IDI: Whats your problem?

[Jane Osa]

Regarding the 'bedwetting' theory - DeeDee recently mentioned urine on JB's pajamas/leggings - that her bladder would release at death due to muscle relaxation. Well, that would seem to suggest that her bladder would not have been recently emptied. So, the 'trigger' for the incident being bedwetting seems unlikely in the sense that it would be unlikely that if JB just emptied her bladder (causing PR rage) it would be full within, presumably, minutes.

 

[madeleine]

Madeleine, if you're saying that the mistakes LE made in this case crippled it, I'm with you. But this notion that the Rs have tried to push on us that there was this big conspiracy to cover their butts by targeting a rich, white, powerful couple is beyond insane. It's the OJ defense all over again, only without ANY historical evidence to give it any credence.

This is not what I am thinking.

I think they targeted the Ramsey's because they were afraid to look somewhere else.They knew they can't handle this.It was convenient.Let's take the California woman or the sex ring example,how many times did they imply (even the DA,iirc) that it's not worth pursuing.People like Singular kept telling them they need to check that as well,but no......LE knew better......where are the results if so?

 

[BBB167893]

This is not what I am thinking.

Just checking.

I think they targeted the Ramsey's because they were afraid to look somewhere else.They knew they can't handle this.It was convenient.Let's take the California woman or the sex ring example,how many times did they imply (even the DA,iirc) that it's not worth pursuing.People like Singular kept telling them they need to check that as well,but no......LE knew better......where are the results if so?

I don't know madeleine. I guess you'd have to ask the 't DA's who made up their minds that the Rs were innocent within the first week.

 

[Jane Osa]

this is probably 'off topic' in the sense of the thread title - but, sense I think I've just ruled out the bedwetting scenario - I thought about the flashlight.

The batteries were taken out and wiped down. An intruder would just take it. Now, if you assume the R.'s wiped it down - why? If they owned it then it'd make sense there would be prints, and their prints. This strikes me like the lying of JB being asleep & put to bed when they got home. A lie that seems 'innocent' in that they could have just told the truth.

Obviously the flashlight was either new or at some point ran out of juice. A neighbor saw flashlights in the house that night.

I suppose I'm seriously thinking the flashlight was the murder weapon. Otherwise, why wipe it down? Why be so fussy about it? It was their flashlight afterall, right? (or did they deny owing it, like the pineapple?) If you hit your daughter with it resulting in death you might feel 'fussy' enough to take the batteries out - but, that presumes you just recently loaded the batteries into the flashlight, you'd wipe down the 'barrel' of the light, not the batteries, per se. I'm sensing a disturbance in the force here - it's not coming together yet, but there's something there.

I'm posting this in case someone has an idea - otherwise, it's kinda useless rambings, in which case, I apologize. I seem to do a lot of thinking out loud on this site. Not my usual style, that's for sure.

Anything pertinent about the flashlight? did they own it, or admit to owning it? I know DeeDee has mentioned the strangeness of it before...any theories as to why they'd wipe down something that would be totally innocent if their prints were on it? Maybe someone was in the house with them - who shouldn't have been there & they were the ones who loaded the batteries - so, the wiping was not to eliminate R.'s prints but someone else's, someone they are protecting - ?

 

[Jane Osa]

Grr - obsessing about the flashlight, here. So - did the R.s own it? Where was it? Were there prints on the handle, but not on the batteries - or no prints at all.

If no prints at all & R.s didn't own it one could say an intruder with gloves on loaded the batteries and left it in the house - thus, no prints.

 

[WHITEFANG]

@bold
I totally agree.And whose to blame that there is so little information.The ones that didn't bother to check further.I am not going to defend IDI cause there are things that bother me re IDI as well(you won't hear me say "the DNA belongs to the killer and period").I am just not going to defend RDI anymore.


I am not going to defend IDI cause there are things that bother me re IDI as well(you won't hear me say "the DNA belongs to the killer and period").

Yet SuperDave said if the DNA was matched to a suspect it would be case closed.

 

[DeeDee249]

Grr - obsessing about the flashlight, here. So - did the R.s own it? Where was it? Were there prints on the handle, but not on the batteries - or no prints at all.

If no prints at all & R.s didn't own it one could say an intruder with gloves on loaded the batteries and left it in the house - thus, no prints.

Patsy was questioned about the flashlight in one of her interviews, available on ACR. She was shown photos by LE, including an open utility drawer where she said their flashlight was kept. There was no flashlight in the drawer. Patsy said that JR owned a flashlight "just like that" but couldn't say whether the one in the photo was theirs. After more questioning, LE pointed out that since the drawer where theirs was kept did not have a flashlight in it, and the one on the counter looked like one they had, it probably WAS theirs.

