Question for both IDI and RDI

[claudicici]

I think ST made up his mind based on the evidence and his own assessment of the R's as well...

 

[MurriFlower]

I think ST made up his mind based on the evidence and his own assessment of the R's as well...

Ok, well I guess you base this on the accuracy of the information in his book?

 

[madeleine]

LS made his mind up, IMO, based on the fact that the Rs were Christians.

Maybe but that would mean his weakness was exploited and do you really think he was that naive?
I always wondered what really happened with him and why he became so extreme and sometimes .......so blind.IMO ST was biased,LS was blind.

 

[claudicici]

Ok, well I guess you base this on the accuracy of the information in his book?

which information in the book would you say is not based on his assessment of the R's (you can call this his bias) or the way he made HIS mind up about the evidence?

 

[MurriFlower]

which information in the book would you say is not based on his assessment of the R's (you can call this his bias) or the way he made HIS mind up about the evidence?

If the information comes up again on line, I suggest you read his deposition. You will find many questions there specifically about what he wrote in the book and when asked to source them, he could not. I therefore do not believe anything in the book to be factual and would not use it as evidence of the Rs guilt.

 

[BBB167893]

So was LS for example.Why is it ST more credible then?Why is LS the biased one and why is ST the one who's right?

I devoted an entire chapter to that question.

Because you like what he says?Lucky me,I don't like what neither of them say.Their actions speak for thermselves anyway,they both quit.And they should GMAB with "it was outta desperation".They were both too extreme and therefor biased.

Neither one comes off particularly well. It should be noted though, that the Rs were and are intent on using the OJ defense, and they picked ST to be their "Fuhrman."

Speaking of Fuhrman, I came upon this:

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/levipage/2009/11/09/the-murder-business

He has some interesting things to say, beginning at the 25:00 mark.

 

[claudicici]

I was not talking about whether or not and to what degree his book is factual...I was talking about his motivation.

 

[BBB167893]

So if you can't be sure that it wasn't BR,you can't be sure that it wasn't JR how on earth can you be so damn sure it was PR.Maybe they thought she would be the one who can be cracked.

I wouldn't bet against that.

 

[BBB167893]

It's one thing when you're investigating a murder and the evidence is telling you that X did it and another thing to desperately wanting to find evidence that points to X(and if it's not there you still don't start over) .If talking about a normal person I would call it denial,but it's LE and I'll call it incompetence.

Funny you say that, maddy. In his interview, Fuhrman talks about that.

 

[DeeDee249]

I think LS made up his mind based on the evidence and his own assessment of the Rs.

ST, hmm. I'm not sure of his motivation at all.

LS based his assessment on his Christian beliefs. The parents just SEEMED innocent to him. His motivation was to preserve the impression of their innocence.
ST's motivation was to solve the crime, wherever the evidence led. He felt it left to Patsy. He didn't go into this thinking she was guilty.

 

[BOESP]

If the information comes up again on line, I suggest you read his deposition. You will find many questions there specifically about what he wrote in the book and when asked to source them, he could not. I therefore do not believe anything in the book to be factual and would not use it as evidence of the Rs guilt.

I've read Thomas's deposition. I can't recall him failing to source anything. Some statements came from direct evidence and some were inference based on what he saw and some seemed to come from hearsay. Overall, the book came across as honest. I found his statements more believable than those in the Ramsey book, which contradicted itself throughout, let alone the contradictions when compared to their on-line depositions.

Editorial duties often cause errors that an author has no control over, whether Thomas or the Ramseys. If we threw out every book that had errors, there wouldn't be much left to read.

Even if I had never read Thomas's book, but used only the Ramsey book, their television appearances, and the on-line depositions, I would still conclude that one or more person(s) in the Ramsey household either participated or knew what happened to JonBenet the night she died.

 

[MurriFlower]

I've read Thomas's deposition. I can't recall him failing to source anything. Some statements came from direct evidence and some were inference based on what he saw and some seemed to come from hearsay. Overall, the book came across as honest. I found his statements more believable than those in the Ramsey book, which contradicted itself throughout, let alone the contradictions when compared to their on-line depositions.

Hopefully someone here will have it saved and can post it to the list.

Editorial duties often cause errors that an author has no control over, whether Thomas or the Ramseys. If we threw out every book that had errors, there wouldn't be much left to read.

Even if I had never read Thomas's book, but used only the Ramsey book, their television appearances, and the on-line depositions, I would still conclude that one or more person(s) in the Ramsey household either participated or knew what happened to JonBenet the night she died.

That's funny, it doesn't read like that to me at all.

 

[claudicici]

The most damning book I read that makes me lean towards PR as the killer( or the stager) and JR as someone who knew what happened was the book they wrote themselves...

 

[BBB167893]

The most damning book I read that makes me lean towards PR as the killer( or the stager) and JR as someone who knew what happened was the book they wrote themselves...

Same thing happened to me!

 

[UKGuy]

Hopefully someone here will have it saved and can post it to the list.



That's funny, it doesn't read like that to me at all.

