Simple question...

[voynich]

IDI tend to doubt whether John and Patsy would have had the mental wherewithal to pen the ransom note with any such agenda, especially after their child had just died. In all honesty, John was legendary for taking control of things (something which I believe mildly irritated Patsy) and Patsy was a clever, accomplished woman. Both had wide experience. Individually they were good. Combine their resources and I think you have a powerful and capable unit. This, to me, is what tends to be over-looked. People talk about John OR Patsy writing the RN rather than BOTH. People talk about John OR Patsy doing the staging rather than BOTH. Which I think calls for a resurrection of your 'Cross finger-pointing defence' thread.

John Olsson "John Olsson has published in the Forensic Linguistics peer reviewed professional journal, is the author of a well-known university textbook, Forensic Linguistics (subtitled An Introduction to Language, Crime and the Law), now in its second edition."


"Olsson's forensic analysis has been submitted for evidence before the U.S. Supreme Court and a U.S. District Court. In addition, he has been admitted as an expert in an Australian Federal Court in connection with copyright infringement and has written a number of reports in connection with copyright and trademark infringement."

[ame="http://websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=89672"]Testing RDI spin theory that PR and JR wrote the RN - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

due to localized distribution there's no evidence of dual (or more) authorship

 

[Chrishope]

Meanwhile, I would venture that JBR's murder was a reaction and not an independent action. A reaction to some sort of rejection or action by this country (we respect your business but not the country...)

Its pretty easy for RDI to disregard all this, ...

It's exceedingly easy to disregard, because it's ridiculous. This country does something the SFF doesn't like so they get back at the US by having their representatives kill a 6 year old girl? Not even the Ramsey Spin Team honestly believes that.

 

[Tadpole12]

Hi voynich.

due to localized distribution there's no evidence of dual (or more) authorship - voynich

localized distribution?, meaning that there is a consistency in form of the exemplars in the rn, sauf those that resemble PR 'historical' sample?

The rn was analyzed using only a 'one author as writer' premise; it was never analyzed as the product of more than one writer, only individual comparisons were made.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

It's exceedingly easy to disregard, because it's ridiculous. This country does something the SFF doesn't like so they get back at the US by having their representatives kill a 6 year old girl? Not even the Ramsey Spin Team honestly believes that.

What is ridiculous is how you cling to your antiquated RDI POV despite evidence of an intruder that has essentially caused the case to be viewed as an intruder case by the DA's office.

The fact that BPD has 'reopened' the case with 'all possibilities open' has certainly created zero new information.

BTW isn't 'all possibilities open' a concept you're not really understanding?

 

[BBB167893]

HOTYH, your CIA is famous for taking security threats seriously. To that extent, it's the envy of the terrorist-threatened countries. Do you really believe that your security services didn't cast at least a glance at the RN and do some level of investigation into a foreign threat in Boulder? Likewise, Lockheed had a sophisticated protocol for security threats and would at least have looked at any threat to its interests. Your theory would have us believe that these organisations ignored the threat and didn't even carry out the most rudimentary of house-keeping investigations. Frankly, I'd be surprised.

Unfortunately, Sophie, that implies that federal LE was working with them. As the 9/11 commission proved, they were not working on the same page. Thus, the Twin Towers aren't there any more.

But there is another angle to this. It helps to remember that international terrorism was big news back in 1996. It was, in many ways, a milestone, because it was the year Osama bin Laden issued his declaration of war against the United States. Thus, the American people first started hearing his name. That includes people in Boulder (wink wink, nudge nudge).

 

[BBB167893]

IDI tend to doubt whether John and Patsy would have had the mental wherewithal to pen the ransom note with any such agenda, especially after their child had just died. In all honesty, John was legendary for taking control of things (something which I believe mildly irritated Patsy) and Patsy was a clever, accomplished woman. Both had wide experience. Individually they were good. Combine their resources and I think you have a powerful and capable unit. This, to me, is what tends to be over-looked. People talk about John OR Patsy writing the RN rather than BOTH. People talk about John OR Patsy doing the staging rather than BOTH. Which I think calls for a resurrection of your 'Cross finger-pointing defence' thread.

I second that motion!

 

[voynich]

Hi voynich.

due to localized distribution there's no evidence of dual (or more) authorship - voynich

localized distribution?, meaning that there is a consistency in form of the exemplars in the rn, sauf those that resemble PR 'historical' sample?

The rn was analyzed using only a 'one author as writer' premise; it was never analyzed as the product of more than one writer, only individual comparisons were made.

 

[BBB167893]

Its pretty easy for RDI to disregard all this,

Darn right!

 

[BBB167893]

What is ridiculous is how you cling to your antiquated RDI POV despite evidence of an intruder that has essentially caused the case to be viewed as an intruder case by the DA's office.

Pardon my butting in, but that's not quite accurate. This "evidence of an intruder" did not "cause" the previous DA to view it as such. It's actually well-established at this point that she had been in that corner from Day One. Several books and articles make mention of that. I'm kind of surprised you didn't know that, HOTYH; it's not like it's a big secret.

BTW isn't 'all possibilities open' a concept you're not really understanding?