The flashlight and batteries were wiped of prints. The wiping of the batteries is something no intruder would do. If an intruder held the flashlight wearing gloves, there would be no need to wipe the batteries down. Actually, even without gloves, there would be no need for an intruder to wipe the batteries down because an intruder would not have touched the batteries in the first place. Wiped batteries are suspicious to me because an R's prints would have to be on the batteries and I feel the batteries were wiped so that the Rs could deny that it belonged to them.

 

[Jane Osa]

Thanks DeeDee

So - you are saying that one reason the R.s would wipe the flashlight is so they could claim it wasn't theirs - ?

Of course, assuming that the flashlight was indeed theirs (seems obvious) then, no, an intruder would not need to touch the batteries - presumably there would be batteries already inserted.

OK - so, I'm going to think about the significance of the flashlight to the R.s

Clearly they wanted NOTHING to do with it. And/or wanted whomever else may have touched it to not be implicated. However, at the same time they have it sitting in plain sight (perhaps they overlooked it?) - why not stick it back in the drawer?

Of course, with the flashlight, as with so much else - I think it's their stupidity that makes it all so messy and complicated. In their minds maybe having a 'clean' flashlight 'proves' that someone else was in the house & used it. Whereas I'm assuming they cleaned it & distance themselves from it because it's crucial....however, if it's crucial, why not just stick it back in the drawer clean or not (assuming no other person's prints would be on it but their own?) It all, as usual, gets confusing fast.

 

[DeeDee249]

Thanks DeeDee

So - you are saying that one reason the R.s would wipe the flashlight is so they could claim it wasn't theirs - ?

Of course, assuming that the flashlight was indeed theirs (seems obvious) then, no, an intruder would not need to touch the batteries - presumably there would be batteries already inserted.

OK - so, I'm going to think about the significance of the flashlight to the R.s

Clearly they wanted NOTHING to do with it. And/or wanted whomever else may have touched it to not be implicated. However, at the same time they have it sitting in plain sight (perhaps they overlooked it?) - why not stick it back in the drawer?

Of course, with the flashlight, as with so much else - I think it's their stupidity that makes it all so messy and complicated. In their minds maybe having a 'clean' flashlight 'proves' that someone else was in the house & used it. Whereas I'm assuming they cleaned it & distance themselves from it because it's crucial....however, if it's crucial, why not just stick it back in the drawer clean or not (assuming no other person's prints would be on it but their own?) It all, as usual, gets confusing fast.

What's odd is that their prints would be expected to be on it, so nothing suspicious about it. It is the absence of their prints (especially the batteries) that is suspicious. Yes, obviously they needed to distance themselves from the flashlight. Patsy said she believed JR had been given a flashlight just like it as a gift. She was being questioned about the flashlight, as well as the bowl of pineapple, glass with tea bag (WHY didn't they test that little tag on the tea bag for prints? Or touch DNA if they still have the tea bag) and box of tissue.
Patsy tries to distance herself from all of it, even going as far as saying she didn't buy that type of tissue. I mean, the intruder was already supposedly bringing with him the rather large flashlight, pineapple and now a box of tissue? There can't be anyone who thinks this makes sense. Then the intruder leaves it all behind- including JB.

 

[MurriFlower]

What's odd is that their prints would be expected to be on it, so nothing suspicious about it. It is the absence of their prints (especially the batteries) that is suspicious. Yes, obviously they needed to distance themselves from the flashlight. Patsy said she believed JR had been given a flashlight just like it as a gift. She was being questioned about the flashlight, as well as the bowl of pineapple, glass with tea bag (WHY didn't they test that little tag on the tea bag for prints? Or touch DNA if they still have the tea bag) and box of tissue.
Patsy tries to distance herself from all of it, even going as far as saying she didn't buy that type of tissue. I mean, the intruder was already supposedly bringing with him the rather large flashlight, pineapple and now a box of tissue? There can't be anyone who thinks this makes sense. Then the intruder leaves it all behind- including JB.

Please show us exactly where she says all this.

 

[Jane Osa]

Mycomputer keeps crashing - so, I'll write this ASAP

I wondering where I can find BR's testimony, questions & answers.

I'm wondering when he states he woke up - i.e., we hear his voice on the 911 call - did he admit to be up or not? If he said he was asleep there is a good chance he's lying - if he lied about that what else might he lied about successfully - ?

