Yes...that is also a very real possibility. Though I lean more to PDI than BDI, if he were involved it does answer a lot of questions.
Simple question...
- Thread starter madeleine
- Start date
Yes...that is also a very real possibility. Though I lean more to PDI than BDI, if he were involved it does answer a lot of questions.
I doubt it, SunnieRN. You just have to take them as they come, I suppose.
I could not disagree more. JBR's killer is just that - a killer. We can talk about whether it's 1st degree, 2nd degree, or manslaughter, but we can't whittle it down to a traffic violation. This was a serious crime, even if it was a first offense.
The public's sense of justice is not served by allowing the killer to get off on the theory that the killer's guilt is punishment enough.
All this case really has done is to give the impression that there is no law in Boulder.
madeleine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 4,972
- Reaction score
- 97
I agree.
To ME right now justice would mean knowing the whole truth...cause I don't see any R's in jail.I would like to at least know the truth someday.....Even if there will be a RDI trial ( don't think so) there will be reasonable doubt and so much more,they will blame it on LE,they will spin the dna evidence and the list goes on....would only be a media circus...........
IF BDI then MAYBE the parents already paid for the cover-up...somehow......PR died..........JR lost two kids and will have to lie all his life for BR, not even knowing how long this works.........you could say they paid the price.........and still are.............BUT that doesn't mean I agree or excuse it.Too much happened and they destroyed too many people by what they did,no matter what the motif was.........
Re AH.........he was just a coward and letting the R's go was convenient for him from all points of view........he isn't an old religious lady who UNDERSTANDS an accident and FORGIVES people who just made a mistake.He was THE D.A.He's paid to take criminals to COURT.
I sympathize, Chrishope. But justice and vengeance are not always the same thing.
I wholeheartedly agree with madeleine about AH, as well.
I'm not talking about vengeance at all, only justice. It's not justice to allow the killer to have no consequence other than a guilty conscience. The individual has her conscience to contend with, but justice is social.
That said, I'm not in favor of the death penalty.
Having had a young relative murdered years ago, and having done the post- LE crime scene clean-up myself ( to spare her parents), I am a BIG fan of the death penalty. Cleaning up brains with windex and a paper towel will do that to a person. I don't know about now but then, when the police released the crime scene, you were on your own. There was not much forensic work done in the 1980s.
However, many people who oppose it do not see it's real benefit. It should not be considered as a deterrent to OTHER killers. It should be seen merely as a VERY effective way to keep THAT killer from killing again. Dead people can't kill again. It is not for every case, certainly NOT in the JBR case if RDI turns out to be the case.
In my family's case, the perp walked on a technicality. But he was dead three weeks later. This IS New Jersey, after all.
Hi, folks. Normally, I wouldn't do this, but it's been building for a long time and it's time I got it off of my chest. And I've got a lot of things to talk about.
I notice that some of our chief IDIs (we ALL KNOW who I mean) have been taking an extended leave of absence. It happens. Life does have a tendency to intrude on our little back-and-forths here at WS. I know that as well as anyone. But on the off-chance that they are still out there, it's them I hope will pay special attention, along with any newbies out there not so well-versed in JBR lore as yet.
Apparently he STILL does! I remember HOTYH saying that he do research into Kane's role and what he took away from his time with the investigation. Yeah, HOTYH said that last April, and as far as I know, he hasn't done it yet! Can't THINK why! :innocent:
This fits in with what I said about people being afraid of Kane. Let me post an excerpt from my book:
If Det. Thomas is public enemy number one to the pro-Ramsey people, Kane is definitely number two. Ramsey supporters have accused him of everything from having no objectivity and being "overzealous" (if Michael Kane can be considered overzealous, may the gods help us all), to outright lying and unethical behavior, to which he has responded, "if I were not a public figure, I would force them to prove it."