Some IDIs are quite worried that ALL possibilities will be explored.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Darn right!

You'll not mind if I disregard your POV especially, as it is no longer relevant to this case.

There was a time, long ago, when RDI was a more serious position. That time has passed with new information.

Even without the new information, RDI was never able to congeal into anything. Even without RST, the DA that you didn't like, or one of the principal investigators assigned to the case that you didn't like, or the pediatrician you didn't like, or the coroner you didn't like, or the federal judge you didn't like, or the US Secret Service copy machine tech you didn't like.

Even without all these people and their ideas, RDI was never able to pass muster. Its a dead horse.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Some IDIs are quite worried that ALL possibilities will be explored.

I'm IDI and I'm not the least bit worried that JR or PR are found guilty. I would disagree with the finding, given the existing information that indicates an intruder did it. Thats about the extent of it.

RDI really is in no position to tout anything or pass any kind of judgement as to what happened. Quite the contrary, in fact.

Which IDI's do you believe are 'quite worried'?

 

[BBB167893]

You'll not mind if I disregard your POV especially, as it is no longer relevant to this case.

I DO mind. I've been tolerant up to now, but I'm losing patience.

No longer relevant? The shnutz, you say.

There was a time, long ago, when RDI was a more serious position. That time has passed with new information.

We'll see about that.

Even without the new information, RDI was never able to congeal into anything.

I don't know about "never able." Would have been nice for someone to TRY.

Even without RST, the DA that you didn't like, or one of the principal investigators assigned to the case that you didn't like, or the pediatrician you didn't like, or the federal judge you didn't like, or the US Secret Service copy machine tech you didn't like.

I'm only going to say this once: it isn't a question of "like." That's a hole that goes deep, indeed.

or the coroner you didn't like,

I must admit, I'm confused as to what you mean.

Even without all these people and their ideas, RDI was never able to pass muster.

Substitute "without" with "because of," and you'd be a lot closer.

 

[BBB167893]

I'm IDI and I'm not the least bit worried that JR or PR are found guilty.

I didn't say YOU were worried.

I would disagree with the finding,

Can't say that comes as a shock.

given the existing information that indicates an intruder did it. Thats about the extent of it.

Forgive me if I don't see it quite that way.

RDI really is in no position to tout anything or pass any kind of judgement as to what happened. Quite the contrary, in fact.

Watch Me.

 

[Sophie]

HOTYH, a short two months ago, Mark Fuhrman published a book accusing Patsy of the crime. Patsy is dead and can't be libelled but no one has threatened legal action for the comments he makes about John and Lin Wood hasn't so much as muttered about it. As he put it, most people in LE believe that RDI.

You can convince yourself that the Ramseys no longer have a case to answer but vast numbers of people disagree, and in fact, the DA and Beckner were at pains to point out that they were going back to ground zero, which by definition, puts the Ramseys back in bucket.

Why do you think that apart from the odd half-hearted appeal for info (orchestrated by a non family member), the Ramsey family have made no effort to catch the killer? Maybe it's for reasons that are obvious to some of us.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I DO mind. I've been tolerant up to now, but I'm losing patience.

No longer relevant? The shnutz, you say.



We'll see about that.



I don't know about "never able." Would have been nice for someone to TRY.



I'm only going to say this once: it isn't a question of "like." That's a hole that goes deep, indeed.



I must admit, I'm confused as to what you mean.



Substitute "without" with "because of," and you'd be a lot closer.

Oh, finally I get it.

You seem to believe its a PEOPLE problem. If only this person did that, and that person said this. If only the coroner said she was abused before she was murdered. If only Beuf said the same thing. If only the DA knew what to do. If only CBI, FBI, or BPD said PR wrote the note (NONE did, BTW).

If only, if only, if only :boohoo:

Its not a PEOPLE problem at all, SD. Its really a DATA problem. RDI lacks DATA. EVIDENCE, FACTS.

RDI would sell itself if it was really worth anything. Think about that for a minute and you'll know its true.

 

[BBB167893]

Oh, finally I get it. You seem to believe its a PEOPLE problem. If only this person did that, and that person said this.

I'm not the only one who thinks that. Not by a long shot.

If only the coroner said she was abused before she was murdered.

I think Sophie covered that one very well. He probably expected to be called into court very soon afterward. I don't hold it against him.

If only Beuf said the same thing.

He might have if he had looked. That's my point.

If only the DA knew what to do.

I couldn't have said that better myself!

If only CBI, FBI, or BPD said PR wrote the note (NONE did, BTW).

Not officially. Unofficially...that's something else.

If only, if only, if only :boohoo:

Do not give me that, HOTYH. It's not like anything I've said is a big secret. I'm not saying anything that has not already been said by people who were there.

Its not a PEOPLE problem at all, SD.

That's a laugh. Or it would be if the circumstances weren't so horrific. It's like I keep telling you, HOTYH: if you were to compare the way Boulder does things with the way any other prosecutor in the country does things, it's like comparing apples to handgrenades. And that's not just some airy sentiment, either, not by a damn sight!

