IDI: Whats your problem?

[MurriFlower]

Those who profess to know what happened from 10:00 PM to 6:00 AM but weren't there to see it. Yet, we have almost by magic AEA, , abuse, JBR 'blowing the whistle', etc. etc. Just about anything the imagination can come up with for those 8 hours, as long as the TABLOIDS LIKE IT.

Tabloids like it because their readers like it. If no one bought these 'newspapers' they would pretty soon go broke and disappear. I've often wondered just who the people are who want this kind of stuff. I think that question has now been answered!

Oranges are of no interest to tabloids unless they are used in a bizarre, perverted, sexual game (preferably gone wrong!).

 

[MurriFlower]

Well, at least thanks for the good laugh before I sign off.

Well!! And I thought laughing was banned on here??

 

[MurriFlower]

It seems that we, of the RDI, are thought to take what evidence we like, but throw the rest out. Right?
If you really believe that an intruder brought his own cord and tape and counted on using the Ramsey's flashlight to navigate a house known to have 25 rooms, you absolutely cannot accuse RDI's of this anymore.
He KNEW where the flashlight was kept in the Ramsey home (heck, even that they had one). Patsy went from yes, it's John's to I don't remember if it is or not.
He KNEW that they didn't have cord and tape. Patsy knew they had tape, but it was clear.
He KNEW that they had (and where to find) the ransom note paper as well as the utensil.
He KNEW where that basement room was.
I gotta stop this. It's starting to sound like it just about had to be someone who lived in this home.

Well, aside from the flashlight (which has never been proven to be the blunt instrument responsible) you are right I think. Yes, I think someone was involved who, if they did not live in the house, then who knew it very well. IMO this is why some incorrectly believe RDI. Just try to imagine who else might have had access to the house and the opportunity to find all this out.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I was there.
I did it.

I have a few questions for you.

 

[BBB167893]

Hmm. Let me see this ones a toughy. Flashlights are made of thin sheet metal stampings, spinnings, some aluminum, some steel, always cheap and softer metals. These are going to be easily dented when struck something like a skull or your stone.

Unless this was a machined aluminum (expensive) flashlight. Even then there would be marks, blood, even tissue and forensics would find them post haste. This type of aluminum is always anodized and the anodize scratches thru and shows marks very easily.

Maybe the conditions of your test are up for some further discussion e.g. brand name, velocity, which end, stone material, microscopic examinations, etc.

You're forgetting one crucial thing, HOTYH. This flashlight had a coating of rubber. That changes the game a bit.

 

[BBB167893]

Hey I wonder, if she did it, is there a scenario thats NOT sordid?

I don't think it works that way, HOTYH. When a child's death is involved, it's going to be sordid by definition!

 

[DeeDee249]

I was there.
I did it.

Do you really think this is funny? Why would you say that you did this awful thing?
I understand that you were being sarcastic BUT this isn't really the kind of crime that warrants that kind of joke.

 

[BBB167893]

Experiment 12206A
Professor, Lord, Sir, Dr., The Honorable S. Dave PhD., M.D., J.D.
Professor Emeritus
Fellow and Chairman
Harvard School of Behavioral Science
University of Sleuths
School of Advanced Forensic Science
Author and Distinguished International Scholar
Oxford
Cambridge

Special Advisor to the FBI, CIA, HS, The White House

Did I ever mention what wonders you do for my blood pressure?

Will demonstrate that specific fibers from a certain, one of a kind jacket/sweater found on a girl's neck and face and hair, will NOT/can NOT be twisted into a garrote affixed to said neck.

Not quite, Fang. You had it perfectly fine, except for the "found on a girl's neck and face and hair" part. That's kind of my point: there's nothing I can find ANYWHERE that says they were found on any part of her body, face, etc.; ONLY in those specific places. That suggests to me that the sweater was not a heavy shedder and only got onto those items because those items came into DIRECT CONTACT with the cord, blanket and paint box. That's a pretty straightforward concept, as I see it.

 

[BBB167893]

Sadly, probably not.

Agreed. The idea that an atypical crime=an atypical solution seems like the ultimate sensationalist fallacy to me.

 

[BBB167893]

Why do I even bother refuting your unsubstantiated claims because when you are found wanting you invariably plead "I not understandie" or even better "you misinterpret me". Sure, sure!!

Don't give me that! It would be a lot easier if people just said what they specifically mean instead of playing these stupid word games.

You are spokesperson for RDI when it suits.

And a damn good one.

I pretend to know what RDI thinks because it is so simplistic, there is no real mystery.

Just because it's simple doesn't mean it's simplistic. Indeed, there's a famous treatise that says the simplest answer is usually the right one.

 

[DeeDee249]

Compassion?