He wasn't the sharp-fanged anti-R lapdog he's made out to be by some. He wouldn't take a position unless he felt it pretty deeply. He believes what he believes for a reason. If the evidence for an intruder was as strong as they say, he'd be the first to pursue it. In his case, it would be even better because, unlike most of the other prosecutors involved[/U], he has no pro-R baggage. I believe Mr. Spock said it best: "only Nixon could go to China."
But now let's get to the nitty-gritty. Lately, I've been accused of being a "snake-oil salesman" and "making things up." In other words, I've been called a liar.
Well, there's NO WAY I'm going to let THAT stand without a fight.
Let's talk specifics here. Firstly, I've been accused of "making up" stories about how the District Attorney was under no obligation to file charges even if the Grand Jury did choose to indict. The argument is that he was, and that if he refused, the state attorney general or the governor or someone else would have them removed. This assertion displays a serious lack of legal knowledge.
Simply put, in the American judicial system, prosecutorial discretion is absolute. It is completely up to a prosecutor whether or not to bring charges against someone. This arrangement has been upheld many, many times by the courts. Even if the attempt were to be made to remove a DA for failing to file charges at the urging of a Grand Jury, chances are very strong that the court hearing the argument would uphold the prosecutor's discretion.
A clue to this can be found in the old saying that a Grand Jury will indict a ham sandwich. Well, that's one of the reasons for the absolute nature of prosecutorial discretion. Many times, grand juries are not used to gain indictments, but for investigative purposes, because they can do things that police and prosecutors can't normally do. Thus, if a prosecutor believes that a grand jury has become a "runaway," he/she can rein them in. ST stated this quite clearly in his book. The Boulder DA was well within his rights not to go forward with an indictment, and thanks to Boulder's Grand Jury Secrecy laws, make sure that no one will know for sure.
Any first-year law student can tell you what I just told you. But that's not good enough for some. For this, my honor was insulted. I was dared to demonstrate a case where a Grand Jury was set to indict only to have it quashed by a District Attorney, if it's such a common practice. And I DID! I pointed to an incident from Boulder itself where Alex Hunter himself made a deal with the lawyer for a suspected killer to let him off behind the back of a grand jury which was hearing the case at the time. I did not "make up" a THING. This story was and is common knowledge, so much so that ST retold it in his own book.
In a way, I can partly understand the RST's disbelief. On the face of it, it makes no sense for the DA's office to convene a Grand Jury for 13 months at who-knows-what cost just to cut and run at the end. But, as with just about everything in this case, nothing is on the square and must MUST MUST be taken in the larger context. It's common knowledge that the BDA did not want to convene a grand jury, for many reasons, and only called for one because of public pressure brought on by the resignation of ST and the governor's office. That's one thing that many divergent sources from PMPT and ST to the Tracey croc-u-mentaries actually agree on. It's not like it's a big secret. The GJ was purely a political move, a public relations ploy to make it look like the DA's office was actually doing something. No less an authority than the aformentioned Michael Kane himself has stated publically that he was just window-dressing for the DA's little farce, and that he quickly realized that they did not want him to do what they said they wanted him to do: get an indictment.
Hey, I've said it myself a million times: the GJ was nothing but a dog-and-pony show. And the doberman never made it.
As a side-note to that, I was also very accomodating in my willingness to provide quotes from people involved with the case who have said that the DA very likely tanked the GJ. These included anyone from Henry Lee to ST to R lawyer Bryan Morgan. A FAT lot of good it did me! Gods forbid I should actually rely on people who were there instead of the lazy, sound-bite media. I don't know WHAT I could have been thinking!
Secondly, my assertions about the general incompetence of the investigators are often handwaved as the ravings of a crackpot. They tell me, "it's not a people problem, SD. You just have nothing."
Man, I don't know how anyone even remotely knowledgeable about this case can say that with a straight face!
Quite frankly, listing the amount of sheer incompetence and sleazy politics would take a LOT of time. So I hope everyone here packed a lunch (and, gods willing, a few shots of liquor to kill the pain)!
