What small foreign faction?

[Holdontoyourhat]

I wouln't say I was "anti-media". I read newspapers, magazines, lots of books, watch the news and look online. It doesn't mean i have to agree with everything that emerges from the media. We all have our own minds, we choose to believe what we want to believe based on the material.

bbm

OK, please provide a small list of your 'material', that is the newspapers, magazines, books, news, and online sources from which you have based your views on this case. Dates would be nice, and its just a request.

It seems to me that the primary 'material' for RDI, here in 2010, is confined to looking online e.g. clique forums, and some fairly weak inferences from some news and interviews.

The primary material for IDI is several news outlets, perhaps dozens, reporting that there is DNA evidence of an intruder. Also reporting results of court proceedings and DA statements that are very favorable to IDI.

RDI's chronic claim that the DNA is innocent and can't be criminal is not really showing up in 'the material' e.g. newspapers, magazines, books, or news. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, as I requested above.

 

[cynic]

bbm

OK, please provide a small list of your 'material', that is the newspapers, magazines, books, news, and online sources from which you have based your views on this case. Dates would be nice, and its just a request.

It seems to me that the primary 'material' for RDI, here in 2010, is confined to looking online e.g. clique forums, and some fairly weak inferences from some news and interviews.

The primary material for IDI is several news outlets, perhaps dozens, reporting that there is DNA evidence of an intruder. Also reporting results of court proceedings and DA statements that are very favorable to IDI.

RDI's chronic claim that the DNA is innocent and can't be criminal is not really showing up in 'the material' e.g. newspapers, magazines, books, or news. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, as I requested above.

Clearly the BPD and the current DA are not impressed with Mary Lacy and her conclusions regarding the DNA in this case or her misguided view that the Ramseys are innocent.
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=117504"]The Ramseys are no longer “cleared” according to Stan Garnett - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

Sorry HOTYH, Mary Lacy is gone, and may I say, good riddance.

 

[LadyLu]

bbm

OK, please provide a small list of your 'material', that is the newspapers, magazines, books, news, and online sources from which you have based your views on this case. Dates would be nice, and its just a request.

It seems to me that the primary 'material' for RDI, here in 2010, is confined to looking online e.g. clique forums, and some fairly weak inferences from some news and interviews.

The primary material for IDI is several news outlets, perhaps dozens, reporting that there is DNA evidence of an intruder. Also reporting results of court proceedings and DA statements that are very favorable to IDI.

RDI's chronic claim that the DNA is innocent and can't be criminal is not really showing up in 'the material' e.g. newspapers, magazines, books, or news. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, as I requested above.

Are you kidding me? Aside from the usual books PMPT, DOI etc, I wouldn't know where to begin to list the sources of information i have read/watched/heard over the last 14 years!

I will agree that a lot of the material I have read does come from online, purely because I am in the UK and this case, although reported there, not as widely as it would have been in the US, but why would the sites I read be any different to the ones you read. Why, because I lean towards RDI, must I ONLY be reading clique forums? Do you have some superior sites that only IDI can see? Chances are i've read the same things you have, but like i say, i've just interpreted them differently.

I think you need to stop judging people who are RDI just because they don't agree with you. I respect what everyone posts here because all of these things together may lead to something that can identify 100% definite who killed that poor little girl, I may not agree with it all but I feel no need for the hostility you can sometimes express in your posts.

I have never once tried to convince anyone that RDI, it's just my personal belief but believe it or not I am still open to the IDI theory and if i think that something points to IDI i'll say it. I just don't think it's as black and white as IDI/RDI.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Are you kidding me? Aside from the usual books PMPT, DOI etc, I wouldn't know where to begin to list the sources of information i have read/watched/heard over the last 14 years!

It was only a request, and I said it was only a request. But it was a request from specific material which causes you to form your opinion.

I will agree that a lot of the material I have read does come from online, purely because I am in the UK and this case, although reported there, not as widely as it would have been in the US, but why would the sites I read be any different to the ones you read. Why, because I lean towards RDI, must I ONLY be reading clique forums? Do you have some superior sites that only IDI can see? Chances are i've read the same things you have, but like i say, i've just interpreted them differently.

Chances are you' haven't read the same things I have.

I think you need to stop judging people who are RDI just because they don't agree with you. I respect what everyone posts here because all of these things together may lead to something that can identify 100% definite who killed that poor little girl, I may not agree with it all but I feel no need for the hostility you can sometimes express in your posts.

