Intruder theories only. No posts from rdi members allowed

[Mama2JML]

Oh, but it IS sourced, Mama2JML. In the interview I provided, she made clear that Chet Ubowski was her source. It's quite interesting.

Where did McKinley state her source was Ubowski?

 

[tezi]

Scarlett, that's a bunch of garbage, all of it. And if it comes from John Douglas, it's extra smelly.

Chet Ubowski did the most extensive analysis, and he told his boss, Pete Mang, that he thought she wrote it. NONE of the experts eliminated PR, and if Epstein's deposition is any indication, they didn't do that much work on it anyway.

Moreover, the odds of anyone from OUTSIDE the home having as many similarities, using the same phrases, words, and stylistics as someone KNOWN to be inside have got to be astronomical. One of of I-don't-know-how-many billions. And that's all I'll say.

Yes, if there was ever an "author" out for money, it would be John Douglas. And this is coming from someone who used to think Douglas hung the moon. That was until I found out all of his mistakes on the Green River case. Plus, all of the lies he's told about this case. Yeah, and ST and Kolar are out for money, but Douglas, well he's just "golden." SMDH

ETA: And please remember Douglas didn't have access to any of LE's info when he did his "profile." Just the Ramseys sitting in front of him, with lawyers of course.

JMO

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Where did McKinley state her source was Ubowski?

And even if it was, still he said she said. We don't know what is relayed is exactly what was said.

Whisper down the lane...

To me it helps to start with the newest information and work backwards.. It has a way of canceling out a lot of rumor and innuendo.

 

[BBB167893]

Where did McKinley state her source was Ubowski?

I guess you didn't listen to that part of the radio broadcast? Or did I give you the wrong one? Because she went into great detail about it.

 

[Mama2JML]

I guess you didn't listen to that part of the radio broadcast? Or did I give you the wrong one? Because she went into great detail about it.

The podcast is nearly 4 hours long. When does McKinley speak about Ubowski? I really can't listen to the whole podcast right now...

 

[BBB167893]

The podcast is nearly 4 hours long. When does McKinley speak about Ubowski? I really can't listen to the whole podcast right now...

Find a moment when you can, is my advice. But, since I'm in a giving mood, I'll help you out. It's at the 87-minute mark that she starts.

Moreover, a lot of what she says checks with what Schiller reported in PMPT.

Not that it matters now, but I was just reminded of an earlier interview with Mark Fuhrman. During that interview, an investigative journalist claims (take it for what you will) that he spoke to Ubowski as well, and his story is similar to McKinley's: Ubowski thought she wrote it, but Alex Hunter shut him down, saying that it didn't meet scientific reliability standards in court. Like I said, take it for what you will.

 

[Anyhoo]

Have you read Singular's book?

Yes I have but I was not impressed with the book because he just gives vague hints about what could have happened but does not attempt to tie anything together. It is all rumor and innuendo. In the end that book left me feeling very dissatisfied, as if the author had written the entire content around nothing substantial and was just exploiting the case to make money. After reading it I felt no closer to a solution. That said, this theory is more of my own than anything I have read. My primary thought is that it is the evidence we are NOT seeing that is most significant. I think there is something big hidden in this case that nobody is talking about because they don't know about it. It is the secret that explains why JB was murdered and who did it. I cannot prove my theory but I sense it very strongly.

 

[Mama2JML]

Find a moment when you can, is my advice. But, since I'm in a giving mood, I'll help you out. It's at the 87-minute mark that she starts.

Moreover, a lot of what she says checks with what Schiller reported in PMPT.

Not that it matters now, but I was just reminded of an earlier interview with Mark Fuhrman. During that interview, an investigative journalist claims (take it for what you will) that he spoke to Ubowski as well, and his story is similar to McKinley's: Ubowski thought she wrote it, but Alex Hunter shut him down, saying that it didn't meet scientific reliability standards in court. Like I said, take it for what you will.