Anyone know where I can find this? Thanks

 

[WHITEFANG]

Motive, means, opportunity.

Love. Love is that gigantic stumbling block for motive. No love, plenty of motive. Lots of love, love with all their being, takes one of the three keys and tosses it to hell.

 

[joeskidbeck]

Motive, means, opportunity.

Love. Love is that gigantic stumbling block for motive. No love, plenty of motive. Lots of love, love with all their being, takes one of the three keys and tosses it to hell.

Accidents do not require motive.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Motive, means, opportunity.

Love. Love is that gigantic stumbling block for motive. No love, plenty of motive. Lots of love, love with all their being, takes one of the three keys and tosses it to hell.

There's evidence for this and there's evidence for that. One thing there is evidence of is JR/PR love for JBR. Its unfortunate for RDI that no evidence of non-love or abuse has been accepted into the pool of evidence.

Takes the wind out of RDI's sails.

 

[MurriFlower]

???

What I meant by IDI doesn't play by the rules, is that if an intruder was responsible, he might not use a 'store bought, Government approved' stun gun, nor might he use it in an 'approved' way. I'm thinking that a home made or modified 'stun gun' in the hands of this intruder would not be for the purpose of 'defence' but designed purely to 'disable'. Therefore I think that saying that you have 'proven' it's not possible by trying an Air Taser on yourself doesn't cover what I'm referring to.

At least you're not trying to tell me that one WAS used, end of argument. I appreciate that

No, as I said, I am trying to be flexible and consider all the options. I can't paste the picture I enhanced of the marks here, but they do appear to be like burns (at least the largest of the two) with a square outer ring, darker inner area and a lighter central point. At least, what I'm seeing isn't an even mark like a bruise, nor is it round like a cigarette burn. It is also quite different from the face mark.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I am not going to defend IDI cause there are things that bother me re IDI as well(you won't hear me say "the DNA belongs to the killer and period").

I was IDI before DNA.

 

[MurriFlower]

I was IDI before DNA.

Yeah, I'm not sure that the DNA adds much to IDI, but it sure does test the imagination of RDI!!

 

[OneLove]

There's evidence for this and there's evidence for that. One thing there is evidence of is JR/PR love for JBR. Its unfortunate for RDI that no evidence of non-love or abuse has been accepted into the pool of evidence.

Takes the wind out of RDI's sails.

No it does not. Not at all. Many parental homicides of children are committed by parents who show signs of love and no evidence of abuse.

Reference Susan Smith, Darlie Routier, Diane Downs, who was that famous wrestler that killed his 6 year old son a year or so ago, Andrea Yates, etc. etc. etc. Way way too many to list here, and very saddening.

Your logic does not hold up AT ALL.

 

[Tadpole12]

SD we are having these 'communication' problems again, perhaps it's a language barrier.

The website is dedicated to excluding marks made by an Air Taser. My point was that:

1. Stun guns are easy to make/modify at home.
2. Home made stun guns would not need to comply to any safety regulations regarding the current/amps
3. Children would be more susceptible to their effects due to low body mass/muscle ratio
4. Cattle prodders are easy to obtain and could easily be modified to create this effect.

Whilst I appreciate the lengths to which you have gone to prove that 'a stun gun' wasn't used, this just demonstrates the effect that a particular brand of stun gun (available on the market) has on an adult.

IDI may not play by the rules!

So while you have dismissed it as of no importance, I still have the opinion that one may have been used.

Hi MurriFlower.

I too had been thinking of alternative 'taser' devices that might have made those marks. Perhaps a taser used in animal training, farming,
Plans for homemade tasers are available online.

Here's some links for your perusing.

electric stun gun part list schemantics:
http://stungunreviews.tripod.com/electric-stun-gun-tazer.html

Cattleprod used to test child:
http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/news/story.html?id=ce7e478e-83c5-4863-8b83-8c9cb4246567


Hudson safety products.
http://www.hudsonsafetyproducts.com/



Being unfamilar with stun gun technology, but there certainly is a range in voltage. There would a specific voltage be lethal to a child?

My friend in electronics advises, that a project building an oscillator and a voltage step up circuitry is a basic of highschool electronics.

 

[DeeDee249]

Please show us exactly where she says all this.

Patsy's interviews on ACR. There are about four of them. They are long, but easy enough to scroll down and find what you are looking for. There you'll find LE asking Patsy about crime scene photos they are showing her. Look for the conversations about the pineapple, bowl and spoon. Then, there is another conversation about the drawer and flashlight.