If I judged you that means I said what? That you don't believe the media? Ooh.

I have never once tried to convince anyone that RDI, it's just my personal belief but believe it or not I am still open to the IDI theory and if i think that something points to IDI i'll say it. I just don't think it's as black and white as IDI/RDI.

my response in blue



Then I'm sure there are other posters from whom to convinced IDI. Too sensitive for this conversation where I merely point out that the media is all we got, it doesn't help RDI's argument to then bash the media (oh they reported something wrong once!), and the uncoerced media says IDI.

Ad hominem.

 

[BBB167893]

Clearly the BPD and the current DA are not impressed with Mary Lacy and her conclusions regarding the DNA in this case or her misguided view that the Ramseys are innocent.
The Ramseys are no longer “cleared” according to Stan Garnett - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

Sorry HOTYH, Mary Lacy is gone, and may I say, good riddance.

Ditto, Cynic. And that goes for Lou Smit, too, may I be forgiven.

 

[BBB167893]

OK, please provide a small list of your 'material', that is the newspapers, magazines, books, news, and online sources from which you have based your views on this case. Dates would be nice, and its just a request.

If she doesn't, I'll oblige you. In my case, it's bibliography!

 

[Chrishope]

Then I'm sure there are other posters from whom to convinced IDI. Too sensitive for this conversation where I merely point out that the media is all we got, it doesn't help RDI's argument to then bash the media (oh they reported something wrong once!), and the uncoerced media says IDI.

It doesn't matter either way. If the media suddenly jumped on the RDI bandwagon, it would not make RDI true. The truth is independent of majority opinion. You may have noticed that this forum is something on the order of 90% RDI - despite what the media says. We don't feel it's an uphill battle just because the media isn't with us. Most people, once they really start to examine evidence, seem to lean RDI. I'd dare say most RDI folks started out IDI.

Eeryone here, including you, knows way more about the case than the average blow-dried talking head. That's not to say we are all experts (maybe Tricia and SD) but one doesn't need much knowledge to surpass the media.

Although I disagree with many of your interpretations of the evidence, at least you bring something to the table - something more than "We're just quoting Mary Lacy".

It doesn't help or hurt RDI to have the media with us or against us. This isn't opinion polling. We're trying to figure out who killed JBR.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

It doesn't matter either way. If the media suddenly jumped on the RDI bandwagon, it would not make RDI true. The truth is independent of majority opinion. You may have noticed that this forum is something on the order of 90% RDI - despite what the media says. We don't feel it's an uphill battle just because the media isn't with us. Most people, once they really start to examine evidence, seem to lean RDI. I'd dare say most RDI folks started out IDI.

Eeryone here, including you, knows way more about the case than the average blow-dried talking head. That's not to say we are all experts (maybe Tricia and SD) but one doesn't need much knowledge to surpass the media.

Although I disagree with many of your interpretations of the evidence, at least you bring something to the table - something more than "We're just quoting Mary Lacy".

It doesn't help or hurt RDI to have the media with us or against us. This isn't opinion polling. We're trying to figure out who killed JBR.

A bittersweet post, Chrishope.

I figure I've posted what I could post and maybe you dont know it, but I was posting IDI long before I knew ML even existed. There's no way I'm a fence-sitter. Never have been, never will be.

Is funny, almost peculiar that events over the years trended IDI when they could've trended RDI. I would be OK with RDI because I have no vested interest in the outcome.

In a free society, the media responds to events. Having more than one media source provides objectivity with checks and balances. And despite this some posters here complain. Now I'm wondering where do you go from here? When some societies have one media source, we have many and its still no good?

"Satisfying the sponsors by drawing the largest number of viewers/listeners is what mostly supports the media. One way they do that is by creating controversy." -BOESP

Its a lose-lose then?

It IS important which way the media trends, with regards to IDI or RDI because in a free society with mutliple sources it tends to reflect the actual events. This list of events favors IDI.

Therefore while RDI may be truthful, it is the estranged one. The splinter cell. Fringe or radical thinking. I could not say that 5-10 years ago but I can now. So when someone says 'PR wrote the note,' or 'there was no intruder' I know it conflicts with current events.

 

[Chrishope]

A bittersweet post, Chrishope.

...

Is funny, almost peculiar that events over the years trended IDI when they could've trended RDI. I would be OK with RDI because I have no vested interest in the outcome.

