No governmental support for RDI.

[BBB167893]

If our experts are just "some dudes" why bother discredit them?Ain't that funny.

Yeah, if not for the attempts to ruin lives, it'd be hysterical.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Don't be a wise guy, HOTYH. You know darn well what I mean. Maybe you haven't noticed, but this government has a HABIT of screwing up. Just last week we marked 8 years since 9/11, the biggest govt screwup in recent memory. There's NOTHING the government can do that private entities can't do better. Far as I go, that applies not just to this case, but in general.

Maybe you should consider what government does.

What is it used for? Who needs it and why?

The mystery you have as to why they seem to act in favor of the R's all the time may be solved by answering these questions. Personally, it makes complete sense to me, because the government is doing its job of ___________________.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Who was that again and what was "vague and unprofessional" about it?

BOULDER, Colorado (CNN) -- As the first anniversary of JonBenet Ramsey's death looms, the lead police investigator said Friday that her parents "remain under an umbrella of suspicion" and will be questioned again. (

187K/16 sec. AIFF or WAV sound)
"We've uncovered a lot of new information, we have a lot of new questions" for John and Patsy Ramsey, Cmdr. Mark Beckner said during a news conference. Beckner said police also want to re-interview the couple's 11-year-old son Burke.

Those who went to college and graduated with a criminal science degree probably did so without ever hearing the expression "umbrella of suspicion". It is unprofessional.

The potential intruder was never placed under any umbrella. This makes the statement vague and causes whoever hears it to assign less suspicion to those not under the umbrella, which is, well, you know, everybody else.

Preferable alternate would be to announce that a list of suspects exists, the list is always changing, that the parents and others are on the list, but parents are always on the list in these circumstances.

Seems to me the parents have been removed from that list, in a most profound and serious way.

 

[Ravyn]

Maybe you should consider what government does.

What is it used for? Who needs it and why?

The mystery you have as to why they seem to act in favor of the R's all the time may be solved by answering these questions. Personally, it makes complete sense to me, because the government is doing its job of ___________________.

The only thing I will say to this...The only reason you think the government is so great you believe it rules in IDI favor but the second it don't let see if you still be high on the government...

 

[BBB167893]

Maybe you should consider what government does.

I do, 24/7 as of late. I also consider what it ought to do and ought not to do.

What is it used for? Who needs it and why?

You don't know either?

The mystery you have as to why they seem to act in favor of the R's all the time may be solved by answering these questions. Personally, it makes complete sense to me, because the government is doing its job of ___________________.

"Blank" is right!

 

[BBB167893]

BOULDER, Colorado (CNN) -- As the first anniversary of JonBenet Ramsey's death looms, the lead police investigator said Friday that her parents "remain under an umbrella of suspicion" and will be questioned again. (

187K/16 sec. AIFF or WAV sound)
"We've uncovered a lot of new information, we have a lot of new questions" for John and Patsy Ramsey, Cmdr. Mark Beckner said during a news conference. Beckner said police also want to re-interview the couple's 11-year-old son Burke.

Those who went to college and graduated with a criminal science degree probably did so without ever hearing the expression "umbrella of suspicion". It is unprofessional.

The potential intruder was never placed under any umbrella. This makes the statement vague and causes whoever hears it to assign less suspicion to those not under the umbrella, which is, well, you know, everybody else.

Preferable alternate would be to announce that a list of suspects exists, the list is always changing, that the parents and others are on the list, but parents are always on the list in these circumstances.

Seems to me the parents have been removed from that list, in a most profound and serious way.

Seems to me like you're trying to combine Agatha Christie with Emily Post.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Seems to me like you're trying to combine Agatha Christie with Emily Post.

I'm an original act.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

"Blank" is right!

Here let me rephrase that, in a way you may be less apt to spin:

What a government is supposed to do is ______________.

 

[BBB167893]

Here let me rephrase that, in a way you may be less apt to spin:

What a government is supposed to do is ______________.

Okay, I'll bite. In my opinion, government is supposed to protect the citizens.

I'm an original act.

Just be grateful I'm not an art critic.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Okay, I'll bite. In my opinion, government is supposed to protect the citizens.

Correct. And the message from the government is:

There is ample evidence to suggest an intruder did it (Carnes).
There is no evidence to suggest PR wrote the note (Dusak).
The Ramseys are no longer considered to be suspects (Lacy).

Its interesting that none of these three offer any notion or opinion as to the ransom note. How bogus it is or how misleading it is.

