JBR, PR and UMI

[Holdontoyourhat]

I agree,sadly many IDI's are "the R's are innocent IDI's" and not "IDI-let's see who the I is".Same re some RDI's who are RDI's only because they can't stand the R's.But IMO most people around here,both IDI's and RDI's aren't these type of posters.That's what makes me change my views sometimes,I don't like extremes,I try to see both sides + points and I think most people here do accept different views even if they don't agree with them.

You've recently put yourself on the right track, and I already know it.

 

[MurriFlower]

.Same re some RDI's who are RDI's only because they can't stand the R's.

I do think you have hit the nail on the head here Madeline. It does seem as if many people personally dislike the R's. This is common to quite a few 'significant others' of murder victims. But it seems to go deeper than just their TV appearances or the image they project. It also seems to be related to the fact that they were 'rich' and this surprises me a little. JR was 'self made' so he didn't start out with an inheritance or any particular advantage that I can see. OK, he wasn't a poor white boy, but his business was built up from nothing to a billion dollar company. I woudn't have thought this would engender the type of envy that causes an instant dislike of someone. They owned a big house and a holiday house, they employed domestic staff, they had an aircraft at their personal disposal - all trapings of success. Isn't this the "American Dream"??

But it also seems that Patsy was particularly disliked. I wonder why? Apparently she was well liked by those who knew her well (talking here about prior to JBR's murder). Even the housekeeper said she was 'just sweet' or some such before she turned against her. Pretty, smart, rich. She suffered from terminal ovarian cancer, which in itself would usually engender empathy, especially from other women. Her beautiful little girl was snatched from her bed, tortured and murdered in her own home, while her parents slept unaware. This would normally be a reason to feel enormous sympathy for the parents and especially the mother.

But - NO!!

Patsy has been pilloried and accused of killing her own child. Most of this seems to come from the desire to find her guilty, rather than due to any overwhelming evidence. Contrary evidence is either discarded or made to 'fit' the theory.

It's very confusing for me, but I can't begin to understand how hurt and bewildered Patsy must have felt to know the depth of feeling against her.

 

[madeleine]

I do think you have hit the nail on the head here Madeline. It does seem as if many people personally dislike the R's. This is common to quite a few 'significant others' of murder victims. But it seems to go deeper than just their TV appearances or the image they project. It also seems to be related to the fact that they were 'rich' and this surprises me a little. JR was 'self made' so he didn't start out with an inheritance or any particular advantage that I can see. OK, he wasn't a poor white boy, but his business was built up from nothing to a billion dollar company. I woudn't have thought this would engender the type of envy that causes an instant dislike of someone. They owned a big house and a holiday house, they employed domestic staff, they had an aircraft at their personal disposal - all trapings of success. Isn't this the "American Dream"??

But it also seems that Patsy was particularly disliked. I wonder why? Apparently she was well liked by those who knew her well (talking here about prior to JBR's murder). Even the housekeeper said she was 'just sweet' or some such before she turned against her. Pretty, smart, rich. She suffered from terminal ovarian cancer, which in itself would usually engender empathy, especially from other women. Her beautiful little girl was snatched from her bed, tortured and murdered in her own home, while her parents slept unaware. This would normally be a reason to feel enormous sympathy for the parents and especially the mother.

But - NO!!

Patsy has been pilloried and accused of killing her own child. Most of this seems to come from the desire to find her guilty, rather than due to any overwhelming evidence. Contrary evidence is either discarded or made to 'fit' the theory.

It's very confusing for me, but I can't begin to understand how hurt and bewildered Patsy must have felt to know the depth of feeling against her.

I don't like nor dislike them.I never hated them,that's what I don't get,why so many HATE them and I've seen such people.I don't understand why so many hate Wood,hey he is a lawyer,this is his JOB.I don't understand and I don't agree with some of their actions(for ex JB and the pageants) but that's something else.I actually find PR very fascinating.I think Lin W. is a brilliant lawyer.JR.....I have mixed feelings when it comes to him.Sometimes I feel sorry for him,sometimes I find him pretty arrogant.But my feelings have nothing to do with their guilt or innocence.I don't put too much passion in how I feel about them.

