What was part of the staging,what not?

[Sophie]

Poor Poor Steve. His Lawyer knew a good out when he saw it. A pretty good Lawyer too. And good ole Steve got muzzled. It happens when you act unethically.

Muzzled? Did you see the Greta interview? Just the other week he issued an update that left one in no doubt about where he stood.

He may well have made the odd mistake along the way but there is nothing unethical about risking everything to try to get justice for a child.

 

[Sophie]

Poor Ramsey's under the same old umbrella of suspicion.It happens when you don't cooperate with LE (shall I also mention obstruction of justice )and don't care about your daughter's murder.

:clap::clap:

That made my day, Madeleine.

 

[Roy23]

And in fact as the Ramseys' lawyers advised them - they didn't actually have to settle. They could have gone to court and proven that ST was wrong. They elected not to prove their innocence, presumably on the advice of their lawyer.

LOL: the threats on LKL etc and then they settle rather than stand up in court and face questioning on JBR's death to prove that ST was wrong. Oh, the humanity.

Q: ST only suggested that Patsy had accidentally killed JBR and objected to their failure to help find their daughter's killer. Wendy Murphy accused John of the vilest thing a father can do and begged Lin Wood to sue her. Why?

Sophie,

Why do you not get it? The Ramsey's could never definitively prove that they did not kill JBR. In a normal trial, the tables are turned and Boulder had the same problem with the burden of proof. Steve Thomas had his opportunity this time with the burden of proof on the Ramsey's. That is what he begged the DA's office to do.

It is amazing how some of you guys have your blinders on. Steve gave in on the advice of his attorney. Why on earth would this principled man who stands by his book do that? The Ramsey's could be cross examined. It would be admissable in a court. But, it wasn't worth taking that chance so he agreed to shut his freaking mouth and then some.

 

[BBB167893]

If I were in his shoes and believing in RDI, I would've outlined my arguments with CBI or the Governor. IOW I wonder what other avenues besides a for-profit 'book' he used to voice his greivance.

I have to admit, that's always bothered me.

 

[madeleine]

Muzzled? Did you see the Greta interview? Just the other week he issued an update that left one in no doubt about where he stood.

He may well have made the odd mistake along the way but there is nothing unethical about risking everything to try to get justice for a child.

Yeah unlike her own parents.
I've seen lots of cops yelling for justice for the victims because it sounded good but you can tell that ST is one who really wanted justice for this little oneand IMO that's why he quit,he realized it won't happen.I am 100% sure of it and I don't give a damn if IDI's call me a ST groupie for it.

 

[BBB167893]

I didn't know that. I do know that when the Ramsey's went on Larry King with him, it was Lin Wood's way of handing Steve his clown suit. And he was dumb enough to put it on.

Don't fool yourself, Roy. If anyone came out of that LKL face-off looking stupid, it was the Rs. Or didn't you know that their head private investigator QUIT two days later, citing "events that are taking place in the media?" Doesn't take a rocket scientist to know what he meant.

 

[madeleine]

Sophie,

Why do you not get it? The Ramsey's could never definitively prove that they did not kill JBR. In a normal trial, the tables are turned and Boulder had the same problem with the burden of proof. Steve Thomas had his opportunity this time with the burden of proof on the Ramsey's. That is what he begged the DA's office to do.

It is amazing how some of you guys have your blinders on. Steve gave in on the advice of his attorney. Why on earth would this principled man who stands by his book do that? The Ramsey's could be cross examined. It would be admissable in a court. But, it wasn't worth taking that chance so he agreed to shut his freaking mouth and then some.

@bold
Not surprising ,they're guilty.

 

[Roy23]

@bold
Not surprising ,they're guilty.

You obviously are not from America. They aren't guilty until it is proven that they are.

 

[Roy23]

Don't fool yourself, Roy. If anyone came out of that LKL face-off looking stupid, it was the Rs. Or didn't you know that their head private investigator QUIT two days later, citing "events that are taking place in the media?" Doesn't take a rocket scientist to know what he meant.

They did look stupid at the time Dave. I agree with you. And the only reason that they did it is to stick it up Steve's arse. And now about the only thing he can say is that I stick by my book. Come on, Dave.

 

[BBB167893]

Dave,

I just don't think you are being logical about this.

AHEM.

I see what you are saying about the "common man's view". I am assuming there is a fine line on that and what Ramsey team could deem as slander. I am glad you are doing your homework on that.

Darn right, I am. For instance, in order to prove slander, you have to show that the subject KNEW that what he or she was saying was false and did it anyway to hurt the person. Also, in this case, just about everyone involved is either a public figure or dead. And it's extremely hard to prove slander against either.