There's hardly anyone here with a vested interest. Most of us never knew the Ramsys existed until Christmas day '96. Most of us have formed a theory, RDI or IDI, but we'd just like the truth, even if it goes contrary to our theory.

In a free society, the media responds to events. Having more than one media source provides objectivity with checks and balances. And despite this some posters here complain. Now I'm wondering where do you go from here? When some societies have one media source, we have many and its still no good?

I don't get the impression that anyone is arguing in favor of a single state run news agency. I don't hear anyone singing the praises of Pravda.

"Satisfying the sponsors by drawing the largest number of viewers/listeners is what mostly supports the media. One way they do that is by creating controversy." -BOESP

Its a lose-lose then?

More like two steps forward, one back.

It IS important which way the media trends, with regards to IDI or RDI because in a free society with mutliple sources it tends to reflect the actual events. This list of events favors IDI.

Not sure what this "list of events" is. The evidence and strong suspicion don't lead most people -those who've examined the case in some depth- to an IDI theory.

Even in a free society, with multiple news sources, it's possible (and frequent) that the media gets it wrong. Ever seen the old picture of Harry Truman holding up the newspaper with the Headline -"Dewey Wins" ?

Therefore while RDI may be truthful, it is the estranged one. The splinter cell. Fringe or radical thinking. I could not say that 5-10 years ago but I can now. So when someone says 'PR wrote the note,' or 'there was no intruder' I know it conflicts with current events.

This is nonsense on several levels. Most people who've looked at the case in some depth are RDI - you can see that here on these boards. Few in the media are doing any real analysis of the case. This is understandable. It happened in '96 and frankly most people have forgotten all about it. It's only some atypical crime buffs who keep discussing the case, over and over, even though there is very little if anything that is news.

Because most of the media reports Lacy's "exoneration" doesn't mean it's more likely that an IDI. I've been watching the media dutifully report lies for decades, lies told by no less than Presidents of the US. Johnson, Nixon .... Clinton, Bush Jr. That the majority of the media uncritically reports what Presidents say doesn't mean what Presidents say is likely to be true.

To cut to the chase, you've tried to suggest that because most of the media is on the IDI side the IDI theory must be more likely to be true. It simply doesn't wrok that way.

You've further tried to suggest that anyone who criticizes the media must not like living in a free society with a free press. This of course is not true.

At your core, Mr. Hat, you are a dishonest person. But your dishonesty only fools one person.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

To cut to the chase...

RDI doesn't 'cut to the chase' and never will. There is no chase to cut to.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

There's hardly anyone here with a vested interest.

You're kidding, right?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

You've further tried to suggest that anyone who criticizes the media must not like living in a free society with a free press. This of course is not true.

At your core, Mr. Hat, you are a dishonest person. But your dishonesty only fools one person.

Criticizing the media on a specific instance is OK but criticizing the media generally makes me wonder if the critic would prefer a more 'closed' society where millions of people are living today. Its somewhat like looking a gift horse in the mouth.

Please spare me the trite and boring, flaming trolling stuff unless you'd like it reported.

 

[slug]

I think it is good that there are lots of media sources but the is a tendancy in online media to put up stories and edit 5 mins later constantly changing as they get updated fact which is causing incorrect facts to be spend round the world and the origanal story then becomes quoted as fact. Not saying this has happened in this case but it is something that has happened in more recent cases, so while finding and archived story in the media can be very helpful it on it's own is not always proof 100%.
The problem i can see for this case is that there are many story's and books which have many different theroies and alot of them are plausible.

The RN is fact it was written, was it written as a chance to confuse, to gain money or to hurt the ramsey's by giving them hope that JBR was still alive. I don't know but from looking at the note over and over again it seems wrong seems disjointed, to long for any real need, to speciffic when all they needed was something basic.
unless there is a hidden message that only the person it was to will understand.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

The problem i can see for this case is that there are many story's and books which have many different theroies and alot of them are plausible.

RDI plausibility went down the drain after the discovery of the touch DNA.

THere was underwear DNA for years, right? It was put into CODIS by the FBI after a new sample was found in BPD's evidence locker. RDI went to work finding innocent, random, and plausible explanations for this unknown male DNA. It included factory workers and crime lab technicians.

In comes more DNA from two (2) significant locations on another article of clothing JBR was wearing at the time. This DNA matches the original CODIS DNA. Out goes all random explanations (not my fault RDI doesn't see this). Now there needs to be a nonrandom explanation. Innocent nonrandom or criminal nonrandom is the question now.

