to make that distinction. So let me make myself clear.

She disguised her handwriting,

Anyone would have known to try that.

she strangled the kid so that she'll throw at LE an excuse like I dont't know how to tie such knots,

I think the knots part was more JR's idea after the fact. I think the method of the garrote was chosen because it allows you the luxury of not touching the body directly or harming it in a way that would destroy JB's beauty at the funeral. We've been over that before.

she penetrated her child's vagina so that LE thinks it was some pedo.

I think it was more likely he did that. Either way, I don't think either of them were to gung-ho about it. Indeed, as I said before, using the paintbrush allows them to penetrate her without actually touching her.

She threw herself on her child's body so she can explain fibers later.

I don't think that's quite it. See, this goes back to what I said about these people being intelligent yet not savvy about crime. I sincerely doubt that either one of them knew that there was such a thing as fiber analysis, thus they had no reason to think about it at the time. Later, when it was revealed to her that her fibers were in those places, she used her throwing herself onto the body as a cover because that was all she had.

None of this is really that diffcult when you think about it.

Do you really BELIEVE all this stuff?

Thereby hangs a tale, Maddy. I believe what I believe, not what you CLAIM I believe.

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

No, what YOU SAY I say would apply. That's how you interpret me.

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?

I lean more strongly toward the second than the first. That assumes that one was equally panicked as the other, though. Afterwards, when they started coming up with their stories was probably a combination of advice from lawyers and self-brainwashing.

Look, you guys. I've tried to be civil and to be a good sport. But I am at the end of my tether. I've had it with these strawman arguments where you TWIST and BEND everything I say until it bears no resemblance to what I'm trying to get across. It's clear that we are not operating on the level of mutual respect I had assumed, and that's a damn shame, because we'd all get a lot farther that way. So I'm going to lay it out on the line:

If you disagree with me, that's fine. But I BEG you to give what I have to say serious thought before you make up your minds. I promise no less in return. I've put a lot of years of my life into this, on BOTH sides. I didn't do all that to made a fool of. So, unless you want to talk to me seriously--and this little one deserves the very best efforts we can give, no matter what sides we're on--then you might as well all put me on "ignore," because there's nothing to talk about.

 

[BBB167893]

It is a fascinating display of selective bias.

They cannot or will not see it. Everything is minimized or dismissed that suggests they are wrong.

Wow. I can't remember the last time I was confronted with such a stark example of throwing stones in a glass house.

Then, they say that is what others do who disagree with them.

If it walks like a duck...

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

If you disagree with me, that's fine. But I BEG you to give what I have to say serious thought before you make up your minds. I promise no less in return. I've put a lot of years of my life into this, on BOTH sides. I didn't do all that to made a fool of. So, unless you want to talk to me seriously--and this little one deserves the very best efforts we can give, no matter what sides we're on--then you might as well all put me on "ignore," because there's nothing to talk about.

OK serious. Really?

I've previously asked for a mock trial, a review of 1996 news events, a DNA transfer scenario, and an explanation as to why the whitespace and spelling are different.

I've been looking for agreement that the ransom note has no exclusively college level words. Also looking for agreement that it has some words with revolutionary connotations.

 

[MurriFlower]

You make a good point. It is a fascinating display of selective bias. They cannot or will not see it. Everything is minimized or dismissed that suggests they are wrong. Then, they say that is what others do who disagree with them. Stalemate? Not really. Their perspective is final. All bases are covered.

To be open minded is to see this tragedy beyond the smokescreen of unending speculation. To keep an open mind offers us the opportunity to see through a glass darkly. We can see that the cold, calculating savagery that took the life of Joni had absolutely nothing to do with two parents who loved her. They, neither one of them, ever showed a hint of such brutal, murderous rage, no matter how fine you slice their alleged behavior, prescription use, alcohol consumption, egocentricity, hormone fluctuations, etc. These people could turn Mother Teresa into the Inquisitor if given half a chance. And, they absolutely will not or cannot see it.
Because they find a measure of credibility in a theory here and there and the credibility of a theory built on those assumptions, they add another hypothetical layer of theory, that in time becomes like fact. And away we go, on and on, until they have created hardened, inhuman, vicious killers of their own flesh and blood without one single ounce of proof. PROOF! When you dare to mention that dirty word, you are reminded that that is not what we do here. We proffer opinions. Opinion this. They didn't do it! Don't challenge that, it is my opinion. LOL

