The "war",what was it all about

[joeskidbeck]

Name calling and hurtful remarks will not change anyone's opinion of what happened to JonBenet. Thank you, DeeDee for the advice you gave above. It helped me very much.

 

[MurriFlower]

I don't think it was the idiot remark that got him/her a timeout, it was probably the "jerk" remark that did it.

It's not an expression we would use here. So is a jerk worse than an idiot?

 

[joeskidbeck]

It's not an expression we would use here. So is a jerk worse than an idiot?

It's not that jerk is any worse than idiot. The poster used both adjectives in a post that was pure vitriol. It was intended to hurt and offend another poster and was cleary against TOS. As adults, we should all treat each other with respect here. I don't agree with everyone who posts here, whether RDI or IDI, but I won't stoop to mocking them in order to make myself feel superior.

 

[DeeDee249]

Unfortunately, some people are only able to feel superior when they belittle others. I was even criticized for misspelling a word!

 

[tragco]

Well, in researching on the net, I've come across other forums where abusive/foul/gutter language is the norm. I think a little sarcasm is not something that should intimidate a mature poster. This person purports to 'know' that JBRs parents were her murderers because she was on another forum where a parent killed her child. To have someone agree that with her that she 'knows less than 1% about this case' is hardly reason to burst into tears! Let's face it, someone was banished from this forum for referring to another poster as an 'idiot'. In the real world, that's not a crime.

Heavens, off topic again but this was a great post and I wanted to answer. I have NO idea what she did or thought. None. She may have been upset, she may have not cared at all, who knows? I just know if this was directed at me before I truly thought about what posting here means, I would just go back to being a lurker.

Sure, it's OK to agree that the poster knows less than 1 percent. But give some insight. Post some links. Help the poster know more than 1 percent. Don't just make a snarky comment and sneak out. IMO.

I agree with you, this is the MOST civil commentary on the case available. I see snark, but I am not one of those that sends a link to a mod. Never done that, just figure the mods will likely see it and decide. They read everywhere. I am just sayin' be nice to the newbies if you can Even if we make really stupid comments. Be bold, be firm, be strict. Be sarcastic even, if the post warrants. But give us info after that!

 

[MurriFlower]

Heavens, off topic again but this was a great post and I wanted to answer. I have NO idea what she did or thought. None. She may have been upset, she may have not cared at all, who knows? I just know if this was directed at me before I truly thought about what posting here means, I would just go back to being a lurker.

Sure, it's OK to agree that the poster knows less than 1 percent. But give some insight. Post some links. Help the poster know more than 1 percent. Don't just make a snarky comment and sneak out. IMO.

I agree with you, this is the MOST civil commentary on the case available. I see snark, but I am not one of those that sends a link to a mod. Never done that, just figure the mods will likely see it and decide. They read everywhere. I am just sayin' be nice to the newbies if you can Even if we make really stupid comments. Be bold, be firm, be strict. Be sarcastic even, if the post warrants. But give us info after that!

Ok, back on topic. I am IDI because I don't believe that any of the Rs were involved in killing JBR. I have my suspects, and because I think one of the reasons people believe in RDI is there was 'inside information'. Unless I've made a slip up at some time (and I'm sure someone will happily inform me if I have), I've never created a scenario whereby I have named a suspect as the killer. I've never stated for example that "Mr Smith used his gun to bash her over the head then he garrotted her till she stopped breathing", with 'Smith' being a substitute for a real person's name in this case. However, RDI constantly accuse the Rs by initials (PR, JR & BR) and name (Patsy, John, Burke) of the most disgusting, sick and debased acts against their own daughter and justify this on the basis that it's "only my opinion and I'm entitled to that". It's as if because they believe one of them has done it, they have the right to accuse them of anything that comes into their heads. This is what Whitefang was raging about initially. He asked, what if I substituted your Mother's name for the R's?

So, I think before RDI makes accusations, they should give a bit of consideration to the fact that they MAY BE WRONG!! These are/were REAL PEOPLE, not characters on TV.

If people on this forum are offended by a small amount of criticism/sarcasm by fellow posters, imagine how the Ramsey's must feel about what you say about them!! How can people demand others respect their feelings when they post such things about the Rs?

 

[DeeDee249]

Of course we may be wrong. And I hope we are. But the Rs WERE (and in the absence of solving the case, may still be) suspects. We didn't just pull those names out of a hat. They are/were suspected by LE of committing this crime and/or covering it up. Some of us agree with LE. Some of us don't. It's not like we formed a lynch mob to go after people who were never considered and for whom there was nothing linking them to the crime scene. This has been said before, but ANYONE (this doesn't apply just to the Rs) who is present when someone is killed is considered a suspect until the perp is identified.

