IDI: Whats your problem?

[WHITEFANG]

i would check and recheck all sources on the fiber. They are largely rdi hype. I'm pretty sure there's no sources on pr's jacket fibers except for interviews which are not authoritative:

http://www.fbiexpert.com/fbi-interrogations.php

because “lying” breeds distrust, he thinks agents should resist using the tactic. similarly, he thinks “bluffing” suggests agents are card players—engaged in a poker game—versus law enforcement conducting an investigation. If a suspect discovers agents are “bluffing” or worse yet “lying,” he says the discovery could disrupt the interrogation with the suspect demanding an attorney. Consequently, he thinks agents should always stick to the facts.

gee, 'should resist' doesn't sound like 'illegal' does it?

I would only regard fiber evidence that was reported to the media by le representative or an investigators public remarks (that is, one who isn't in profiting mode on the case).



Pr didn't have any disorders. These types of disorders need to be diagnosed by a professional, not laymen who really just want pr to look bad.

If there were diagnosed mental illness prior to dec 1996, then we could discuss bpd or psychosis or whatever. Same with prior abuse. If there was any diagnosis prior to dec 1996 or if jbr made any remark to an adult that was inappropriate prior to dec 1996, then we could discuss prior abuse. Armchair after-the-fact tabloid physicians will say anything for a buck.

oka doke

 

[WHITEFANG]

A word about the snarking and sniping: It gets us nowhere. I don't think the object of the game here is to "win." I think the object of the game is to maybe find something that would help solve this crime...to come up with some detail that has been overlooked time and again that would make for a true break in this case. Snarking does little to impress. It's like yelling at someone: you don't hear the message, you just hear the yelling. So can we get back to discussion mode? As in read what someone has to say, digest it and respectfully agree or disagree?[/QUOTE]


At the same time, the bullies (I bet you know who they are) have been insulting and harrassing posters with impunity. Look at the exchanges, carefully. I think you will find these immature jerks to be responsible for the first swing almost all the time.

It is amazing what some of these complete ...... say that goes without comment. When the bullied say, "knock it off" they act like spoiled babies. Then, those "not to be bullied" posters get targeted as the harassers. Look at specific examples to see what I mean. Go back in the dialogue to its inception.

 

[WHITEFANG]

Yes, anyone as "impeccably dressed" as PR would be bathing daily if she lived in my part of the world, winter, summer, fall or spring


Fact?

 

[WHITEFANG]

Please show us exactly where she says all this.

Accidents do not require motive.

Strangling does.

 

[WHITEFANG]

Let's take a look at our own life experiences.
Maybe you'll laugh or roll your eyes now,but yesterday I ran over a pigeon.I was a mess all day long,still am.Don't tell me that parents who killed their child (ACCIDENT,not planned) can survive the guilt and mock everybody on national TV.If it was an accident they would have been devastated,ESPECIALLY after finding out that she was still alive when they finished her off with the garrote.
Okay,maybe they covered up for BR,I could understand why they would wanna protect him,still,put a cord around her neck and pull and then sexually assault her?Nope.
IMO they would have found other ways to divert attention.

That is my point. People accept this theory that they just strangled her in a panicked response to what they just did to her. Accidentally, the theory goes, Pat snapped. She killed Joni. She had to cover it up. She strangled her. As if she went for a stroll. Then, when you discuss what they claim she did, and mock it by exaggerating the ease with which she did it, which they unknowingly imply, they get hysterical. How dare you make a mockery of this horrible crime!

If you examine what their theory actually entails, it is the most evil, putrid horror ever. That Patsy would kneel next to Joni's body and carefully slip the garrote around her neck, hunt for a stick to turn it, weave it into it, start twisting it, watching to see if she showed signs of pain......Get out of here!!!!!!!!!!!!

Convinced she did this, they start there and work backwards. Oh, she was a mental case! Yes, that makes sense. That explains how she became so violent in an instant. It was her meds! (No proof, mind you) Yes, I see. XYZ makes some do that in certain dosages. Ahha! And she had had cancer! The fact that there is no evidence that people with cancer kill their children more often than non-cancer people means nothing. They've got this all figured out.