Over on the "If the Rs confessed" thread, I posted a lengthy treatise on how a bunch of arrogant buffoons like Alex Hunter and company could have ever gotten into a position of power in the first place. The Warren Court was Ground Zero for the ascendance of people who think that the police are a greater danger to society and liberty than the criminals and who think that the rights of criminals outweigh those of victims. It probably tells you all you need to know about the DA's conduct in this case when you find out that their biggest supporters were and are the prime suspects, the prime suspects' lawyers and a whole mess of
defense lawyers. But let's talk turkey here:
1) If you were to go out and ask ten people at random how they think the murders of children who die at their parents' hands are solved, it's likely that they'll all give you some form of forensic evidence. This assertion is as erroneous as it is widespread. The great majority of domestic murders are solved by isolating the two parties, throwing them into holding cells if necessary, and giving them the third degree until one of them cracks and gives up the other. Many, MANY cops, FBI agents, prosecutors and defense attorneys have stated this over and over again, so it's not like I'm going out on a limb here. In fact, that's how Lisa Steinberg's murder was solved: the NYPD got her mother to roll on her father. That's what the Boulder Police WANTED to do with the Ramseys.
-Chief Beckner wanted to do it.
-The FBI TOLD them to do it.
-The Dream Team advisors BEGGED them to do it.
Alex wouldn't go for it. He said he didn't do things that way.
2) Then there's the way Hunter undercut his own WITNESSES! The best example would be Foster and his supposed "flip-flopping." There's not point in re-fighting that whole issue, so I won't. I'm well-aware of the problems surrounding him. But what most people don't seem to understand is that Alex Hunter more than likely wanted him BECAUSE he initially thought PR was innocent and did not CARE about those issues until Foster came back with the one answer Hunter did not want. It was only AFTER he changed his mind that Hunter gave him the sideshow chicken-drop. Hunter didn't just drop him, he tried to ruin him professionally. Yeah, Alex is really the kind of guy I want to save me from the criminals!
2-1/2) As a sidenote to this, the handwriting analysts didn't fare much better. I'm hoping that the whole debacle over "consensus" regarding the global warming debate has finally proven how detrimental groupthink can be, but on the chance that it didn't, it helps to remember that Hunter stacked the deck there, too. He said that he didn't think that anything less than a 100% certainty finding would make it past the Daubert test, but anyone who said they had one was dismissed and mocked. Clever guy, Hunter: he sets up a definition of "beyond a reasonable doubt" that no one could EVER meet and then blames others for not living up to it.
Add to that the ABFDE isn't considered tops in the field because they are the best necessarily, just that they convinced everyone that they were. Gideon Epstein said that the ABFDE formed basically the way Mafia alliances are made: they decided it was better to split the loot (i.e., gov't contracts) than fight over them. Anyone who doesn't belong to their little "club" is either a fool or a shameless self-promoter or both. This mentality leads to a disturbing trend of following someone else's lead for sheer expediency and excluding everything else. That's why Epstein disowned his membership after 25 years.
I think Ben Thompson summed it up best:
"It's political, the reason that it hasn't been prosecuted. And we have a district attorney's office that is more political than it is a prosecutor's office. I'm sitting here listening to those two talk, or those three talk, and it's strange to me that Alex sounds more like a defense attorney than a prosecutor, and that's part of the problem. Let me say there is a cancer in our DA's office, and whenever anybody points it out, what happens is they attack whoever points it out instead of addressing the issue and trying to solve the problem."
3) Let's not pretend that it was only Hunter flailing in the dark. Oh, not by a DAMN sight. Chief Beckner was plenty spineless in his own right. On his say-so, the police shot down an idea that might have broken the case one way or another. I'll let the book tell it:
The Boulder Police, in conjunction with the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, were going to "bug" the Ramseys' Atlanta home. The idea was that the cops would watch the house, wait until everyone was gone, then sneak in and plant the "bugs," electronic listening devices that, if used properly, can pick up incriminating conversations. The phone would also be tapped. As Ed MacDonald, the FBI agent who worked on the Lufthansa Airline heist said, everyone gives themselves up over the phone. It's so easy to forget that it's a live wire, a wire that can hang you. If worse came to worse and someone came into the house during the operation (a Title 3 operation for you police buffs), they were to grab something and run to make it look like a robbery. The Georgia operatives were all set to go when Chief Beckner called it off. He was worried it might get out that they were doing this and cause a scandal.