 

[DeeDee249]

LHP only turned on Patsy when she found out that the Rs had fingered her as a suspect. She was the first one mentioned, I think. LHP was uneducated, poor, and she asked to borrow money (which Patsy readily agreed to do),she had a key- she didn't have the means to fight back. She was the perfect "patsy" (no pun intended). One problem- NO evidence linked her to the crime scene or body. And she gave writing, saliva samples and I believe was fingerprinted, too.

 

[MurriFlower]

LHP only turned on Patsy when she found out that the Rs had fingered her as a suspect. She was the first one mentioned, I think. LHP was uneducated, poor, and she asked to borrow money (which Patsy readily agreed to do),she had a key- she didn't have the means to fight back. She was the perfect "patsy" (no pun intended). One problem- NO evidence linked her to the crime scene or body. And she gave writing, saliva samples and I believe was fingerprinted, too.

Yes, I think when it was believed JBR was 'kidnapped' they even sent a cop car to cruise by and see if there was any 'suspicious activity' at her house. I can't find the exact quote now, but as well as this, I think PR actually said straight up that the writing looked like LHP's. She said afterwards that it wouldn't have been her as she didn't think LHP would have harmed JBR.

LHP and her family are really my prime IDI suspects. They tick a lot of boxes for me. Means, motive, opportunity. I don't know about the uneducated part, although it might have served LHP well to appear so. She had a large family and I've been wondering if there might have been an "Igor" amongst the sons or sons-in-law.

Boulder is quite close to the Rockys so I was also wondering if people hunt in that area? The reason I ask is that in my quest for 'stun gun' information, I discovered a few websites for hunters and hunting equipment that were a bit worrying..... Stun guns, cord (just like that used in the garrotte) and cloth tape are part of a hunter's usual equipment. Would there be legal or illegal fur trappers living in the area?

LHP seemed to be the primary person on whom BPD based much of their 'inside information' about the R's. From what I can gather, the handwriting sample involved her writing only a few key words, no historical writing nor any of her family's. She was well versed in PR's writing, language and punctuation from the 'dozens' of notes PR had left for her with cleaning instructions. She had writing tablets from the R's at her house. I wonder if there other were things she 'borrowed' from them as well? A big house like that, things get lost and misplaced a lot. Perhaps she even bought small household items for them, like the 'Kleenex', that was RDI 'evidence' of PR's guilt when she denied buying it or even the pinepple. The amount of $118,000 seems a big coincidence too and she could well have had knowledge of the 'bonus' he had just received by snooping. Not a big amount for a 'kidnapper' or 'SFF' but quite a princely sum for a housekeeper. She also went on to try to get money later from them in court accusing the Rs of 'defaming' her (although I think it was her side that actually accused PR of murder).

Keeping my options open, but I've not dismissed her as the possible IDI (in cahoots with other(s)).

 

[DeeDee249]

LHP and family are suspects in the minds of many IDI. But there is still no evidence linking her to that crime. I can't imagine the Touch DNA wouldn't have been tested against her husband or male family members.
If they had been involved in kidnapping- wouldn't you think they would realize that JB would be able to say who had taken her? And to collect the money they'd need a live JB.

As far as hunters or trappers- this was Colorado and the mountains are right there. Of course there would likely be hunters or trappers, legal or not. Duct tape and cord (maybe not that exact cord, but cord, string, twine) are common household items and most every home will have some version of these items.

 

[slug]

if this was a kidnap attempt from the start which i'm not convinced it was.
then it is always possible that they would need to try and get info from someone familiar with the house, and LHP would definatly have that. I wonder if there was ever anyone asking her about which was JBR bedroom or things like that.
if an IDI i can't see it as a random thing it will have needed planning.

 

[BBB167893]

I don't understand why so many hate Wood,hey he is a lawyer,this is his JOB.

