RDI: What's the problem?

[BBB167893]

In the Ramsey case, LW publicly retorted to Darnay Hoffman that "he made more money in this case than Hoffman made in his whole career".

Far as I'm concerned, LW is nothing but scum. Anyone who brags about how much money he's made off a dead child in open court should have his law license pulled.

Never think that how much money a defendant has won't make a difference between charges being filed and not being filed.

Damn skippy.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

That's my point, HOTYH. They never got to that level BECAUSE of the million-dollar, politically connected legal talent they amassed. Talent which I have no doubt scared the you-know-what out of a DA who hadn't taken a case to trial in ten years, who just happened to be business partners with them, I might add.

To put this as gently as possible, they never got to that point because each and every item of evidence that RDI thinks they had, was close but no cigar.

Didn't you notice that?

Its got nothing to do with the R's and thier dough. They didn't have that much anyway.

Did PR write the note? Not according to the BPD-hired experts. U.S. Secret Service analyst said no and understandably didn't reveal his methods. You'd have to wonder if he did!! Wouldn't revealing methods for handwriting comparisons be careless and counterproductive? Obviously it would. Its like telling the public how they tell genuine from counterfeit. LOL. I question any expert who may have viable testimony in court, who had revealed their methods publicly.

Did PR or JR own the tape or cord? RDI has this receipt 'they say' is for cord and we're supposed to just take their word for it.
Was JBR 'barely alive' when strangled? RDI by insisting that was the case appears more creative than factual and this hurts their case.
Was JBR 'previously chronically abused' before the night of the murder? RDI by insisting that she was, going against FBI, further appears more creative than factual.

This is the 'evidence' that RDI frequently touts as if its a foregone conclusion, yet not one is factually known.

The bottom line is that there was not enough evidence against the R's. There is much evidence that RDI believes to exist that doesn't really exist. If RDI had just one single item of unequivocal smoking gun evidence, then and only then could money be raised as a issue.

 

[DeeDee249]

The FACT that she was alive when strangled is indicated in the autopsy report, which not only mentions the petechiae (which only occur while alive) and lists the strangulation as a cause of death. A postmortem strangulation would have been easily detected if that had been the case. This isn't RDI. This is forensic medicine.

There was plenty of evidence to arrest the parents. The police WANTED to. Hunter refused to risk the embarrassment of losing the case if it went to trial. Not just THIS case- he never brought another case to trial after losing one years before. All he ever did was plea-bargain.
AND he knew the lawyers he would be going up against. They were quite formidable. Knew them PERSONALLY too, which meant he should have recused himself from prosecuting this case in the first place.

 

[joeskidbeck]

To put this as gently as possible, they never got to that point because each and every item of evidence that RDI thinks they had, was close but no cigar.

Didn't you notice that?

Its got nothing to do with the R's and thier dough. They didn't have that much anyway.

Did PR write the note? Not according to the BPD-hired experts. U.S. Secret Service analyst said no and understandably didn't reveal his methods. You'd have to wonder if he did!! Wouldn't revealing methods for handwriting comparisons be careless and counterproductive? Obviously it would. Its like telling the public how they tell genuine from counterfeit. LOL. I question any expert who may have viable testimony in court, who had revealed their methods publicly.

Did PR or JR own the tape or cord? RDI has this receipt 'they say' is for cord and we're supposed to just take their word for it.
Was JBR 'barely alive' when strangled? RDI by insisting that was the case appears more creative than factual and this hurts their case.
Was JBR 'previously chronically abused' before the night of the murder? RDI by insisting that she was, going against FBI, further appears more creative than factual.

This is the 'evidence' that RDI frequently touts as if its a foregone conclusion, yet not one is factually known.

The bottom line is that there was not enough evidence against the R's. There is much evidence that RDI believes to exist that doesn't really exist. If RDI had just one single item of unequivocal smoking gun evidence, then and only then could money be raised as a issue.

Is there a smiley for beating a dead horse? :banghead: This will have to do.

 

[BBB167893]

To put this as gently as possible, they never got to that point because each and every item of evidence that RDI thinks they had, was close but no cigar.

Didn't you notice that?