But if you ended up sitting in a court room, you would be scared. And you would probably follow your lawyer's advice just as Steve did. I don't know if you have a family, a home, or whatever but the precedent has been set.

My whole life has been an uphill battle, Roy. Not much phases me anymore.

 

[BBB167893]

But I will say this, Slandering a family based on the circumstancial information on this case is not ethical. They suffered a huge loss. Especially in a case where most of the evidence contradicts itself.

Don't you think I KNOW that they've suffered a huge loss, regardless of who did it? You have me wrong, Roy. I'm not heartless. Far from it.

 

[Roy23]

Don't you think I KNOW that they've suffered a huge loss, regardless of who did it? You have me wrong, Roy. I'm not heartless. Far from it.

I know you are not heartless, Dave. I actually think you are a good person. And you last response about your book, I get you. I should have known you were not dumb either.

 

[madeleine]

You obviously are not from America.

Right.I must be part of a small foreign faction then.

They aren't guilty until it is proven that they are.

Awwww sorry,forgot to add IMO.
Why are you accusing then an intruder of killing JB?Isn't he also innocent till proven guilty?

 

[BBB167893]

They did look stupid at the time Dave. I agree with you.

Then you know what I mean.

And the only reason that they did it is to stick it up Steve's arse.

That's about the only reason I can believe.

And now about the only thing he can say is that I stick by my book. Come on, Dave.

Well, all I know is what I'd do if it had been me.

 

[BBB167893]

I know you are not heartless, Dave. I actually think you are a good person. And your last response about your book, I get you. I should have known you were not dumb either.

See? I figured you were an okay guy.

 

[Roy23]

Right.I must be part of a small foreign faction then.




Awwww sorry,forgot to add IMO.
Why are you accusing then an intruder of killing JB?Isn't he also innocent till proven guilty?

Sure he is, but I am not slandering someone. I am also not suggesting that I know who it is. There is an enormous difference.

 

[Roy23]

See? I figured you were an okay guy.

I tell you what Dave. I will tell you what bothers me about this case. I have a big problem with most RDI's because they are so closed minded. Most of them KNOW who killed JBR. And I think they are idiotic. There is tons of information that make me think the Ramsey's may be guilty of something and tons of it that point to an intruder from what has been said and written.

I can honestly say that. I also believe that almost everyone involved made enormous mistakes in this case and because of it, it spiraled out of control. In the end, I think the DA's office made the right move not taking it to trial. It probably would have been better for the Ramsey's if they did.

I hate that the Ramsey's followed the advice of their lawyers but I certainly understand why they did. They had good reason, but I wish they would not have. Linda Arndt and so many others acted with a lack of professionalism, but God do I hate attorney's in such a case.
I think RN analysis is all bogus. It proves nothing definitively at this stage. The prior abuse, well that is something I would like more information about.
I wish the tone on the board was more of offering opinions due to the wide range of information. But I think it is hard for RDI's to do so, even though they may be right. It is a DNA case, that is not opinion. So many RDI's have to accept that until a name and face is associated with it, justice will never be served. I understand that RDI's will have an OPINION that it is innocent transfer, but the reality is that it must be proven. I would laugh at that normally but as bad as the case has been handled, I just can't laugh for too long.

I have read a lot more on this case. It is frustrating. I have some problems stating that I know it is IDI. I have some problems with some evidence and statements from the Ramsey's. But the biggest problem is that for every piece of evidence that we read, there is a counter point to it. It almost does no good to quote a source.

 

[Roy23]

Want More?

I think ID'ing the RN is bogus. They proved nothing really. The prior sexual abuse is very interesting. Even though it points both ways, some strong statements almost make me lean to some abuse. Even though much of fingernail DNA contamination has been reported, I believe the same DNA is a match or strong consistantly to the rest of it. But yeah, I have heard collection of it has some issues. I have read contrasting reports on the animal hair, boot prints, and I believe there are strong signs of an intruder getting in that house. I have some real problems with Ramsey statements.

 

[BBB167893]

I tell you what Dave. I will tell you what bothers me about this case. I have a big problem with most RDI's because they are so closed minded. Most of them KNOW who killed JBR. And I think they are idiotic.

Hey, make no mistake: I go with my gut feelings because they tend to be right. But even then, I cannot sit here and say with absolute confidence that I KNOW for a fact who did it.

That said, I think you should rephrase that. It might do better if you were to say that you think that position is idiotic, not they themselves. They are my friends, after all.

There is tons of information that make me think the Ramsey's may be guilty of something and tons of it that point to an intruder from what has been said and written.