How much time have you got, madeleine?

 

[madeleine]

How much time have you got, madeleine?

Plenty.cause I am curious about this.

 

[madeleine]

Btw I never knew until today that his domain so to say is people's reputations,was an interesting read.

 

[BBB167893]

I do think you have hit the nail on the head here Madeline. It does seem as if many people personally dislike the R's. This is common to quite a few 'significant others' of murder victims. But it seems to go deeper than just their TV appearances or the image they project. It also seems to be related to the fact that they were 'rich' and this surprises me a little. JR was 'self made' so he didn't start out with an inheritance or any particular advantage that I can see. OK, he wasn't a poor white boy, but his business was built up from nothing to a billion dollar company. I woudn't have thought this would engender the type of envy that causes an instant dislike of someone. They owned a big house and a holiday house, they employed domestic staff, they had an aircraft at their personal disposal - all trapings of success. Isn't this the "American Dream"??

You make a good point. But from what I can observe, it's not the fact that they were loaded that is the problem, per se. It was the knowledge that having that money meant that they got perks that other people wouldn't get. That, and their attitude suggested (perhaps erroneously) that they felt they deserved certain considerations.

My feelings are complicated.

But it also seems that Patsy was particularly disliked. I wonder why? Apparently she was well liked by those who knew her well (talking here about prior to JBR's murder). Even the housekeeper said she was 'just sweet' or some such before she turned against her. Pretty, smart, rich. She suffered from terminal ovarian cancer, which in itself would usually engender empathy, especially from other women.

I had and have a lot of sympathy for her. Maybe not the way you suggest, but still.

Her beautiful little girl was snatched from her bed, tortured and murdered in her own home, while her parents slept unaware. This would normally be a reason to feel enormous sympathy for the parents and especially the mother.

I did, for a while. Until I realized I'd been had. I felt like a damn fool, and I do not like that!

Patsy has been pilloried and accused of killing her own child. Most of this seems to come from the desire to find her guilty, rather than due to any overwhelming evidence.

I'm not aware of anyone who actually DESIRES her to be guilty. If you were to start a poll, I'd be surprised if one person said they wanted that.

 

[OneLove]

You make a good point. But from what I can observe, it's not the fact that they were loaded that is the problem, per se. It was the knowledge that having that money meant that they got perks that other people wouldn't get. That, and their attitude suggested (perhaps erroneously) that they felt they deserved certain considerations.My feelings are complicated.

I'm not aware of anyone who actually DESIRES her to be guilty. If you were to start a poll, I'd be surprised if one person said they wanted that.

I distinctly remember having ENORMOUS sympathy for them, and wanting nothing more for them than having their precious child's killer brought to justice. You are sooo right, Dave, that it was THEIR OWN ACTIONS that changed my perspective on them. Not only did their actions move in the OPPOSITE direction of solving this murder, but their flashing-neon-sign of entitlement made them.....well....just not very sympathetic or likeable figures. Sorry 'bout that, but it was THEIR actions, not mine, that lead to that outcome. I wish they had made different choices, but I didn't get to determine that, did I? I think they must surely have had people close to them that tried to explain how their actions made them look ....well....GUILTY GUILTY GUILTY, but they really didn't give a damn, did they, and they expressed that loud and clear.

So, now they get to live with the legacy they created themselves. Well, JR gets to live with the legacy and PR gets the 'shadow of suspicion' for all eternity. That was their choice; they could have had it different, but that was not the choice they made.

 

[BBB167893]

Plenty.cause I am curious about this.

All right then.