I'll tell you what I noticed, HOTYH: that the DA made sure they didn't GET close enough. That's as simple as I can put it. They were undercutting their own witnesses! I understand that prosecutors have to think like defense attorneys every now and then: they have to in order to find what points of their cases need shoring up. But there's a big difference between THINKING like a defense attorney and ACTING like a defense attorney, where you're looking for excuses not to pursue evidence or to junk an expert's testimony.

I was going to save this for when I needed it, and now's as good a time as any. Even if I were to agree with the above sentiment, I still wouldn't accept it as a reason not to go forward. In her chapter on the cross-fingerpointing defense, Wendy Murphy had this to say:

"We need to loosen ethical restrictions on prosecutors so they can proceed with a case even if they aren't sure beyond a reasonable doubt (author's emphasis, not mine) that they can win."

I realize I'm probably going to get hammered from all sides on this, but I'm used to that. Like you said, HOTYH: I'm a renegade, always have been. So, here goes: I agree. As I told Roy23, I think that "beyond a reasonable doubt" is too great a burden to put on jurors, mostly because 1) one person's idea of reasonable is not the same as another's; 2) the notion of beyond a reasonable doubt has been so perverted so as to mean "beyond any doubt whatsoever." The Boulder DA's office defines it as such, but they're not alone; not by a damn sight.

Its got nothing to do with the R's and thier dough. They didn't have that much anyway.

It's not as funny the 152nd time, HOTYH.

Did PR write the note? Not according to the BPD-hired experts.

Do we REALLY need to fight that one out AGAIN???

U.S. Secret Service analyst said no and understandably didn't reveal his methods. You'd have to wonder if he did!! Wouldn't revealing methods for handwriting comparisons be careless and counterproductive? Obviously it would. Its like telling the public how they tell genuine from counterfeit. LOL.

I'll have to think about that one. But then, I had no problem telling people how to beat lie-detector tests in my book, and for pretty much the same reason.

Did PR or JR own the tape or cord? RDI has this receipt 'they say' is for cord and we're supposed to just take their word for it.

That's an ironic condemnation, given that it's ONLY their word that they didn't! People in glass houses, and all that...

Was JBR 'barely alive' when strangled? RDI by insisting that was the case appears more creative than factual and this hurts their case.

We insist that was the case, because that's what the pathologists have stated. I can name four of them just off the top of my head: Henry Lee, Tom Henry, Ronald Wright and Werner Spitz. In fact, they went further than that! They said it was ten minutes to an hour between the head blow and the strangulation. Don't kill the messenger.

Was JBR 'previously chronically abused' before the night of the murder? RDI by insisting that she was, going against FBI, further appears more creative than factual.

I don't see how we're "going against the FBI" at ALL! You don't seem to have any trouble going against (at last count) eight different examiners. One or two, I can understand. But when eight agree independently of each other, that gets my alarm buzzing!

This is the 'evidence' that RDI frequently touts as if its a foregone conclusion, yet not one is factually known.

I get the feeling that nothing could meet the standard you've set up.

The bottom line is that there was not enough evidence against the R's. There is much evidence that RDI believes to exist that doesn't really exist. If RDI had just one single item of unequivocal smoking gun evidence, then and only then could money be raised as a issue.

Until I can actually get my hands on the actual police file and see what does or does not exist for myself, you'll excuse me if I don't accept your diagnosis.

 

[BBB167893]

Is there a smiley for beating a dead horse? :banghead: This will have to do.

I'm with you. Speaking of beating, just let me change my signature a little bit...

 

[BBB167893]

It's not the case, but the "sleuths" that amuse.

Speaking for myself, I don't consider myself a sleuth, but an AVENGER. That's what I was meant to do.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

It's not as funny the 152nd time, HOTYH.



Do we REALLY need to fight that one out AGAIN???

RDI is the one stuck in a rut. Dont take my word for it. Later events have tended to support IDI.

I get the feeling that nothing could meet the standard you've set up.

The standard is a door that is wide open.




If things were truly the way RDI believes, then why hasn't just one of their many, many claims just by sheer luck or accident been revealed as truth in fact?

1. PR purchased cord at the hardware store just before the murder.
2. JBR was chronically abused prior to the night of the murder by anybody.
3. PR was angry.
4. JR was a pedophile.
5. PR handwrote a 350 page ransom note.
6. PR and/or JR applied the garrote to JBR's neck as a staging prop.
7. PR and/or JR fed JBR pineapple.
8. PR disguised either her spelling, writing, or whitespace in her exemplars.
9. The RN has the same linguistic style found in PR's journalism papers.