Of course. I think many of us do, RDI and IDI. This was a horrible, horrible thing, whether she was involved or not. Her involvement does not cancel out the trauma of her child's death or its circumstances.

 

[DeeDee249]

I'm trying to recover my sight. I've been blinded by the Damascus Light. She did it. She did it. She picked up a flashlight and smashed her head in with it.

UhOo.

Wait a second ladies and gentlemen. This would mean it was premeditated! It can't be. My sight is returning. I want to go blind again. What a rush. Tell me it ain't so, Joe.

No, it wouldn't. Actually I think it lends itself more to a quick, unthinking, reckless action. I think there is less than 1% (if that) of RDI who think this was premeditated.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

You're forgetting one crucial thing, HOTYH. This flashlight had a coating of rubber. That changes the game a bit.

Like the pocketknife, I have no way of knowing that the flashlight was even involved in the crime. I rather doubt it because if you recall, I'm IDI and believe that stealth was a factor. Bashing JBR over the head in the middle of the night with any household flashlight they found lying around just doesn't seem as calculated as, say, entering the house while the R's weren't there, lying in wait writing the ransom note of ransom notes, and moving JBR from her bedroom to the basement without disturbing anybody.

 

[DeeDee249]

Like the pocketknife, I have no way of knowing that the flashlight was even involved in the crime. I rather doubt it because if you recall, I'm IDI and believe that stealth was a factor. Bashing JBR over the head in the middle of the night with any household flashlight they found lying around just doesn't seem as calculated as, say, entering the house while the R's weren't there, lying in wait writing the ransom note of ransom notes, and moving JBR from her bedroom to the basement without disturbing anybody.

It had to be involved somehow. There is simply no other explanation for it being wiped of prints, and the BATTERIES wiped of prints. Maybe it was the weapon, maybe not. But it had to have been used to walk around the dark house. A neighbor reported these (their words) "strange, moving lights" in the kitchen after midnight. I would think this is something IDI and RDI can agree on, since it could have been used by either an intruder (even if it belonged to the home) or a family member.

 

[MurriFlower]

It had to be involved somehow. There is simply no other explanation for it being wiped of prints, and the BATTERIES wiped of prints. Maybe it was the weapon, maybe not. But it had to have been used to walk around the dark house. A neighbor reported these (their words) "strange, moving lights" in the kitchen after midnight. I would think this is something IDI and RDI can agree on, since it could have been used by either an intruder (even if it belonged to the home) or a family member.

Whiped of prints? Says Who? Where?

 

[DeeDee249]

Whiped of prints? Says Who? Where?

Oh, brother. Someone else do this, OK?

The Denverpost.com. October 14, 1999
ST's book, page 267
And just about every other account or discussion board of the crime.
I am sick of playing games. You know very well where its been posted. Next time try Google.

 

[BBB167893]

Like the pocketknife, I have no way of knowing that the flashlight was even involved in the crime.

I'm not saying it WAS, HOTYH. I just didn't want you to make any big assumptions without knowing it.

I rather doubt it because if you recall, I'm IDI and believe that stealth was a factor. Bashing JBR over the head in the middle of the night with any household flashlight they found lying around just doesn't seem as calculated as, say, entering the house while the R's weren't there, lying in wait writing the ransom note of ransom notes, and moving JBR from her bedroom to the basement without disturbing anybody.

Finally, something we can agree on.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I'm not saying it WAS, HOTYH. I just didn't want you to make any big assumptions without knowing it.

Like what?

 

[OneLove]

Oh, brother. Someone else do this, OK?

The Denverpost.com. October 14, 1999
ST's book, page 267
And just about every other account or discussion board of the crime.
I am sick of playing games. You know very well where its been posted. Next time try Google.[/QUOTE]

I don't take that bait, either, DeeDee. If they truly want to know that information, they know how to find it. The attempt to have you go running after a ball they've just thrown is called "fetch", and it only attempts to draw the focus away from the REAL issues. If you watch, when you really get close to a sensitive issue, someone will throw the ball as far as possible and wait for you to run fetch. :waitasec:

 

[DeeDee249]

Oh, brother. Someone else do this, OK?

The Denverpost.com. October 14, 1999
ST's book, page 267
And just about every other account or discussion board of the crime.
I am sick of playing games. You know very well where its been posted. Next time try Google.[/QUOTE]

I don't take that bait, either, DeeDee. If they truly want to know that information, they know how to find it. The attempt to have you go running after a ball they've just thrown is called "fetch", and it only attempts to draw the focus away from the REAL issues. If you watch, when you really get close to a sensitive issue, someone will throw the ball as far as possible and wait for you to run fetch. :waitasec:

Not to mention hiding behind sarcasm. Like a true defense lawyer. Hmmm. Well, you just don't know who's wearing a "hat", right?