4) And finally, let's not forget Mary Lacy. She thought she knew it all, more so than the police. Several people, including one of her former campaign workers, have described her as a radical feminist who took the side of a woman against a bunch of "macho" male cops. She actually chastised Tom Haney for being too tough on Patsy during the '98 interviews. WHAT?! Number one, Haney was using by-the-book techniques. Two, if you look at the tape, he's being perfectly calm! No threats, no intimidation. He's very calmly giving her a chance to explain the evidence. Patsy is the one cursing and jumping around and acting like she's got a scorpion in her panties! What was LACY watching?! Tom Haney is one of the finest homicide detectives in the entire Rocky Mountain area, if not the country. His record speaks for itself. And here's this assistant DA, who at that time I don't think had ever tried a murder case in her entire career, and to my knowledge still hasn't, telling him he was too tough for using absolutely STANDARD interrogation techniques that the greenest rookie on the beat would know! Haney's general feeling was, "who the hell does she think SHE is?"
But hey, what do I know, right? I'm just a crackpot who makes things up out of thin air. It's not as if I do any research or provide any sources...
Remember THIS: Nobody calls me a liar and gets away with it.
NOBODY
I notice that some of our chief IDIs (we ALL KNOW who I mean) have been taking an extended leave of absence. It happens. Life does have a tendency to intrude on our little back-and-forths here at WS. I know that as well as anyone. But on the off-chance that they are still out there, it's them I hope will pay special attention, along with any newbies out there not so well-versed in JBR lore as yet.
Apparently he STILL does! I remember HOTYH saying that he do research into Kane's role and what he took away from his time with the investigation. Yeah, HOTYH said that last April, and as far as I know, he hasn't done it yet! Can't THINK why! :innocent:
This fits in with what I said about people being afraid of Kane. Let me post an excerpt from my book:
If Det. Thomas is public enemy number one to the pro-Ramsey people, Kane is definitely number two. Ramsey supporters have accused him of everything from having no objectivity and being "overzealous" (if Michael Kane can be considered overzealous, may the gods help us all), to outright lying and unethical behavior, to which he has responded, "if I were not a public figure, I would force them to prove it."
He wasn't the sharp-fanged anti-R lapdog he's made out to be by some. He wouldn't take a position unless he felt it pretty deeply. He believes what he believes for a reason. If the evidence for an intruder was as strong as they say, he'd be the first to pursue it. In his case, it would be even better because, unlike most of the other prosecutors involved[/U], he has no pro-R baggage. I believe Mr. Spock said it best: "only Nixon could go to China."
But now let's get to the nitty-gritty. Lately, I've been accused of being a "snake-oil salesman" and "making things up." In other words, I've been called a liar.
Well, there's NO WAY I'm going to let THAT stand without a fight.
Let's talk specifics here. Firstly, I've been accused of "making up" stories about how the District Attorney was under no obligation to file charges even if the Grand Jury did choose to indict. The argument is that he was, and that if he refused, the state attorney general or the governor or someone else would have them removed. This assertion displays a serious lack of legal knowledge.
Simply put, in the American judicial system, prosecutorial discretion is absolute. It is completely up to a prosecutor whether or not to bring charges against someone. This arrangement has been upheld many, many times by the courts. Even if the attempt were to be made to remove a DA for failing to file charges at the urging of a Grand Jury, chances are very strong that the court hearing the argument would uphold the prosecutor's discretion.