The list goes on and on, and NOT EVEN ONE is known to be fact. Heck there could've been something erroneous that accidentally led everyone to believe in RDI. You know, like a false lab report. That 'umbrella of suspicion' placed PR in a precarious position where even if innocent something could've happened to cause everyone to believe she did it. Everyone does not believe even one of RDI's multitudes of claims many of which include fictional or creative accounts.

Until I can actually get my hands on the actual police file and see what does or does not exist for myself, you'll excuse me if I don't accept your diagnosis.

Your hands? This is just more wildcard reasoning.

Myself I've been marinating in RDI for years and have a pretty good idea what the beliefs are and have even looked for my own stuff (if whitespace matched I'd be RDI). Whereas it is really clear RDI hasn't walked down any IDI path more than a half of a foot. Please spare the 'been there' claim because I have seen the extent of both RDI and IDI's effort.

 

[BBB167893]

RDI is the one stuck in a rut. Dont take my word for it. Later events have tended to support IDI.

Given who has been in CONTROL of making those "events" happen, should I be shocked?

The standard is a door that is wide open.

That's my whole problem.

If things were truly the way RDI believes, then why hasn't just one of their many, many claims just by sheer luck or accident been revealed as truth in fact?

1. PR purchased cord at the hardware store just before the murder.
2. JBR was chronically abused prior to the night of the murder by anybody.
3. PR was angry.
4. JR was a pedophile.
5. PR handwrote a 350 page ransom note.
6. PR and/or JR applied the garrote to JBR's neck as a staging prop.
7. PR and/or JR fed JBR pineapple.
8. PR disguised either her spelling, writing, or whitespace in her exemplars.
9. The RN has the same linguistic style found in PR's journalism papers.

The list goes on and on, and NOT EVEN ONE is known to be fact.

You and I will have to disagree as to whether or not those have been revealed as truth. But to indulge you: the way YOU set it up, you would literally need an eyewitness, a confession, or a videotape of the crime as it happened. That, or the ability to literally read the minds of the Rs. Last I knew, the first three were non-existant and the fourth is impossible.

That 'umbrella of suspicion' placed PR in a precarious position where even if innocent something could've happened to cause everyone to believe she did it.

I used to make that very same argument, HOTYH. I realize that must be hard to believe (even for ME!) but not only did I believe all the nonsense about police malfeasance, law enforcement conspiracies, ad infinitum, I was a fairly vocal proponent of them. Obviously, that's not the case now.

Everyone does not believe even one of RDI's multitudes of claims many of which include fictional or creative accounts.

1) I don't give a damn if EVERYONE believes them. That's not going to happen, no matter what the subject. I could give you some examples, but I don't want to be accused of likening IDIs to unsavory forces, so I won't.

2) As for being fictional or creative, I'll be generous (MUCH more generous than I think is deserved) and say that all sides are guilty of this, since everything posted on here is theory anyway.

Myself I've been marinating in RDI for years and have a pretty good idea what the beliefs are and have even looked for my own stuff (if whitespace matched I'd be RDI).

I doubt it.

Whereas it is really clear RDI hasn't walked down any IDI path more than a half of a foot.

Don't forget who you're talking to!

 

[PAXIMUS]

After years and years and countless hours put in to this case I now have come to believe that Patsy likely dragged JB up the stairs by her collar after she got out of bed and came downstairs, this caused strangulation and somehow her grip on JB slipped and JB tumbled down the staircase, likely getting wrapped up in the christmas lights that were strewn around the SC, causing the black marks that appeared to be from a stun gun (they were electical burns from the lights likely) and finally cracking her head open as she fell. It was then covered up to look like IDI.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Don't forget who you're talking to!

How does such a formidable character as yourself stop at mom & pop (I wanted to say Ozzie and Harriet but you'd ad hominem them) on what Dr. Meyer said was murder by strangulation?

I mean, you've chosen to ignore the doctors closest to this case. Why?

Here I am sharing the real world with a ransom note writing madman who, like many other self-absorbed idiots, involves children in politics. This while RDI basks in illusion and fantasy dabbling in this and that sorted story of how they believe JR and/or PR killed JBR.

