What if Leopold & Loeb writes the JB ransom note?

  • #21
Honestly no. Is JB subject of any course anywhere?

At one time it was. Someone here at WS said that it was studied at the Univ. of Nevada, Reno. I'll search and see if I can find it.

That, and back in college, my criminal law class did a mock trial of this case. I happen to think my closing argument was particularly good.
 
  • #22
WHile Amy's rapist is my main IDI suspect (described by Amy and her mother as tall young white mall, slender, good shape) and I do not know if he's a college student, yes your scenario is something I favor --- is that what the book is about?

Tell me, voynich. Last I knew, you said you were on the fence. Do you have an RDI suspect too?
 
  • #23
Tell me, voynich. Last I knew, you said you were on the fence. Do you have an RDI suspect too?

I know ST fingered PR, and as JR read the RN, he "realized" PR-alone-DI, and JR and BR to this day do not know this (PRADI)

What if ST got that part wrong? What if JR/BR never realized (PRADI)

What if JR and BR "sincerely" believe, wrongly, or refuse to believe against all evidence, of PR"s innocence?

(PRADI) being implicated based on handwriting and fiber)

There are, after all OJ supporters who claim OJ did not do it, and the evidence like DNA shows the length racist white cops like Fuhrman would go to frame a black man with white woman?
 
  • #24
I know ST fingered PR, and as JR read the RN, he "realized" PR-alone-DI, and JR and BR to this day do not know this (PRADI)

Just asking.

What if ST got that part wrong? What if JR/BR never realized (PRADI)

Or didn't want to realize. But I get you.

What if JR and BR "sincerely" believe, wrongly, or refuse to believe against all evidence, of PR"s innocence?

I'm afraid you lost me.

(PRADI) being implicated based on handwriting and fiber)

Is that it, then?

There are, after all OJ supporters who claim OJ did not do it, and the evidence like DNA shows the length racist white cops like Fuhrman would go to frame a black man with white woman?

Not JUST him. (But that's a subject for another forum.)
 
  • #25
I mean to say "What if JR and BR "sincerely" believe, wrongly, or refuse to believe against all evidence, of PR"s ['guilt']?

--I got tripped up over negations and double negations, and contra-negating a negation.

"You don't want to eat?"
"yes"

JR and BR "believe" IDI when in fact, PR staged everything. JR "refuses" to believe his wife could do such a thing, and stubbornly believes against all evidence, that the language, amount, insider information, fiber, PR
s insistence on legal counsel, and handwriting is not PR's. One "reason" JR refuses to believe this is that he "remembers" PR was with him the entire night.
 
  • #26
If PR was "with him" the entire night- he must have been awake all night. He has said he slept. When you are sleeping, that very state prevents you from being aware of things taking place around you (or else the events wake you up). So if he was asleep for even part of the night (as he claims) he cannot say with certainty that PR was with him the entire time.

If he himself remained awake all night and was a participant to a great extent in the events of the night, then he is telling the truth....she was with him the entire night.
 
  • #27
If PR was "with him" the entire night- he must have been awake all night. He has said he slept. When you are sleeping, that very state prevents you from being aware of things taking place around you (or else the events wake you up). So if he was asleep for even part of the night (as he claims) he cannot say with certainty that PR was with him the entire time.

If he himself remained awake all night and was a participant to a great extent in the events of the night, then he is telling the truth....she was with him the entire night.

What you say sounds fine -- obviously both state they slept together the entire night. Either this is true, or they pre-arranged to present a united front -- one cannot say 'with certainty' the possibility the other woke up and did the deed while the other continued to sleep, but as Bill Clinton was asked about sex and said "depending on the meaning of is is" how was the question asked and defined 'certainty' and what was their response? Was followup questions asked?

JR could say he is 'certain' PR slept all night b/c if she woke up, it would wake him up, and be honestly mistaken about that night (she woke up without waking him up)
 
  • #28
I mean to say "What if JR and BR "sincerely" believe, wrongly, or refuse to believe against all evidence, of PR"s ['guilt']?

--I got tripped up over negations and double negations, and contra-negating a negation.

"You don't want to eat?"
"yes"

That's what I thought you meant...I think.

JR and BR "believe" IDI when in fact, PR staged everything.

Okay. Now you're talking my language.

JR "refuses" to believe his wife could do such a thing, and stubbornly believes against all evidence, that the language, amount, insider information, fiber, PR's insistence on legal counsel, and handwriting is not PR's.

He wouldn't be the first. As they say, denial's not just a river in Egypt.

One "reason" JR refuses to believe this is that he "remembers" PR was with him the entire night.

Ah.
 
  • #29
That's what I thought you meant...I think.



Okay. Now you're talking my language.

JR "refuses" to believe his wife could do such a thing, and stubbornly believes against all evidence, that the language, amount, insider information, fiber, PR's insistence on legal counsel, and handwriting is not PR's.

He wouldn't be the first. As they say, denial's not just a river in Egypt.



Ah.

This idea is based in part, that neither party 'cracked' and tattled on the other.
 
  • #30
Kinda sounds like premise for a Blair Witch type movie.

After reading this then yes, I would say that this is something I do think.

Amy's rapist knowing of movies and LLRN are not mutually exclusive. Obviously I do not know if he is a college student.