Yes, I agree and I'm sure there were parents who did much worse things, but it was not these parents. The RDI theory does not stand up to close scrutiny and were it not for the persistence of it's supporters, I'm sure this killing would have been solved within a very short time. Sadly RDI was also the opinion of the police who investigated so they virtually looked for no other evidence. In their defence though, whoever did this crime left precious little evidence to be found. That in itself says something. It's the reason why I have been clinging to the belief that it was someone who was 'part' of the household and that their DNA and fingerprints were everywhere in the house and therefore above suspicion. But as far as the evidence found on the body is concerned, it's hard to believe this was the work of an amateur. Aside from some brown fibers (from gloves?) and some tiny spots of DNA, there was nothing else on the body. Even the sexual assault was a restrained 'hands off' type of thing, hardly the work of a 'crazed sexual saddist'. It seems whoever did this was more concerned with not leaving evidence than with the performance of the crime itself, which leaves us wondering what the motive may have been. Certainly not kidnap/ransom or the body would have been removed. The RN, a 'novel' with lots of information, but cryptic and meaningless (to us) must have meant something, perhaps to it's intended audience.

The challenge here is to get alternative opinions seriously considered.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Yes, I agree and I'm sure there were parents who did much worse things, but it was not these parents. The RDI theory does not stand up to close scrutiny and were it not for the persistence of it's supporters, I'm sure this killing would have been solved within a very short time. Sadly RDI was also the opinion of the police who investigated so they virtually looked for no other evidence. In their defence though, whoever did this crime left precious little evidence to be found. That in itself says something. It's the reason why I have been clinging to the belief that it was someone who was 'part' of the household and that their DNA and fingerprints were everywhere in the house and therefore above suspicion. But as far as the evidence found on the body is concerned, it's hard to believe this was the work of an amateur. Aside from some brown fibers (from gloves?) and some tiny spots of DNA, there was nothing else on the body. Even the sexual assault was a restrained 'hands off' type of thing, hardly the work of a 'crazed sexual saddist'. It seems whoever did this was more concerned with not leaving evidence than with the performance of the crime itself, which leaves us wondering what the motive may have been. Certainly not kidnap/ransom or the body would have been removed. The RN, a 'novel' with lots of information, but cryptic and meaningless (to us) must have meant something, perhaps to it's intended audience.

The challenge here is to get alternative opinions seriously considered.

They left a lot of evidence, actually. The body, the murder weapon, black tape, three (3) pages, 350 words, 1500+ characters of their PERSONAL HANDWRITING not all of which appears disguised. It so happens that the murder weapon they chose to assemble and use can't be easily traced.

Makes you wonder why someone wasn't worried about leaving handwriting. The answer to that question IMO is right there in the ransom note: foreign.

 

[MurriFlower]

They left a lot of evidence, actually. The body, the murder weapon, tape, three (3) pages, 350 words, 1500+ characters of their PERSONAL HANDWRITING not all of which appears disguised. The murder weapon they chose can't be easily traced.

Makes you wonder why someone wasn't worried about leaving handwriting. The answer to that question IMO is right there in the ransom note: foreign.

By murder weapon, do you mean the garrotte??

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

By murder weapon, do you mean the garrotte??

Yes, the garrote is one of the murder weapons and it was left at the scene.

 

[BBB167893]

OK serious. Really?

Serious as I can be.

I've previously asked for a mock trial,

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

a review of 1996 news events,

I gave you one: the emergence of Osama bin Laden as a major news item in America.

a DNA transfer scenario,

I've only given you that a hundred times.

and an explanation as to why the whitespace and spelling are different.

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

I've been looking for agreement that the ransom note has no exclusively college level words. Also looking for agreement that it has some words with revolutionary connotations.

Got it.

 

[MurriFlower]

Yes, the garrote is one of the murder weapons and it was left at the scene.

Well, neither the tape nor the garrotte could be sourced, so they have had no value as evidence thus far.

I expect you are saying the 'head bash' instrument was the other of the murder weapons?

Could we have a little IDI discussion about this?

I have suggested that the bruise/abrasion on her neck resembles a mark left by the muzzle of a handgun. Nobody has yet argued or agreed with this, so I'll go on to suggest that if I'm right, then the butt of the handgun may also be the 'head bash' weapon. Assuming JBR was on her back when the mark on her neck was made, followed by the blow, which hand was the weapon in when it struck her head? I'm thinking the 'perp' was left handed??