 

[MurriFlower]

That is my point. People accept this theory that they just strangled her in a panicked response to what they just did to her. Accidentally, the theory goes, Pat snapped. She killed Joni. She had to cover it up. She strangled her. As if she went for a stroll. Then, when you discuss what they claim she did, and mock it by exaggerating the ease with which she did it, which they unknowingly imply, they get hysterical. How dare you make a mockery of this horrible crime!

If you examine what their theory actually entails, it is the most evil, putrid horror ever. That Patsy would kneel next to Joni's body and carefully slip the garrote around her neck, hunt for a stick to turn it, weave it into it, start twisting it, watching to see if she showed signs of pain......Get out of here!!!!!!!!!!!!

Convinced she did this, they start there and work backwards. Oh, she was a mental case! Yes, that makes sense. That explains how she became so violent in an instant. It was her meds! (No proof, mind you) Yes, I see. XYZ makes some do that in certain dosages. Ahha! And she had had cancer! The fact that there is no evidence that people with cancer kill their children more often than non-cancer people means nothing. They've got this all figured out.

Yes and it's all just explained away with such ease, this is what I find difficult to fathom. Anyway, it's getting us nowhere being sidetracked constantly by this imaginative guff.

Try to be 'proactive' not 'reactive' WF. What is it you think may have happened? Examine the possibilities and explore what evidence we have for and against. If something doesn't fit or seem right - try a different approach. I do feel that it's getting us somewhere. If we just go over the same ground constantly, there will be no resolution.

HOTYH is trying to generate some discussion on subjects that interest me, so perhaps you'd like to participate in that.

 

[WHITEFANG]

Yes and it's all just explained away with such ease, this is what I find difficult to fathom. Anyway, it's getting us nowhere being sidetracked constantly by this imaginative guff.

Try to be 'proactive' not 'reactive' WF. What is it you think may have happened? Examine the possibilities and explore what evidence we have for and against. If something doesn't fit or seem right - try a different approach. I do feel that it's getting us somewhere. If we just go over the same ground constantly, there will be no resolution.

HOTYH is trying to generate some discussion on subjects that interest me, so perhaps you'd like to participate in that.

"I beg your pardon? Are you suggesting I am being an imbecile?"

"AHHH Yess, my little chickadee dee, dee, dee! I see, I see."

Chewing on the end of a stogie, tipping my straw hat.

"That will do. That will do, my lovely.

What's that you say? Say again.

Oh, I see. You want to know if I like children?

Well why didn't you say so in the first place?

Well, my dear, let me think a moment.

Well, Surely my dear. I do like children.

Of course I do,

Well done."

 

[WHITEFANG]

and in the following post



"Rigor mortis, or postmortem stiffening and contraction of all muscles, usually occurs three or more hours after death and can last for approximately 36–48 hours in temperate climates and about 9–12 hours in tropical temperatures."

I just think this is a pretty wide range to have pinpointed her time of death so precisely. Time of death is calculated by many factors, so I was wondering if there was an actual time pinpointed by the Medical Examiner who examined her at, was it 2pm or 3pm?




"The proximal portion of the small intestine contains fragmented pieces of yellow to light green-tan apparently vegetable or fruit material which may represent fragments of pineapple"

Digestion times can vary according to where you get your information: http://www.spice-of-life.com/columns/foodCombining.html

ACID
Grapefruit
Lemon
Lime
Orange
Pineapple
Pomegranate
Strawberry
Tangerine
Tomato

Melons: 5 to 10 minutes
Acid: 20 to 30 minutes
Sub Acid: 30 to 40 minutes
Sweet: 40 to 60 minutes



Just drawing your attention, not intending to suggest either blindness or stupidity. I think you've been known to bold in an attempt to get your message over as well?