Which is a more plausible explanation? That a criminal handled these items in the course of a sexual assault, or a innocent person handled both items in the course of what? And this innocent person who inadvertantly deposited his DNA on both items she was wearing at the time is not among some 200 associated people?

The assault on the new DNA evidence has been relentless by RDI. It includes 'deals' between the DA and Bode, although the new DNA evidence that matched CODIS is still there. It includes claims that the DNA is a false match, is a mix of JR and PR DNA, and unwitting transfer of someone elses DNA on JBR or PR's hands not once not twice but thrice.

 

[BBB167893]

In a free society, the media responds to events. Having more than one media source provides objectivity with checks and balances. And despite this some posters here complain.

With good reason. Tell me something, HOTYH: in your definition of a free society, where does the phenomenon of litigation lawyers waging a campaign of legal terrorism fit in? I'd really like to know!

Therefore while RDI may be truthful, it is the estranged one. The splinter cell. Fringe or radical thinking.

Story of my life!

So when someone says 'PR wrote the note,' or 'there was no intruder' I know it conflicts with current events.

Like you say, HOTYH: that doesn't mean it's not true. Remember: Socrates was forced to drink poison, Galileo was excommunicated, and Solzhenitsyn was forced to abandon his homeland.

 

[BBB167893]

RDI plausibility went down the drain after the discovery of the touch DNA.

Don't BET on it.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

This is false. Islam DOES have a presence in North Korea. Please don't take my word for it. Google "islam and north korea" and it will pull up LOTS of links. Islam is the second most professed religion in North Korea.

my bold

This is a fine example of misinformation. Saying stuff as if its fact when its really bunk. Even going so far as to argue the point.

Islam is not even listed as a North Korean religion. Let alone the 'second most professed'.

[ame]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_North_Korea[/ame]

 

[eileenhawkeye]

When I google "North Korea and Islam" I get results but none of them are relevant. I cannot find anything official that lists the percentages of the country following a certain religion or even a news article about this apparent Islamic presence there. The United States even named North Korea as one of the worst violators of religious persecution so I doubt that there is a strong religious practice of any type there.

 

[Plenum7]

This thread seems to have strayed from its focus a bit. As the person who started it, let me restate the initial question:

IF we are to take the ransom note seriously, then to what small foreign faction does the note allude?

Yes, most people don't take the ransom note seriously. I agree. But *IF* we were to take it seriously, then what scenario emerges? So I ask RDIs to suspend disbelief for a moment and entertain other possibilities. Hypothetical possibilities. Implausible possibilities. Entrenched RDI vs IDI arguments take us nowhere. I'm interested in testing out other ideas, even implausible ones.

The ransom note asks us to believe that the (failed) kidnapping had political/corporate as well as financial motives. This might be implausible, but what does the author of the note want us to believe? I just want an answer to the question: Which small foreign faction?

It seems to me there is a limited range of possibilities. One of these is "a generic foreign faction", i.e. no particular foreign faction. That seems likely, yes, but the reason I doubt it is because of the strange reference in the note to beheading. The threat of beheading the victim has always struck me as a very, very strange detail, and it has always seemed to me to go with the idea of "foreign faction". That is, the author of the note thinks - and wants us to think - that these foreigners are barbarians who behead people. So which foreigners does the author have in mind?

By a process of elimination I argue that *Koreans* are a possibility. This also fits the political context of 1996.

It may well be that Patsy Ramsay wrote the note and saw something about the strife in Korea on the news the night before. That's not what I'm asking. I am asking: Which small foreign faction did she have in mind? Which foreigners? By extension - and assuming the idea of "beheading" goes with the idea "foreigners" - which foreigners are notorious for beheadings?

If you look into that you will find that *Koreans* fit the description. Historically, decapitation was the most common form of execution in Korea. There was even a class of professional executioner/beheaders called "Mangnani". Beheading has a certain cultural resonance to Korean nationalists, although the practice is now officially replaced by hanging.

 

[DeeDee249]

my bold

This is a fine example of misinformation. Saying stuff as if its fact when its really bunk. Even going so far as to argue the point.

Islam is not even listed as a North Korean religion. Let alone the 'second most professed'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_North_Korea

You realize that anyone can write anything on Wiki without researching it (kinda like IDI here). If you search a bit more, you will find that Islam is practiced in North Korea.