 

[MurriFlower]

Of course we may be wrong. And I hope we are. But the Rs WERE (and in the absence of solving the case, may still be) suspects. We didn't just pull those names out of a hat. They are/were suspected by LE of committing this crime and/or covering it up. Some of us agree with LE. Some of us don't. It's not like we formed a lynch mob to go after people who were never considered and for whom there was nothing linking them to the crime scene. This has been said before, but ANYONE (this doesn't apply just to the Rs) who is present when someone is killed is considered a suspect until the perp is identified.

They WERE suspects, but are now cleared by LE. In other words, no one in authority is still investigating them as if they believe they were involved in her death. Others still ARE suspected and let's hope they are still being investigated (doubt it), but that is no excuse to name them and create scenarios in which they are depicted 'tightening the garrote'.

 

[BBB167893]

Ouch! That wasn't directed at me but I do not see how this adds anything to finding JonBenet's killer. I don't see that it adds anything at all to the discussion.

I knew when I started posting on this forum that it was "different". Basically you better be ready to put your big girl panties on and deal with it. That's why I waited so long to post.

(Hitching up big girl panties) In general, it would be nice if a poster would add something to enlighten a newbie, or provide some input into that person's thoughts. What is to be gained by a comment that encourages the poster to leave the forum? Isn't it better to have more heads together to think about it? Chiquita's an awesome poster, very smart and very kind.

No worries, tragco. I got him back.

Ha! I knew Superdave would eventually dissect a comment of mine and I didn't know if I was going to feel welcomed or feel like I had survived a freshman hazing. He is straight, to the point, blunt, but always with respect. He's very nice too and always adds reasons for his opinions on the case. I think others might try to emulate him.

You make me blush.

 

[BBB167893]

I love it when an RDI attacks JBRs parents with unspeakable accusations, totally baseless and without evidence, and all the other RDIs applaud and offer their thanks like the mob at a gladatorial battle when the lion bites the arm off the combatant.

Mm. As soon as I see an instance like that, I'll join you.

Then when someone who disagrees with this 'theory' sticks up for the R's they are treated to a round of righteous indignity, as if they have virtue and kindness on their side, and the dissenter is evil and nasty. So amusing!

You might want to use a better example, MF. Roy's comment did nothing to contribute to the discussion and was designed as an insult.

 

[DeeDee249]

They WERE suspects, but are now cleared by LE. In other words, no one in authority is still investigating them as if they believe they were involved in her death. Others still ARE suspected and let's hope they are still being investigated (doubt it), but that is no excuse to name them and create scenarios in which they are depicted 'tightening the garrote'.

NOT cleared by LE . Cleared (and erroneously) by an inept DA with an agenda.

 

[MurriFlower]

NOT cleared by LE . Cleared (and erroneously) by an inept DA with an agenda.

Nope. Only people still investigating them are those on these forums.

 

[DeeDee249]

Nope. Only people still investigating them are those on these forums.

Oh, don't we know it. But they were only cleared by ML. And that "clearance" has no legal merit. If new evidence should surface implicating them, ML's clearance goes right down the toilet (where it belongs).

 

[cynic]

But maybe a newbie to this forum. To the thousands of pieces that need putting together. That's what I was getting at.

Off topic but here is my stance: For the record, I used to be a firm RDI, now I just don't know. I am into genetics and science and regard DNA as a HUGELY important piece of evidence in any case. So, now I lean towards IDI.

Thanks to so many of the great posters, I question. What if it was tampered with? This "touch" DNA, how accurate is it? The results have been fiddled with to put it into CODIS. Now exactly how did they do that and come up with the markers? Was it just guesswork?

I answered your question on another thread. (Post #311)
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5586139#post5586139"]DNA Revisited - Page 13 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

 

[claudicici]

Ok, back on topic. I am IDI because I don't believe that any of the Rs were involved in killing JBR. I have my suspects, and because I think one of the reasons people believe in RDI is there was 'inside information'. Unless I've made a slip up at some time (and I'm sure someone will happily inform me if I have), I've never created a scenario whereby I have named a suspect as the killer. I've never stated for example that "Mr Smith used his gun to bash her over the head then he garrotted her till she stopped breathing", with 'Smith' being a substitute for a real person's name in this case. However, RDI constantly accuse the Rs by initials (PR, JR & BR) and name (Patsy, John, Burke) of the most disgusting, sick and debased acts against their own daughter and justify this on the basis that it's "only my opinion and I'm entitled to that". It's as if because they believe one of them has done it, they have the right to accuse them of anything that comes into their heads. This is what Whitefang was raging about initially. He asked, what if I substituted your Mother's name for the R's?