 

[BBB167893]

How can I? You're a baseball bat maniac.

Figuratively speaking of course.

LOL! HOTYH, I have to admit, that was funny!

How does such a formidable character as yourself stop at mom & pop (I wanted to say Ozzie and Harriet but you'd ad hominem them) on what Dr. Meyer said was murder by strangulation?

I'm glad you asked, HOTYH. Although, permit me to address two quibbles first.

1) I disagree with the characterization that I "stopped" with mom and pop. I've come at this every way I know how. This is just the one I keep arriving at.

2) I think you're putting words in Dr. Meyer's mouth. I'm not aware of any point in the autopsy report that uses the word "murder." I know it says "cause of death."

With that out of the way, let me rephrase your question: How does such a formidable character as yourself arrive at mom & pop (I wanted to say Ozzie and Harriet but you'd ad hominem them) on what Dr. Meyer said was strangulation?

I imagine you're asking for a reasons BESIDES the fact that when a child is killed, especially in their own home, the odds are overwhelming that the killer is someone who lives with them. Okay. For starters, even if your contention that JB was murdered in the true sense is accurate, that does NOT by any means let mom and pop off the hook. Indeed, some of the most horrific child murders have been committed by parents. Secondly, mom and pop have something going against them that no one else to date has: it can be proven that they were in the house with JB that night, and as such, had the opportunity. I could list a whole lot (and I do mean a LOT) of little things, as well, but I guess what I'm saying is that I'm stuck with them because, as it stands now, once I take the totality into account, I find myself asking who else COULD it be?

I mean, you've chosen to ignore the doctors closest to this case. Why?

You're asking me why I'm doing something I'm not doing, HOTYH. I'm at a loss to see how I'm ignoring what the doctors said.

Here I am sharing the real world with a ransom note writing madman who, like many other idiots, involves children in politics.

I'm guessing "ransom note-writing madman" does not refer to me?

This while RDI basks in illusion and fantasy dabbling in this and that sorted story of how JR and/or PR killed JBR.

All urges to bitingly rebuff that statement aside, I can honestly say that I wish I could believe that it is just fantasy and illusion.

Your baseball bat of vengence is inadequate.

HEY!!! Don't get personal!

 

[MurriFlower]

1) I disagree with the characterization that I "stopped" with mom and pop. I've come at this every way I know how. This is just the one I keep arriving at.

who else COULD it be?

Wow SD!! So are you saying you would actually consider someone else having done it? :woohoo:

 

[Tadpole12]

Speaking for myself, I don't consider myself a sleuth, but an AVENGER. That's what I was meant to do.

Hi SD.

like the marvel comics, "Earth's Mightiest Heroes" ......
"Avengers Assemble!" :angel: ?

 

[BBB167893]

Wow SD!! So are you saying you would actually consider someone else having done it? :woohoo:

Of course! I've BEEN saying it ever since I came to Websleuths.

 

[Tadpole12]

After years and years and countless hours put in to this case I now have come to believe that Patsy likely dragged JB up the stairs by her collar after she got out of bed and came downstairs, this caused strangulation and somehow her grip on JB slipped and JB tumbled down the staircase, likely getting wrapped up in the christmas lights that were strewn around the SC, causing the black marks that appeared to be from a stun gun (they were electical burns from the lights likely) and finally cracking her head open as she fell. It was then covered up to look like IDI.

Hi PAXIMUS.

"causing the black marks that appeared to be from a stun gun" - PAXIMUS

The marks, abrasions, appear red in colour in the autopsy photos?

 

[MurriFlower]

Of course! I've BEEN saying it ever since I came to Websleuths.

All I've ever heard is RDI RDI RDI LOL. This is exciting!!

Ok, so what is your first priority to consider IDI?

 

[BBB167893]

Hi SD.

like the marvel comics, "Earth's Mightiest Heroes" ......
"Avengers Assemble!" :angel: ?

I knew it was only a matter of time before THAT came up!

 

[BBB167893]

All I've ever heard is RDI RDI RDI LOL.

I have to stick by what I believe in. Sorry if it gave you the wrong impression.

This is exciting!!

Ok, so what is your first priority to consider IDI?

Access.

 

[MurriFlower]

Access.

Ok, lets make a list of the known key holders.