TY Voynich. Your scenarios are interesting. In all honesty, I'd normally imagine the more prosaic explanation to be the right explanation but sensationally odd crimes do happen.
 
  • #31
At one time it was. Someone here at WS said that it was studied at the Univ. of Nevada, Reno. I'll search and see if I can find it.

That, and back in college, my criminal law class did a mock trial of this case. I happen to think my closing argument was particularly good.


Howay, man, Dave: I dunno about anyone else, but I'd love to read your closing argument. If only to get a vicarious thrill out of someone I loosely know doing a good closing argument :)
 
  • #32
Howay, man, Dave: I dunno about anyone else, but I'd love to read your closing argument. If only to get a vicarious thrill out of someone I loosely know doing a good closing argument :)

Okay, but a small caveat: when this was done several years ago, I was very much a believer in the ST theory. Not so much now. Other than that, here you go:

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I could stand here and recite the pledge of allegiance, the part about justice for all. But I won't. Because the legal system has proven in this case that it's not true. There's two kinds of justice in this country: one for the rich; one for everyone else. You have a chance to prove that idea wrong, to show that the laws apply to everyone, the million-dollar CEOs and their beauty-pageant wives as well as the bums on Skid Row. You've heard from pathologists how this poor little angel was likely molested as punishment for her disobediance. What was her offense? She had a problem with bedwetting. Didn't any of you? Didn't you go to your parents for support? So did this one. And she was killed for it. It may have been an accident. It very well may have been. But that was not the end of it. Mrs. Ramsey killed her daughter because, when she could have saved her, when she SHOULD have been thinking about her, she was only thinking about HERSELF! Her husband did everything to hinder the investigation. He used his considerable money and power to keep her out of prison. He hired his own investigators. You've heard how they were sabotaging witnesses. He hired his own forensic experts, which only someone with his finances could do. Would you or I have such an opportunity? No, because we have to live our lives on blue-collar salaries. Show him that the law is the law for everyone! Show him that money cannot buy justice. Restore some faith in the legal system. The Ramseys only thought of themselves. Now that's all they have left. Find them guilty, ladies and gentlemen. Think of JonBenet. That's more than they did."
 
  • #33
Okay, but a small caveat: when this was done several years ago, I was very much a believer in the ST theory. Not so much now. Other than that, here you go:

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I could stand here and recite the pledge of allegiance, the part about justice for all. But I won't. Because the legal system has proven in this case that it's not true. There's two kinds of justice in this country: one for the rich; one for everyone else. You have a chance to prove that idea wrong, to show that the laws apply to everyone, the million-dollar CEOs and their beauty-pageant wives as well as the bums on Skid Row. You've heard from pathologists how this poor little angel was likely molested as punishment for her disobediance. What was her offense? She had a problem with bedwetting. Didn't any of you? Didn't you go to your parents for support? So did this one. And she was killed for it. It may have been an accident. It very well may have been. But that was not the end of it. Mrs. Ramsey killed her daughter because, when she could have saved her, when she SHOULD have been thinking about her, she was only thinking about HERSELF! Her husband did everything to hinder the investigation. He used his considerable money and power to keep her out of prison. He hired his own investigators. You've heard how they were sabotaging witnesses. He hired his own forensic experts, which only someone with his finances could do. Would you or I have such an opportunity? No, because we have to live our lives on blue-collar salaries. Show him that the law is the law for everyone! Show him that money cannot buy justice. Restore some faith in the legal system. The Ramseys only thought of themselves. Now that's all they have left. Find them guilty, ladies and gentlemen. Think of JonBenet. That's more than they did."


That's just brilliant, Dave. Gets to the heart of the matter! I am guessing that the jury found Patsy guilty...
 
  • #34
That's just brilliant, Dave. Gets to the heart of the matter! I am guessing that the jury found Patsy guilty...

Actually, it was hung. Seven went my way, two went for JB, two IDI and one was totally uninterested.
 
  • #35
Actually, it was hung. Seven went my way, two went for JB, two IDI and one was totally uninterested.




IDI are worthy foes so you can accept that sort of decision with good grace but uninterested?!? Uninterested! You can only assume that this person found constitutional law or tax`law akin to watching a cricket match...I wonder whether they ended up practising?
 
  • #36
IDI are worthy foes so you can accept that sort of decision with good grace but uninterested?!? Uninterested! You can only assume that this person found constitutional law or tax`law akin to watching a cricket match...I wonder whether they ended up practising?

Highly unlikely.
 
  • #37
  • #38
Fought well you have my padawan.

And remember what happened to all those little padawans. Cut down by a ruthless young Sith Lord.
BTW, the Sith Lords are all afraid of me....and they owe me money.
 
  • #39
And remember what happened to all those little padawans. Cut down by a ruthless young Sith Lord.
BTW, the Sith Lords are all afraid of me....and they owe me money.

let me guess $118k? :crazy:
 
  • #40
Responding to Darth Dave, if RN shows literary dependence on LL, then would be very strong evidence of IDI over RDI, unless you believe PR and JB walks around the house with the LL note prior to the crime.


You can switch and rearrange sentences between the two and get the same message.

Do I misunderstand you, or are you saying that PR and JR must not walk about with the L&L rn, but an intruder must have done?
 

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
133
Guests online
1,273
Total visitors
1,406

Forum statistics

Threads
632,447
Messages
18,626,707
Members
243,154
Latest member
findkillers
Back
Top