1) First and foremost, the man is a BULLY, and I can't stand bullies. i once used the term "legal terrorism" to describe what he does. That's a very apt description. Like a terrorist, he uses threats to shut people up. One of the first examples of this I saw was in July 2002, when Nancy Grace hosted Larry King's show and had Marc Klaas and Wood on the program. They were talking about the spate of child kidnappings and murders at that time. When Wood tried to compare those with what happened to JB, Klaas and Grace did not go for it. They pointed out what most people already knew: that the difference between those cases and JB were day and night. Klaas went so far as to point out how the Rs and Wood use this legal terrorism against anyone who questions their version of what happened. What happened then was very revealing to me. Wood sat there with his trademark "don't-f***-with-me-punk" grin and said that no one should be intimidated by the facts, and if you don't know about the case, don't talk about it. The heated sibilance in his voice made his polite words poisonous with very thinly-veiled threats. I couldn't believe it. This man, supposedly an advocate for his "victim" clients, had just threatened a genuine victim's advocate.

It wasn't the last time, no. In 2006, he had the audacity to threaten another victim's advocate, Boston sex crimes prosecutor Wendy Murphy. I know a lot of people don't like Wendy. She shoots from the hip sometimes, but she's always honest. She told her story in her book:

John Ramsey's lawyer, Lin Wood threatened to sue me for the opinions i had expressed about the Ramsey case earlier. What the public didn't know was that right before Wood wasted all his airtime on Larry King talking about me, he called me personally to threaten me over the phone. I knew ahead of time that Wood was a because his reputation preceded him. The call only confirmed that reputation. he sounded like he was making a well-rehearsed speech rather than expressing earnest concern about the rights of his clients. Nobody should be threatened with harm, financial or otherwise, for articulating an opinion about a matter of great public interest.

Pretty low. But it gets worse:

2) The man is unethical. He BRAGS in open court about how much money he has made off of JB. Here's a direct quote:

1 MR. WOOD: Hey, I made more money
2 handling the Ramsey case than you've made in
3 your whole damn career practicing law, Darnay.

That pretty much says it all. He uses litigation of enrich his own personal finances. He brags about the champion racehorses and custom Jaguar automobiles he buys with the proceeds. For all of his high-falutin' rhetoric, he's what the Russians call a "thief in law."

Speaking of his high-falutin's rhetoric, his own words and actions reveal what he's all about. madeleine, you said, and I quote,

Btw I never knew until today that his domain so to say is people's reputations,was an interesting read.

Yes, that is at the heart of the matter. He builds up the reps of his clients by sliming other people. Case in point when he represented the victim in the Kobe Bryant case. He knew damn well that it was a lie that his client had "had sex with three men in three days," but he never threatened anyone over saying THAT. The man has no principles.

3) He defended his father for killing his mother and bribed his children to deliver rehearsed speeches about how great he was. The man seems to have a pathological need to see guilty people go free just to satisfy his own psychlogical issues. He's the worst kind of lawyer there is: the kind who doesn't care about justice as long as he makes his money.

You called him a brilliant lawyer. But he's a rotten human being. He's brilliant because he has no compunctions about using dirty tactics. He makes a mockery of law and is a stain on the legal profession. I think he's a slimebag. And I hope that he has a good story when he stands tall before The Man, because he'll need it.

 

[OneLove]

All right then.

1) First and foremost, the man is a BULLY, and I can't stand bullies. i once used the term "legal terrorism" to describe what he does. That's a very apt description. Like a terrorist, he uses threats to shut people up. One of the first examples of this I saw was in July 2002, when Nancy Grace hosted Larry King's show and had Marc Klaas and Wood on the program. They were talking about the spate of child kidnappings and murders at that time. When Wood tried to compare those with what happened to JB, Klaas and Grace did not go for it. They pointed out what most people already knew: that the difference between those cases and JB were day and night. Klaas went so far as to point out how the Rs and Wood use this legal terrorism against anyone who questions their version of what happened. What happened then was very revealing to me. Wood sat there with his trademark "don't-f***-with-me-punk" grin and said that no one should be intimidated by the facts, and if you don't know about the case, don't talk about it. The heated sibilance in his voice made his polite words poisonous with very thinly-veiled threats. I couldn't believe it. This man, supposedly an advocate for his "victim" clients, had just threatened a genuine victim's advocate.