So, I think before RDI makes accusations, they should give a bit of consideration to the fact that they MAY BE WRONG!! These are/were REAL PEOPLE, not characters on TV.

If people on this forum are offended by a small amount of criticism/sarcasm by fellow posters, imagine how the Ramsey's must feel about what you say about them!! How can people demand others respect their feelings when they post such things about the Rs?

of course RDI may be wrong but since they were KNOWN suspects it is perfectly fine to use their initials during theories....
I try to be as open as possible to any IDI theories but frankly it's hard when I go back and read the actual interviews,when I see their inconsitencies,when I see their media interviews,when I read DOI,it's very,very hard for me to imagine these are innocent poeple.If they are I just don't understand their actions at all.

 

[madeleine]

If they are I just don't understand their actions at all.

Same here.I still think RDI is possible and it's not because of the evidence but because of their actions and behaviour.You can't charge someone based on that I know but IMO there still are a lot of questions the R's need to answer.

Which brings me back to,why on earth did the cops agree with those kind of interviews?:banghead::furious:

Excuse me but when reading the 1997 interviews I feel like screaming!I am surprised they don't talk about the weather!And the 1998 one with Lou smit?You swear to God you didn't kill her?GMAB!:banghead:

Yes,officially they said it's not an interrogation but cooperation,the R's helping LE out with info,bla bla bla.But the cops knew exactly what they wanted,to crack the Ramsey's.
Okay,so if that's your goal,then why the heck do you agree with the way the questions were put ?Why do you agree NOT to ask this and that???

I know that they probably thought okay,we're not allowed to ask this and that but at least we have them here.WRONG!Look what happened.


The questions I myself would have wanted to get an answer for were NEVER asked!


I would have asked them 100 times,
WHY DID YOU CALL LE AND YOUR FRIENDS AND THE PRIEST OVER IF THE NOTE SAYS SO MANY TIMES THAT IF YOU DO THAT SHE DIES?!

Oh officer,I didn't read the entire note.....

WHY DID YOU CALL LE AND YOUR FRIENDS AND THE PRIEST OVER IF THE NOTE SAYS SO MANY TIMES THAT IF YOU DO THAT SHE DIES?!
WHY DID YOU CALL LE AND YOUR FRIENDS AND THE PRIEST OVER IF THE NOTE SAYS SO MANY TIMES THAT IF YOU DO THAT SHE DIES?!
WHY DID YOU CALL LE AND YOUR FRIENDS AND THE PRIEST OVER IF THE NOTE SAYS SO MANY TIMES THAT IF YOU DO THAT SHE DIES?!

And this is only ONE of the questions that will always bug everybody...

 

[madeleine]

Those interviews were HUMILIATING IMO.A bad joke.

 

[claudicici]

yes,yes exactly...
there's so many questions....
from the very beginning...
you got up,did not take a shower,threw on the clothes you wore the previous night but PUT ON MAKE UP?
how can you change your mind on whether you first saw the note or you first saw JB missing?
did you pick up the note and showed JR or did he read it while it was laying on the stairway?
....I have sooo many questions just about the timeframe from the R's getting up to finding JB missing,so the questions beyond that are just endless....

 

[madeleine]

-Mrs Ramsey,one of the officers at the scene that morning wrote in his notes that you said JB went to bed wearing the red turtleneck.Can you explain that please?

-He got it wrong.I didn't say that.

-Interesting,your husband says another officer got it wrong as well regarding him reading to the kids that night.Do you have an explanation for why all our officers got everything you said wrong?!Shall we call them over with their notes and get it right?

 

[madeleine]

LE should never have accepted the interviews format or shall I rather call it deal....they lost.
Some of you will say,hey,it's good cause SOME inconsistencies are now out there and everybody can judge by themselves.But what good does this anyway,it doesn't help anyone.
Actually after reading that it was L.Wood who wanted the interviews made public I realized it was them baiting LE and not the other way around with these so-called interviews. "Hey,read them,my clients got nothing to hide,there's nothing incriminating in them,ahhhh,inconsistencies?We can explain those and on the other hand feel free to prove that my client is lying when saying I don't recall.LOL"

Inconsistencies mean nothing if you look at the bigger picture.They could mean someone is hiding the truth or they could mean that person simply forgot things or is confused.How do you prove which one it is,you can't.

Bad bad move ,LE.


IMO