So the idea is Patsy fed her a nice little snack, accidentally bashed her head in, choked her and went to bed, without putting the dirty glass back? Not the Patsy I keep reading about.

BTW, Super, why is it that pro RDI can insult, harass, belittle, threaten, etc. and IDI's are told to shut up if they get a little full of themselves? Not me of course. THAT'S a JOKE, son.

 

[DeeDee249]

So the idea is Patsy fed her a nice little snack, accidentally bashed her head in, choked her and went to bed, without putting the dirty glass back? Not the Patsy I keep reading about.

BTW, Super, why is it that pro RDI can insult, harass, belittle, threaten, etc. and IDI's are told to shut up if they get a little full of themselves? Not me of course. THAT'S a JOKE, son.

I don't recall seeing anyone harassed or threatened by an RDI.

Actually, Patsy was said by her housekeeper to be a pretty untidy person as far as the HOUSE was concerned, though, meticulous about her dress and personal grooming. The family never put anything back where it belonged, so it really isn't unusual for her to have left the glass and bowl out for LHP to put away when she came next time. The family didn't even own a hamper, just dropping clothes on the floor. Patsy discussed this with LE, in her interviews where they are looking at clothing on the floor.
According to LHP (in her interview) even Nedra complained to Patsy that her housekeeper should be there "to clean, not pick up the place".
The crime scene photos alone should make it plain that it was a more "relaxed" home as far as neatness is concerned. That's not a criticism. Just an observation. I am sure the home was clean. Tidy and clean are different.
(that's what my sister-in-law tells herself, anyway).
My house? You could walk in any time of the day or night and it looks like no one has been living there.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I don't recall seeing anyone harassed or threatened by an RDI.

Actually, Patsy was said by her housekeeper to be a pretty untidy person as far as the HOUSE was concerned, though, meticulous about her dress and personal grooming. The family never put anything back where it belonged, so it really isn't unusual for her to have left the glass and bowl out for LHP to put away when she came next time. The family didn't even own a hamper, just dropping clothes on the floor. Patsy discussed this with LE, in her interviews where they are looking at clothing on the floor.
According to LHP (in her interview) even Nedra complained to Patsy that her housekeeper should be there "to clean, not pick up the place".
The crime scene photos alone should make it plain that it was a more "relaxed" home as far as neatness is concerned. That's not a criticism. Just an observation. I am sure the home was clean. Tidy and clean are different.
(that's what my sister-in-law tells herself, anyway).
My house? You could walk in any time of the day or night and it looks like no one has been living there.

There's certainly a gang-up lynch-mob effect on IDI's ideas. There's a robotic auto-correction back to RDI themes, combined with ridicule, for many many IDI posts.

It would add a lot to RDI credibility to once say: Gee I don't have an answer for that, or gee, I don't know. As for now, RDI seems like a robot that will auto-respond to new phenomenon in a short time using nothing more than circular logic.

 

[BBB167893]

I'd like to read up on BPD and other possible disorders Patsy may have had. Any books or other reading suggestions? Can anyone tell me how my conscience should/could answer the questions I asked OneLove? Thanks

Try this:

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

It has a bibliography, too.

 

[BBB167893]

SuperDave, do not go out of your way to look up answers to the following questions. If the answers don't come to mind immediately, I'll look them up.

Were the men who delivered heating oil to the Ramsey's cleared? the post men? the garbage collectors? painters or others who worked on their home or nearby their place? roofers? window cleaners? meter readers from their utility?

Darn good questions!

Why, I wonder, did Joni's doctor not report evidence of her ongoing abuse, particularly when she was seen so frequently?