A clue to this can be found in the old saying that a Grand Jury will indict a ham sandwich. Well, that's one of the reasons for the absolute nature of prosecutorial discretion. Many times, grand juries are not used to gain indictments, but for investigative purposes, because they can do things that police and prosecutors can't normally do. Thus, if a prosecutor believes that a grand jury has become a "runaway," he/she can rein them in. ST stated this quite clearly in his book. The Boulder DA was well within his rights not to go forward with an indictment, and thanks to Boulder's Grand Jury Secrecy laws, make sure that no one will know for sure.
Any first-year law student can tell you what I just told you. But that's not good enough for some. For this, my honor was insulted. I was dared to demonstrate a case where a Grand Jury was set to indict only to have it quashed by a District Attorney, if it's such a common practice. And I DID! I pointed to an incident from Boulder itself where Alex Hunter himself made a deal with the lawyer for a suspected killer to let him off behind the back of a grand jury which was hearing the case at the time. I did not "make up" a THING. This story was and is common knowledge, so much so that ST retold it in his own book.
In a way, I can partly understand the RST's disbelief. On the face of it, it makes no sense for the DA's office to convene a Grand Jury for 13 months at who-knows-what cost just to cut and run at the end. But, as with just about everything in this case, nothing is on the square and must MUST MUST be taken in the larger context. It's common knowledge that the BDA did not want to convene a grand jury, for many reasons, and only called for one because of public pressure brought on by the resignation of ST and the governor's office. That's one thing that many divergent sources from PMPT and ST to the Tracey croc-u-mentaries actually agree on. It's not like it's a big secret. The GJ was purely a political move, a public relations ploy to make it look like the DA's office was actually doing something. No less an authority than the aformentioned Michael Kane himself has stated publically that he was just window-dressing for the DA's little farce, and that he quickly realized that they did not want him to do what they said they wanted him to do: get an indictment.
Hey, I've said it myself a million times: the GJ was nothing but a dog-and-pony show. And the doberman never made it.
As a side-note to that, I was also very accomodating in my willingness to provide quotes from people involved with the case who have said that the DA very likely tanked the GJ. These included anyone from Henry Lee to ST to R lawyer Bryan Morgan. A FAT lot of good it did me! Gods forbid I should actually rely on people who were there instead of the lazy, sound-bite media. I don't know WHAT I could have been thinking!
Secondly, my assertions about the general incompetence of the investigators are often handwaved as the ravings of a crackpot. They tell me, "it's not a people problem, SD. You just have nothing."
Man, I don't know how anyone even remotely knowledgeable about this case can say that with a straight face!
Quite frankly, listing the amount of sheer incompetence and sleazy politics would take a LOT of time. So I hope everyone here packed a lunch (and, gods willing, a few shots of liquor to kill the pain)!
Over on the "If the Rs confessed" thread, I posted a lengthy treatise on how a bunch of arrogant buffoons like Alex Hunter and company could have ever gotten into a position of power in the first place. The Warren Court was Ground Zero for the ascendance of people who think that the police are a greater danger to society and liberty than the criminals and who think that the rights of criminals outweigh those of victims. It probably tells you all you need to know about the DA's conduct in this case when you find out that their biggest supporters were and are the prime suspects, the prime suspects' lawyers and a whole mess of
defense lawyers. But let's talk turkey here:1) If you were to go out and ask ten people at random how they think the murders of children who die at their parents' hands are solved, it's likely that they'll all give you some form of forensic evidence. This assertion is as erroneous as it is widespread. The great majority of domestic murders are solved by isolating the two parties, throwing them into holding cells if necessary, and giving them the third degree until one of them cracks and gives up the other. Many, MANY cops, FBI agents, prosecutors and defense attorneys have stated this over and over again, so it's not like I'm going out on a limb here. In fact, that's how Lisa Steinberg's murder was solved: the NYPD got her mother to roll on her father. That's what the Boulder Police WANTED to do with the Ramseys.
-Chief Beckner wanted to do it.
-The FBI TOLD them to do it.
-The Dream Team advisors BEGGED them to do it.