 

[BBB167893]

Yes, I agree and I'm sure there were parents who did much worse things, but it was not these parents.

Why NOT?

The RDI theory does not stand up to close scrutiny

It does well by me. And no one's scrutinized it harder than I have. I'd stake the farm on that.

and were it not for the persistence of it's supporters, I'm sure this killing would have been solved within a very short time.

Far as I go, you've got it just the other way around: it's the persistence of IDI supporters that stopped this one dead. This was a simple case. When $$$ got involved it became complicated.

Sadly RDI was also the opinion of the police who investigated so they virtually looked for no other evidence.

I've just about had it with that nonsense. That is pure self-serving Ramsey BS. Let's see: the police interviewed over 600 people, logged over 1400 items into evidence, went all over the country to investigate leads, built a file 40,000 pages long, etc. Meanwhile, the kinds of things you'd think they would have done if they truly were "out to get them," such as tapping their phones, planting listening devices in their house, etc., were not done and were in fact shot down at the very top. I would have bugged the place.

In their defence though, whoever did this crime left precious little evidence to be found. That in itself says something.

No argument here.

Aside from some brown fibers (from gloves?) and some tiny spots of DNA, there was nothing else on the body. Even the sexual assault was a restrained 'hands off' type of thing, hardly the work of a 'crazed sexual saddist'.

Now you're talking my language.

The challenge here is to get alternative opinions seriously considered.

You have to take 'em to get 'em. For the record, I can get my head around your idea.

 

[BBB167893]

Makes you wonder why someone wasn't worried about leaving handwriting.

Who says they weren't worried? Personally, I think the writer was worried.

The answer to that question IMO is right there in the ransom note: foreign.

I don't know, HOTYH. Gideon Epstien was the head of document examination for the Immigration and Naturalization service. His primary duty was tracking down European war criminals who had slipped through the Allied nets and were living in the US under phony names. In other words, one, he'd be accustomed to studying the writing of people for whom English was a second language; and two, he'd have extensive experience with disguised handwriting, since most of these people's entire LIVES were a deception and they KNEW they were wanted men. Here are his qualifications:

http://www.gideonepstein.com/resume.htm

There are an awful lot of really bad guys who went to prison because of him.

Well, according to him, there was an attempt to disguise, there was no foreign involvement, and he's positive PR wrote it. That's a pretty tough mountain for me to climb to get to where you are. See, unlike SOME people, who simply dismiss everything that is offered, I'm actually giving my reasons as to why I'm like I am.

 

[MurriFlower]

Why NOT?

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

We can see that the cold, calculating savagery that took the life of Joni had absolutely nothing to do with two parents who loved her. They, neither one of them, ever showed a hint of such brutal, murderous rage, no matter how fine you slice their alleged behavior, prescription use, alcohol consumption, egocentricity, hormone fluctuations, etc.

SuperDave It does well by me. And no one's scrutinized it harder than I have. I'd stake the farm on that.

I can't comment on how well you have scrutinised the evidence SD. 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. As I've said before, the main 'evidence' appears to be the RN and the 'expert' opinion that it was written by PR. 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.

Far as I go, you've got it just the other way around: it's the persistence of IDI supporters that stopped this one dead. This was a simple case. When $$$ got involved it became complicated.

No, it was the lack of any convincing evidence.

You have to take 'em to get 'em. For the record, I can get my head around your idea.

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

I hope you will consider other ideas

 

[WHITEFANG]

Epstein cannot know that PR wrote the note. Can't be done. He can't dispute the DNA is not from an unknown male and where it was found.

 

[WHITEFANG]

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.

Nah. No game.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Well, neither the tape nor the garrotte could be sourced, so they have had no value as evidence thus far.

I expect you are saying the 'head bash' instrument was the other of the murder weapons?

Could we have a little IDI discussion about this?

I have suggested that the bruise/abrasion on her neck resembles a mark left by the muzzle of a handgun. Nobody has yet argued or agreed with this, so I'll go on to suggest that if I'm right, then the butt of the handgun may also be the 'head bash' weapon. Assuming JBR was on her back when the mark on her neck was made, followed by the blow, which hand was the weapon in when it struck her head? I'm thinking the 'perp' was left handed??

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.