It wasn't the last time, no. In 2006, he had the audacity to threaten another victim's advocate, Boston sex crimes prosecutor Wendy Murphy. I know a lot of people don't like Wendy. She shoots from the hip sometimes, but she's always honest. She told her story in her book:

John Ramsey's lawyer, Lin Wood threatened to sue me for the opinions i had expressed about the Ramsey case earlier. What the public didn't know was that right before Wood wasted all his airtime on Larry King talking about me, he called me personally to threaten me over the phone. I knew ahead of time that Wood was a because his reputation preceded him. The call only confirmed that reputation. he sounded like he was making a well-rehearsed speech rather than expressing earnest concern about the rights of his clients. Nobody should be threatened with harm, financial or otherwise, for articulating an opinion about a matter of great public interest.

Pretty low. But it gets worse:

2) The man is unethical. He BRAGS in open court about how much money he has made off of JB. Here's a direct quote:

1 MR. WOOD: Hey, I made more money
2 handling the Ramsey case than you've made in
3 your whole damn career practicing law, Darnay.

That pretty much says it all. He uses litigation of enrich his own personal finances. He brags about the champion racehorses and custom Jaguar automobiles he buys with the proceeds. For all of his high-falutin' rhetoric, he's what the Russians call a "thief in law."

Speaking of his high-falutin's rhetoric, his own words and actions reveal what he's all about. madeleine, you said, and I quote,



Yes, that is at the heart of the matter. He builds up the reps of his clients by sliming other people. Case in point when he represented the victim in the Kobe Bryant case. He knew damn well that it was a lie that his client had "had sex with three men in three days," but he never threatened anyone over saying THAT. The man has no principles.

3) He defended his father for killing his mother and bribed his children to deliver rehearsed speeches about how great he was. The man seems to have a pathological need to see guilty people go free just to satisfy his own psychlogical issues. He's the worst kind of lawyer there is: the kind who doesn't care about justice as long as he makes his money.

You called him a brilliant lawyer. But he's a rotten human being. He's brilliant because he has no compunctions about using dirty tactics. He makes a mockery of law and is a stain on the legal profession. I think he's a slimebag. And I hope that he has a good story when he stands tall before The Man, because he'll need it.

Wow! Just wow! :bowdown::applause::applause::applause: :bowdown:

 

[madeleine]

2) The man is unethical. He BRAGS in open court about how much money he has made off of JB. Here's a direct quote:

1 MR. WOOD: Hey, I made more money
2 handling the Ramsey case than you've made in
3 your whole damn career practicing law, Darnay.

Yep,that was arrogant I agree.But if he makes so much money it means he's doing a good job.

You called him a brilliant lawyer. But he's a rotten human being.

I am interested in him as the defence lawyer in this case,I don't intend to marry the guy.

He's brilliant because he has no compunctions about using dirty tactics. He makes a mockery of law and is a stain on the legal profession. I think he's a slimebag. And I hope that he has a good story when he stands tall before The Man, because he'll need it.

Dirty tactics as you call them are part of his JOB.But I understand what you are saying.For ex. I LOVE J.Cochran (RIP),but to be honest I WAS disappointed when he chose to defend M.Jackson (especially because of the nature of the charges).But I also knew that he was hired because he WAS the best.That means something whether we like it or not.

 

[WHITEFANG]

I am still learning pieces of the puzzle and filling in the details of this tragic event. I take everything I learn and try to think of ALL possible ways it could fit into any and all scenarios. Most details can be explained from the perspective of IDI AND RDI. It is why the case is enigmatic and is still unsolved after all this time.

"OneLove
I would never THINK to be so insulting as the following post is. This is an intelligent and well-monitored website. Anyone can think anything they want, there are no "thought police". But when they utter (or print) their words, they are accountable for them."

OneLove
I cannot let it pass without saying that the following post is beyond rude and obnoxious. It has no redeeming value whatsoever in any way and is completely uncalled for. It is totally unsuitable for this forum. IMO

OneLove
"And I LOVE being a jerk, simply adore it. Besides, it seems to bring you out of your little shell. Kinda the virtual version of tricking one into dropping one's drawers, exposing their backside, KWIM? I love when I can do that.