Alex wouldn't go for it. He said he didn't do things that way.
2) Then there's the way Hunter undercut his own WITNESSES! The best example would be Foster and his supposed "flip-flopping." There's not point in re-fighting that whole issue, so I won't. I'm well-aware of the problems surrounding him. But what most people don't seem to understand is that Alex Hunter more than likely wanted him BECAUSE he initially thought PR was innocent and did not CARE about those issues until Foster came back with the one answer Hunter did not want. It was only AFTER he changed his mind that Hunter gave him the sideshow chicken-drop. Hunter didn't just drop him, he tried to ruin him professionally. Yeah, Alex is really the kind of guy I want to save me from the criminals!
2-1/2) As a sidenote to this, the handwriting analysts didn't fare much better. I'm hoping that the whole debacle over "consensus" regarding the global warming debate has finally proven how detrimental groupthink can be, but on the chance that it didn't, it helps to remember that Hunter stacked the deck there, too. He said that he didn't think that anything less than a 100% certainty finding would make it past the Daubert test, but anyone who said they had one was dismissed and mocked. Clever guy, Hunter: he sets up a definition of "beyond a reasonable doubt" that no one could EVER meet and then blames others for not living up to it.
Add to that the ABFDE isn't considered tops in the field because they are the best necessarily, just that they convinced everyone that they were. Gideon Epstein said that the ABFDE formed basically the way Mafia alliances are made: they decided it was better to split the loot (i.e., gov't contracts) than fight over them. Anyone who doesn't belong to their little "club" is either a fool or a shameless self-promoter or both. This mentality leads to a disturbing trend of following someone else's lead for sheer expediency and excluding everything else. That's why Epstein disowned his membership after 25 years.
I think Ben Thompson summed it up best:
"It's political, the reason that it hasn't been prosecuted. And we have a district attorney's office that is more political than it is a prosecutor's office. I'm sitting here listening to those two talk, or those three talk, and it's strange to me that Alex sounds more like a defense attorney than a prosecutor, and that's part of the problem. Let me say there is a cancer in our DA's office, and whenever anybody points it out, what happens is they attack whoever points it out instead of addressing the issue and trying to solve the problem."
3) Let's not pretend that it was only Hunter flailing in the dark. Oh, not by a DAMN sight. Chief Beckner was plenty spineless in his own right. On his say-so, the police shot down an idea that might have broken the case one way or another. I'll let the book tell it:
The Boulder Police, in conjunction with the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, were going to "bug" the Ramseys' Atlanta home. The idea was that the cops would watch the house, wait until everyone was gone, then sneak in and plant the "bugs," electronic listening devices that, if used properly, can pick up incriminating conversations. The phone would also be tapped. As Ed MacDonald, the FBI agent who worked on the Lufthansa Airline heist said, everyone gives themselves up over the phone. It's so easy to forget that it's a live wire, a wire that can hang you. If worse came to worse and someone came into the house during the operation (a Title 3 operation for you police buffs), they were to grab something and run to make it look like a robbery. The Georgia operatives were all set to go when Chief Beckner called it off. He was worried it might get out that they were doing this and cause a scandal.
4) And finally, let's not forget Mary Lacy. She thought she knew it all, more so than the police. Several people, including one of her former campaign workers, have described her as a radical feminist who took the side of a woman against a bunch of "macho" male cops. She actually chastised Tom Haney for being too tough on Patsy during the '98 interviews. WHAT?! Number one, Haney was using by-the-book techniques. Two, if you look at the tape, he's being perfectly calm! No threats, no intimidation. He's very calmly giving her a chance to explain the evidence. Patsy is the one cursing and jumping around and acting like she's got a scorpion in her panties! What was LACY watching?! Tom Haney is one of the finest homicide detectives in the entire Rocky Mountain area, if not the country. His record speaks for itself. And here's this assistant DA, who at that time I don't think had ever tried a murder case in her entire career, and to my knowledge still hasn't, telling him he was too tough for using absolutely STANDARD interrogation techniques that the greenest rookie on the beat would know! Haney's general feeling was, "who the hell does she think SHE is?"