MurriFlower,

Alike BOESP, there is no need to read any book to work out that no intruder killed JonBenet.

The circumstances of her death were unique even to the FBI at Quantico, there is zero forensic evidence to indicate an intruder made his/her way through a darkened house, any alleged intruder left zero forensic evidence behind unless you reckon the flashlight was the intruders?

So after you evaluate the evidence it becomes clear that one of the three remaining residents of the Ramsey household is a prime suspect, and that by collusion all three were/are engaged in a conspiracy which possibly included some friends e.g. Stines and extended family members because apart from potential homicide charges there were other dark secrets which were to be kept from public view. This was achieved by all parties involved by invoking a wall of silence and hiding behind legal attorney's etc.

.

 

[madeleine]

MurriFlower,

Alike BOESP, there is no need to read any book to work out that no intruder killed JonBenet.

The circumstances of her death were unique even to the FBI at Quantico, there is zero forensic evidence to indicate an intruder made his/her way through a darkened house, any alleged intruder left zero forensic evidence behind unless you reckon the flashlight was the intruders?

So after you evaluate the evidence it becomes clear that one of the three remaining residents of the Ramsey household is a prime suspect, and that by collusion all three were/are engaged in a conspiracy which possibly included some friends e.g. Stines and extended family members because apart from potential homicide charges there were other dark secrets which were to be kept from public view. This was achieved by all parties involved by invoking a wall of silence and hiding behind legal attorney's etc.

.

I disagree re zero forensic evidence.Even if they found Ramsey fibers,they lived there,no big mistery,that makes the unsourced fibers (blue,brown) more important.Why do we never talk about THOSE fibers?
Since we don't have the DNA owner we don't know if the DNA is zero evidence or smoking gun in this case.
Until we know for SURE who the RN writer is we don't know if that's RDI evidence or IDI evidence,could be zero or smoking gun as well for IDI.
Re the flashlight,I posted on another thread why this is one of the pieces of evidence that IMO points to IDI,if it belongs to the R's and they used it in the crime it makes no sense why they left it there (especially if it was the head bash weapon!)after they bothered to wipe the prints off but not the dirt on it.They removed all that stuff,tape,cord,the practice notes but not the murder weapon?NAH.

 

[UKGuy]

I disagree re zero forensic evidence.Even if they found Ramsey fibers,they lived there,no big mistery,that makes the unsourced fibers (blue,brown) more important.Why do we never talk about THOSE fibers?
Since we don't have the DNA owner we don't know if the DNA is zero evidence or smoking gun in this case.
Until we know for SURE who the RN writer is we don't know if that's RDI evidence or IDI evidence,could be zero or smoking gun as well for IDI.
Re the flashlight,I posted on another thread why this is one of the pieces of evidence that IMO points to IDI,if it belongs to the R's and they used it in the crime it makes no sense why they left it there (especially if it was the head bash weapon!)after they bothered to wipe the prints off but not the dirt on it.They removed all that stuff,tape,cord,the practice notes but not the murder weapon?NAH.

madeleine,

Why do we never talk about THOSE fibers?

Because unsourced means Nobody Knows and like the dna this means there is a higher probability that they originate from inside the house than outside. So even if you advocate IDI as a theory in the pecking order it lies beneath RDI.

To say otherwise is to make preference into a belief.


.

 

[MurriFlower]

madeleine,


Because unsourced means Nobody Knows and like the dna this means there is a higher probability that they originate from inside the house than outside. So even if you advocate IDI as a theory in the pecking order it lies beneath RDI.

To say otherwise is to make preference into a belief.

No, the fibers are not like the DNA at all. DNA is unique to it's owner. Fibers can only be said to be 'consistent' with a garment. Fibers can float, cling and fly, but if there is nothing in the house (and here we have to take the word of the investigators I suppose) that they can source to the fibers, then they must have come in from the outside. This means that fibers that are attached to the crime scene and are not sourced to the house are unlikely to have been innocently involved. Therefore, we must surmise that they came either from a garment, attached to a garment or were shed from a garment from another source, and were brought into the Rs house. So, any fibers that came from garments in the house can be sourced. Any fibers that were not from garments that were in the house were introduced. If they are in places that were crucial to the crime (the tape, the body, the cord) then you could be confident that they were brought by someone outside of the house and that person was involved somehow.

To say otherwise is well, fabrication!

 

[UKGuy]

Sorry UK but it's nothing like DNA. Fibers and float and fly and don't have an 'identity' like DNA. DNA is like fingerprints IMO. You can match or not match, you can't say that unmatched fingerprints (or DNA) have a" higher probability that they originate from inside the house than outside." That's nonsense. Who do you think you are kidding?

MurriFlower,

Who do you think you are kidding?

Well maybe its you, since from unmatched dna you seem to know source, origin or owner, you have any names in the frame, or do you still think folks are kidding you?


.

 

[MurriFlower]

MurriFlower,




Well maybe its you, since from unmatched dna you seem to know source, origin or owner, you have any names in the frame, or do you still think folks are kidding you?


.

keh?
Please note the edit.