Thank you, SD. McKinley did source the information to Chet Ubowski.

 

[Mama2JML]

Yes I have but I was not impressed with the book because he just gives vague hints about what could have happened but does not attempt to tie anything together. It is all rumor and innuendo. In the end that book left me feeling very dissatisfied, as if the author had written the entire content around nothing substantial and was just exploiting the case to make money. After reading it I felt no closer to a solution. That said, this theory is more of my own than anything I have read. My primary thought is that it is the evidence we are NOT seeing that is most significant. I think there is something big hidden in this case that nobody is talking about because they don't know about it. It is the secret that explains why JB was murdered and who did it. I cannot prove my theory but I sense it very strongly.

I asked if you'd read Presumed Guilty b/c Singular's theory includes RDI/IDI elements. If it were true, it seems to satisfy many suspicious aspects of the case; direct & peripheral.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Thank you, SD. McKinley did source the information to Chet Ubowski.

Not sure that helps much.. No proof.. Just someone saying someone said something... OMO

 

[Tawny]

If that's the stance we're taking, then nothing is proof of anything unless we literally see it in person with our own two eyes.

So every single thing in this case is hearsay.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

If that's the stance we're taking, then nothing is proof of anything unless we literally see it in person with our own two eyes.

So every single thing in this case is hearsay.

No, That is not true. There are first hand accounts, documents, Depositions, autopsy reports. But what one said to someone else is just hearsay. We have no idea what was really said and when. Peoplt interpret what they hear, They don't often share without bias. That is why so many things are taped. It helps both parties.

 

[tezi]

If that's the stance we're taking, then nothing is proof of anything unless we literally see it in person with our own two eyes.

So every single thing in this case is hearsay.

Apparently, we need the case file before we can be believed. Never mind that we have investigators that actually worked telling us what is in the file, because according to the IDI's (or whatever they would like to be called), it's all hearsay.

All I have to say, is whatever. I would believe ST or Kolar over Douglas, Hunter, Lacy, and the entire Ramsey Defense Team.

JMO

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Apparently, we need the case file before we can be believed. Never mind that we have investigators that actually worked telling us what is in the file, because according to the IDI's (or whatever they would like to be called), it's all hearsay.

All I have to say, is whatever. I would believe ST or Kolar over Douglas, Hunter, Lacy, and the entire Ramsey Defense Team.

JMO

IT is not about the case file. I realize there will be things that we will never see, However the GJ did and did not vote for murder or even manslaughter. The Judge looked at this case and ruled that it pointed to an intruder. The DNA points to someone else being there.

Those are things that support IDI without bias.

 

[Tawny]

Were ALL of the indictments unsealed?

 

[Anyhoo]

I asked if you'd read Presumed Guilty b/c Singular's theory includes RDI/IDI elements. If it were true, it seems to satisfy many suspicious aspects of the case; direct & peripheral.

Yes, I agree with your last sentence, which is one reason why I still consider it a valid theory as worthy of consideration as either RDI or IDI. What I am certain of is that JR knows what happened and is lying when he says he does not. This is why I dismiss IDI, because JR knows and pretends he doesn't.

 

[tezi]

Were ALL of the indictments unsealed?

We were supposed to get 18 pages of the GJ report. I think those included the seven other charges that they chose not to indict John and Patsy on. At the last minute, they only released the four pages with the two indictments each for John and Patsy.

I really wish we were allowed to see the other seven charges that the GJ debated about....

JMO

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Were ALL of the indictments unsealed?

The findings were. There would be no reason not to release any other charges leveled..

If it was there, Manslaughter, Murder.. We would know.

 

[tezi]

The findings were. There would be no reason not to release any other charges leveled..

If it was there, Manslaughter, Murder.. We would know.

I think it would be very helpful to know what the seven other charges were that were considered against the Ramseys. I think we all might be surprised.

JMO

 

[Tawny]

For some reason, I doubt we know everything. They have held back so much information for so long.