Fang, if I had a nickel for everytime I've had to answer that one, I'd be a millionaire by now. And the answer is simple: by his own admission, he didn't bother to LOOK. :banghead:

 

[BBB167893]

Well I can try to answer the last question. JB's doctor admitted he never did an internal exam. He wouldn't have seen what the coroner saw. Also, the doctor was a friend of the Rs, not just JB's doctor. He played golf with JR at their country club.
It isn't unusual that JB's doctor didn't do an internal exam. It would be extremely unusual to do one on a kid that age. He may have suspected it- maybe just didn't want to believe it.
As far as him reporting it- based on his EXTERNAL examination of JB, there was nothing to report. She had vaginitis, attributed by him to her bubble baths. Most doctors, after seeing a child for the SAME vaginitis repeatedly would begin to look for a reason why it was still occurring or another cause. That didn't happen here. They'd be asking the mom why she was still giving her child bubble baths, for one thing.

Yeah, that would be about it!

 

[BBB167893]

PR is no fiber expert, why are they asking her about fibers at all?

They were giving her every chance to remember anything that could have caused them to get there. She couldn't. That's all I need to know.

Fibers are exclusively for experts to draw conclusions based on the fiber, quantity, location, etc. Not for PR to draw conclusions. They asked her to be impressed by them and she was.

Don't get burned because they laid a glove on her!

 

[BBB167893]

Crediting a loving, wonderful, innocent mother, who never spoke ill of anyone while she endured living hell,

WHOA, WHOA, WHOA! Are we talking about the same person here? The woman who called a magazine publisher's wife pretending to be his mistress in revenge?

 

[BBB167893]

I would only regard fiber evidence that was reported to the media by LE representative or an investigators public remarks (that is, one who isn't in profiting mode on the case).

So what's the problem? Kane, Levin and Morrisey were independent figures. It made no difference to them if they were PR's or not.

 

[BBB167893]

That is my point. People accept this theory that they just strangled her in a panicked response to what they just did to her. Accidentally, the theory goes, Pat snapped. She killed Joni. She had to cover it up. She strangled her. As if she went for a stroll.

Not quite.

If you examine what their theory actually entails, it is the most evil, putrid horror ever. That Patsy would kneel next to Joni's body and carefully slip the garrote around her neck, hunt for a stick to turn it, weave it into it, start twisting it, watching to see if she showed signs of pain......Get out of here!!!!!!!!!!!!

1) Who said it was careful?

2) I don't believe the stick was used to turn it.

3) I don't believe it was twisted. One good pull might have done it.

4) Who said she checked for signs?

And she had had cancer! The fact that there is no evidence that people with cancer kill their children more often than non-cancer people means nothing. They've got this all figured out.

Your claim would have more beef if we believed it was a straight shot from one to the other. See, that's the problem I (for one) have when you exaggerate the "ease:" you leave out any nuance.

 

[DeeDee249]

There's certainly a gang-up lynch-mob effect on IDI's ideas. There's a robotic auto-correction back to RDI themes, combined with ridicule, for many many IDI posts.

It would add a lot to RDI credibility to once say: Gee I don't have an answer for that, or gee, I don't know. As for now, RDI seems like a robot that will auto-respond to new phenomenon in a short time using nothing more than circular logic.

What does your reply have to do with what I said?

My info came from LHP interview, easily found online. I don't recall making a comment about any IDI ideas. This information has been around for a long time. To say that because Patsy was always well-dressed she wouldn't have left a dirty glass on the table on the night before she was leaving on 2 separate holiday vacations is illogical. It was a busy night- she had a lot to do and this was before JB's death, not after. I doubt she'd think to do it after.

 

[BBB167893]

So the idea is Patsy fed her a nice little snack, accidentally bashed her head in, choked her and went to bed, without putting the dirty glass back?

I don't think that's quite it!

BTW, Super, why is it that pro RDI can insult, harass, belittle, threaten, etc. and IDI's are told to shut up if they get a little full of themselves? Not me of course. THAT'S a JOKE, son.

Can't help you, Fang. I don't make the rules. Actually, maybe I can help. You show me a legit example, and I'll get after them. What do you say?

 

[BBB167893]

It would add a lot to RDI credibility to once say: Gee I don't have an answer for that, or gee, I don't know.

Would it? With this crowd, I figured it'd be like ringing the dinner bell for pirahnas!