Its really a DATA problem. RDI lacks DATA. EVIDENCE, FACTS.

You're part right, but in a much different way than you might think. If RDI does lack one crucial bit of data, it's that we can't show which specific R committed which specific act. I realize that may not seem like much to you, but if you ask any prosecutor who actually knows what they are doing (and some have already said exactly this), they will tell you that the ability or inability to say "person A is the killer, person B is an accomplice" is the dealmaker or -breaker. I had hoped to explain that before now. I didn't start that "cross-fingerpointing defense" thread for my health, you know!

RDI would sell itself if it was really worth anything.

It's funny you say that, HOTYH, because the outside prosecutors--the ones who actually put cases together and WON them--didn't have the slightest bit of trouble believing it. Now isn't that odd?

Think about that for a minute and you'll know its true.

I HAVE thought about it, HOTYH. And the more I think about it, the more certain I become that if this had happened anywhere else, it would have gone much differently.

Now let me leave you with something to think about, HOTYH: I've been here at WS for 3-1/2 years. And in all that time, I've listened to you talk as if no person of any intelligence could possibly believe RDI. Well, if that's the case, than why did the Rs plan to surrender in secret so they wouldn't be paraded before the media in the "perp walk?" Why was Michael Kane, a prosecutor who won more murder cases than any Boulder DA had ever taken to trial, so convinced of their guilt? Why do most LE agents believe they did it? (Thank you, Sophie.) Just a few things for you to chew on.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I HAVE thought about it, HOTYH. And the more I think about it, the more certain I become that if this had happened anywhere else, it would have gone much differently.

Now let me leave you with something to think about, HOTYH: I've been here at WS for 3-1/2 years. And in all that time, I've listened to you talk as if no person of any intelligence could possibly believe RDI. Well, if that's the case, than why did the Rs plan to surrender in secret so they wouldn't be paraded before the media in the "perp walk?" Why was Michael Kane, a prosecutor who won more murder cases than any Boulder DA had ever taken to trial, so convinced of their guilt? Why do most LE agents believe they did it? (Thank you, Sophie.) Just a few things for you to chew on.

The surrendering in secret is curious.

Was that to be in the event of a GJ indictment? I can see planning to avoid a parade. Do you believe that this is more after-the-fact behavior or posturing that indicates guilt? Because this seems to me simply to be more RDI compensation for a lack of DATE, FACTS, or EVIDENCE that the GJ seems to have also noted.

If only the GJ had indicted. See what I mean? Are you getting it yet?

Would you be so kind as to list your LE that believes RDI currently? It seems to me that this stands in direct opposition to the IDI mainstream media view.

 

[BBB167893]

The surrendering in secret is curious.

Was that to be in the event of a GJ indictment?

You got it.

Do you believe that this is more after-the-fact behavior or posturing that indicates guilt?

It certainly doesn't speak well of what their lawyers believed, does it?

Because this seems to me simply to be more RDI compensation for a lack of DATA, FACTS, or EVIDENCE that the GJ seems to have also noted.

I was just getting to that. From what I understand, the DA did not ask the GJ to vote specifically because he was afraid they would indict.

If only the GJ had indicted.

I didn't say that.

See what I mean? Are you getting it yet?

Oh, there's someone who doesn't get it, all right. So I'll say it again in plain English: only in Boulder could this have degenerated into such an incompetent mess.

Would you be so kind as to list your LE that believes RDI currently?

I'm afraid you'd have to ask Mark Fuhrman about that. That's the best answer I can give you. Joe Scarborough said that he was told the same thing. The only one I can think of is Michael Kane. And quite frankly, that's one you should care about.

It seems to me that this stands in direct opposition to the IDI mainstream media view.

Check out my signature, HOTYH. That's all the answer to that you should need.

 

[BBB167893]

HOTYH, a short two months ago, Mark Fuhrman published a book accusing Patsy of the crime. Patsy is dead and can't be libelled but no one has threatened legal action for the comments he makes about John and Lin Wood hasn't so much as muttered about it. As he put it, most people in LE believe that RDI.

You can convince yourself that the Ramseys no longer have a case to answer but vast numbers of people disagree, and in fact, the DA and Beckner were at pains to point out that they were going back to ground zero, which by definition, puts the Ramseys back in bucket.

Why do you think that apart from the odd half-hearted appeal for info (orchestrated by a non family member), the Ramsey family have made no effort to catch the killer? Maybe it's for reasons that are obvious to some of us.

Wonderful, Sophie. But I can't help but think that the effort was wasted.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Wonderful, Sophie. But I can't help but think that the effort was wasted.

Correct. The effort of lying, spreading disinformation, or whatever you want to call it, was wasted. Not too surprising you don't see that, and it makes RDI seem like simply a machine that keeps plugging along without a driver.

Put that another way: suppose RDI finally concedes the DNA was deposited during a criminal act (this concession is about a year overdue, and the delay plus alternate explanations just make RDI appear irrational). Why did JR or PR not put somebody up to it? Why would these rich people do the dirty work themselves? They are supposed to be so clever, certainly they could have a third party accomplice. This explains the DNA on JBR's underwear and the longjohns.