You can pull 'em back up now. We've all seen enough."

 

[WHITEFANG]

LHP only turned on Patsy when she found out that the Rs had fingered her as a suspect. She was the first one mentioned, I think. LHP was uneducated, poor, and she asked to borrow money (which Patsy readily agreed to do),she had a key- she didn't have the means to fight back. She was the perfect "patsy" (no pun intended). One problem- NO evidence linked her to the crime scene or body. And she gave writing, saliva samples and I believe was fingerprinted, too.

The cops asked Pat to think of anyone who might kidnap Joni. She mentioned LHP. LHP fought back with a lawsuit.

 

[BBB167893]

Yep,that was arrogant I agree.

The man personifies arrogance, madeleine. This was just the worst example I could think of. That's the kind of remark I expect a lawyer to make at the bar with his colleagues, not it open court.

But if he makes so much money it means he's doing a good job.

madeleine, I'm not one to quote the Bible, but I believe Mark 8:38 says it best:

"What shall it profit a man to gain the whole world, yet lose his own soul?"

I am interested in him as the defence lawyer in this case,I don't intend to marry the guy.

Good, apparently marriage isn't his strong point. But he's not a defense lawyer; he's a litigation attorney.

Dirty tactics as you call them are part of his JOB.

My point exactly. Which just proves that my mother was right: to be a great lawyer, you have to be a rotten human being.

But I understand what you are saying.For ex. I LOVE J.Cochran (RIP),but to be honest I WAS disappointed when he chose to defend M.Jackson (especially because of the nature of the charges).But I also knew that he was hired because he WAS the best.That means something whether we like it or not.

JC's a good example: great lawyer, rotten person.

 

[BBB167893]

The cops asked Pat to think of anyone who might kidnap Joni. She mentioned LHP. LHP fought back with a lawsuit.

She was a lot nicer than I would have been!

 

[MurriFlower]

You make a good point. But from what I can observe, it's not the fact that they were loaded that is the problem, per se. It was the knowledge that having that money meant that they got perks that other people wouldn't get. That, and their attitude suggested (perhaps erroneously) that they felt they deserved certain considerations.

My feelings are complicated.

I had and have a lot of sympathy for her. Maybe not the way you suggest, but still.

I did, for a while. Until I realized I'd been had. I felt like a damn fool, and I do not like that!

I'm not aware of anyone who actually DESIRES her to be guilty. If you were to start a poll, I'd be surprised if one person said they wanted that.

I fully understand how they were their own worst enemies as far as public perception of them was concerned. I didn't see and hear a lot of what went on after the murder (TV, tabloid, etc), but there are parallels with the Chamberlain case here. They too were frequently interviewed on TV and the parents, especially the mother, came across as cold and calculating. People could not reconcile her behaviour with someone whose baby had been taken and most likely eaten by a dingo. One TV interview especially (some time after) probably clinched it, with LC showing no emotion as she described in detail how she thought the dingo had killed and dismembered her baby. She even expressed admiration for the dingo she thought was responsible.

The difference between the two was the Rs had money, the Cs had religion (he was a Pastor) and in people's minds, they similarly thought themselves immune from prosecution. The depth of feeling against LC both in the public's and Police's perception gave them a 'let's get 'em' attitude. The investigation and the forensic evidence were similarly suspect. The only difference here is that the body was never found but despite this LC was convicted of murder and spent quite a few years in jail before being cleared and freed (with a nice little compensation pay out as well).

Regardless, there would be a large percentage of people who were around when all this happened who still believe LDI. Her years in jail did not soften her image.

So yes, I understand how an image presented can sway both the public but more importantly the Police and direct their investigations right from the beginning. That's what I think the main problem was here with the Rs and if as HOTYH suggested, there had been an RDI and an IDI team, each independent of the other, the evidence we have to work with would likely have been very different.