One of the big problems in this case, in my view.

I can honestly say that. I also believe that almost everyone involved made enormous mistakes in this case and because of it, it spiraled out of control. In the end, I think the DA's office made the right move not taking it to trial. It probably would have been better for the Ramsey's if they did.

You know, it's odd you say that, because occasionally the Rs have commented that at least a trial would have given them a chance clear their names. Just as a side note, I'm not too sure about that. I've always felt that if the Rs WERE brought to trial, either PR would have died before it was over (and it's NOT just me who thought that; several R supporters wondered the same thing) or it would have ended in a plea bargain. Don't ask me who would have asked for one, though.

I hate that the Ramsey's followed the advice of their lawyers but I certainly understand why they did.

So can I...

They had good reason, but I wish they would not have. Linda Arndt and so many others acted with a lack of professionalism, but God do I hate attorney's in such a case.

When it comes to attorneys, Roy, I happen to think that Shakespeare was onto something.

I think RN analysis is all bogus. It proves nothing definitively at this stage.

Well, I wouldn't got anywhere nearly that far, but I will say that these more, shall we say esoteric fields do have their share of problems.

The prior abuse, well that is something I would like more information about.

If that's a request, you're asking the right guy!

I wish the tone on the board was more of offering opinions due to the wide range of information.

I do my best.

But I think it is hard for RDI's to do so, even though they may be right.

It's frustration, Roy. I understand it (like you wouldn't believe).

It is a DNA case, that is not opinion. So many RDI's have to accept that until a name and face is associated with it, justice will never be served.

I accept it, Roy. But what you have to understand is that it swings both ways. It's just as much a problem for your side as mine, if not more so.

I understand that RDI's will have an OPINION that it is innocent transfer, but the reality is that it must be proven.

I suppose.

I have read a lot more on this case. It is frustrating. I have some problems stating that I know it is IDI. I have some problems with some evidence and statements from the Ramsey's. But the biggest problem is that for every piece of evidence that we read, there is a counter point to it. It almost does no good to quote a source.

Don't I know it. The only thing that I find helps is to use my own judgement.

Want More?

I'm game. You know that.

I think ID'ing the RN is bogus. They proved nothing really.

Well, I guess we'll have to disagree there. But like I said, these fields aren't without issues.

The prior sexual abuse is very interesting. Even though it points both ways, some strong statements almost make me lean to some abuse.

Indeed?

Even though much of fingernail DNA contamination has been reported, I believe the same DNA is a match or strong consistantly to the rest of it.

I have strong doubts.

But yeah, I have heard collection of it has some issues.

It's not just that.

I have read contrasting reports on the animal hair, boot prints, and I believe there are strong signs of an intruder getting in that house.

For what it's worth, I used to think that.

I have some real problems with Ramsey statements.

Such as?

 

[madeleine]

I tell you what Dave. I will tell you what bothers me about this case. I have a big problem with most RDI's because they are so closed minded. Most of them KNOW who killed JBR. And I think they are idiotic. There is tons of information that make me think the Ramsey's may be guilty of something and tons of it that point to an intruder from what has been said and written.

I can honestly say that. I also believe that almost everyone involved made enormous mistakes in this case and because of it, it spiraled out of control. In the end, I think the DA's office made the right move not taking it to trial. It probably would have been better for the Ramsey's if they did.

I hate that the Ramsey's followed the advice of their lawyers but I certainly understand why they did. They had good reason, but I wish they would not have. Linda Arndt and so many others acted with a lack of professionalism, but God do I hate attorney's in such a case.
I think RN analysis is all bogus. It proves nothing definitively at this stage. The prior abuse, well that is something I would like more information about.
I wish the tone on the board was more of offering opinions due to the wide range of information. But I think it is hard for RDI's to do so, even though they may be right. It is a DNA case, that is not opinion. So many RDI's have to accept that until a name and face is associated with it, justice will never be served. I understand that RDI's will have an OPINION that it is innocent transfer, but the reality is that it must be proven. I would laugh at that normally but as bad as the case has been handled, I just can't laugh for too long.

I have read a lot more on this case. It is frustrating. I have some problems stating that I know it is IDI. I have some problems with some evidence and statements from the Ramsey's. But the biggest problem is that for every piece of evidence that we read, there is a counter point to it. It almost does no good to quote a source.

Maybe we're not that idiotic at all.See I have no problem admitting this is an excellent post. Because it IS. :clap:

The difference is IDI's never admit when an RDI argument stands up.This is the first time I see it happening.

I do have IDI moments but since most of the IDI's pretend to know it all and become rude I don't bother anymore.Is it closed minded,maybe.