But hey, what do I know, right? I'm just a crackpot who makes things up out of thin air. It's not as if I do any research or provide any sources...
Remember THIS: Nobody calls me a liar and gets away with it.
NOBODY
:applause:
There are areas that are certainly open to debate, but there are also many issues that essentially no one with any cursory familiarity with the case would sincerely question.
With respect to some posts, I am left to conclude that they are either based on a profound misunderstanding of the fundamentals of this case, or that they are simply meant to provoke or irritate RDI’s into unnecessary and time-sapping debates.
I was pretty irritated when I started, cynic.
If possible, I'd like everyone to take a look at what I wrote about the Warren Court and where it has led us. Because that is the crux of why I feel this case so deeply: I believe it's symbolic of the road we are going down, and how vitally important it is that we pull back from that terrible precipice.
If possible, I'd like everyone to take a look at what I wrote about the Warren Court and where it has led us. Because that is the crux of why I feel this case so deeply: I believe it's symbolic of the road we are going down, and how vitally important it is that we pull back from that terrible precipice.
Suthrnqt
Verified Luddite
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2009
- Messages
- 3,594
- Reaction score
- 102
SuperDave
I think you are very knowledgeable about the JBR case. I can't even imagine someone on WS calling you a liar. That is just awful. I am one of those newbies that wasn't completely informed and came to this thread to learn more. Of course, I was chastised by you, but I went and did my homework and feel pretty confident that I know the basic facts of this case. Through my own research, I have come to the conclusion that RDI is the only theory that makes any sense. I also agree that LE and the prosecutors office made a complete mess of the investigation. Please let us all know when your book will be available.
I think you are very knowledgeable about the JBR case. I can't even imagine someone on WS calling you a liar. That is just awful. I am one of those newbies that wasn't completely informed and came to this thread to learn more. Of course, I was chastised by you, but I went and did my homework and feel pretty confident that I know the basic facts of this case. Through my own research, I have come to the conclusion that RDI is the only theory that makes any sense. I also agree that LE and the prosecutors office made a complete mess of the investigation. Please let us all know when your book will be available.
Guess it's easier where there are no rules you have to follow,like being polite,no names calling,etc.
Sophie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2009
- Messages
- 1,033
- Reaction score
- 106
Dave, that is an incredible post. You could hear the sound of nails being hit on the head across the Atlantic. Your patience with the IDIs in question has always amazed me and your personal path from IDI to RDI should guarantee that they would afford you some respect.
Holdontoyourhat
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 5,299
- Reaction score
- 12
I don't believe Thomas or Kane are enemies. Just misguided perhaps.
That's good, but I'm afraid I've forgotten the extent of the chastising.
Good, because I don't want anyone to think that I browbeat anyone.
That's giving them the very best of it. I urge everyone to take a look at how Boulder does things, then contrast it with the rest of the country. It is night and day.
Soon, if all goes well.
Maybe it should, and maybe it shouldn't. But make no mistake, Sophie: I figured that it would not. Many have expressed their respect at how I could change my mind, even if they don't agree. Others openly proclaim me a traitor.
I was hoping to hear from you again.
But as to what you say, I can respect and understand that. Like Sophie said, I used to feel the same way.
That said, I am curious about something. I wish to know how you see them as misguided. I'm no stranger to being called that as an RDI, but I'm just a forum poster. So you have to admit, there's a big difference between someone like myself and a detective being advised by the FBI and a team of lawyers and a veteran prosecutor with a history of winning difficult cases.
25 square miles surrounded by reality
http://www.nytimes.com/indexes/2008/03/30/style/t/index.html#pageName=30boulder
The above says quite a lot in me deciding which version of the JBR story to believe.
My feelings EXACTLY.
Similar threads
- Locked
Online statistics
- Members online
- 154
- Guests online
- 418
- Total visitors
- 572