The bottom line is this: The entity that is supposed to protect its citizens is protecting the R's. They are implying that an intruder, who is still at large, did all of the things that would have to be done: Entered the R's home, wrote the ransom note, moved JBR from her bedroom to the basement while her parents slept, and murdered her in the basement. They are offering no explanation or opinion on the ransom note, its content, validity, or origin. They are not offering any profile information.

 

[Ravyn]

Abundant evidence is what Judge Carnes said to prove the Ramsey's did not kill their daughter show me this evidence and remember the DNA wasn't there a that time,this came in 2008 not when this case was heard...

 

[Ravyn]

Correct. And the message from the government is:

There is ample evidence to suggest an intruder did it (Carnes).
There is no evidence to suggest PR wrote the note (Dusak).
The Ramseys are no longer considered to be suspects (Lacy).

Its interesting that none of these three offer any notion or opinion as to the ransom note. How bogus it is or how misleading it is.

The bottom line is this: The entity that is supposed to protect its citizens is protecting the R's. They are implying that an intruder, who is still at large, did all of the things that would have to be done: Entered the R's home, wrote the ransom note, moved JBR from her bedroom to the basement while her parents slept, and murdered her in the basement. They are offering no explanation or opinion on the ransom note, its content, validity, or origin. They are not offering any profile information.

The government pays the FBI so how can you say we don't have goverment to back RDI...And what you say is right the government does protect the ones accused and the innocent is left behind or just plain forgot...

 

[Tadpole12]

The bottom line is this: The entity that is supposed to protect its citizens is protecting the R's. They are implying that an intruder, who is still at large, did all of the things that would have to be done: Entered the R's home, wrote the ransom note, moved JBR from her bedroom to the basement while her parents slept, and murdered her in the basement. They are offering no explanation or opinion on the ransom note, its content, validity, or origin. They are not offering any profile information.

Hi Hotyh.

Yes, it is odd that if the perp is at large no new information has been released, post conference.

 

[Ravyn]

The post I left to show evidence why Carnes said the R's couldn't had killed their daughter

Those suspicions were not based on evidence that had been tested in court....

And this statement came from DA Mary Lacy....

 

[BBB167893]

Correct. And the message from the government is:

There is ample evidence to suggest an intruder did it (Carnes).
There is no evidence to suggest PR wrote the note (Dusak).
The Ramseys are no longer considered to be suspects (Lacy).

I didn't say they were doing a GOOD job.

Its interesting that none of these three offer any notion or opinion as to the ransom note. How bogus it is or how misleading it is.

Well, that's odd, because several government agents (not retirees at the time) HAVE offered those notions.

 

[Sophie]

Seems to me like you're trying to combine Agatha Christie with Emily Post.

*Applauds*

 

[Sophie]

I think there's a semantic problem with this question: for example, you can't call Carnes's judicial decision representative of government any more than you can call the judge who basically told the Ramseys to STFU and stop moaning in the Fox`case representative of government.

Fact is, the last statement made by any official in this case was pointedly neutral - which is the way it should be - and conspicuously excluded no one from the investigation. If we are going to say that anything is representative of government, we have to assume that the new DA's and Beckner's statements are the latest reflection and they were frankly not very supportive of RDI or IDI. They were comfortingly unbiased.

This is all horribly irrelevant, though. If and when the police collect sufficient evidence and the case goes to court, it'll be the view of 12 citizens that prevails.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I didn't say they were doing a GOOD job.



Well, that's odd, because several government agents (not retirees at the time) HAVE offered those notions.

What were they and when were they (I found Beckner's affirmation of suspicion).

Regardless if you're IDI or RDI, its interesting to note the statements, affirmations, and affidavits made by government personnel, as opposed to private or hired guns. Its interesting because of the responsibility they have to protect citizens, and the access they have to information.

 

[DeeDee249]

I completely discount ANYthing Judge Carnes has to say about this case because she DID NOT LOOK AT ALL THE EVIDENCE.
And that pretty much sums it up.

 

[Ravyn]

What were they and when were they (I found Beckner's affirmation of suspicion).

Regardless if you're IDI or RDI, its interesting to note the statements, affirmations, and affidavits made by government personnel, as opposed to private or hired guns. Its interesting because of the responsibility they have to protect citizens, and the access they have to information.

And you said I had rose colored glasses...Carnes access to the information wasn't that great....And to protect the ones that stands accused yes the government does protect this can be seen anywhere....In the government the victims are the ones left unguarded,unsafe while the creep that hurts the lil ones walks with nothing on his record...And the abundant of evidence that Carnes said she had please show me this change my mind here...