Why would the Ramseys need to stage?

[BBB167893]

It breaks my heart when any child is murdered, but when the murderer is a parent I do feel sympathy for that parent wondering how it ended in murder. What could have gone so wrong for it to come to this? I guess I do sympathize with the R's so much because I do believe that they loved JBR and her death was not intended. If I thought JBR was murdered intentionally then my sympathy for the R's would cease.

Could I do what they are accused of doing? I can't say I would or wouldn't because I don't know what happened in the house that night. To answer that question I would have to be caught up in that exact moment when JBR was fatally injured and know all the circumstances and consequences as they occured. Only then can I answer that question.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

 

[Roy23]

Let's have it.



But that doesn't address my point, Roy. I understand your meaning, but I don't believe you understand mine.



That's how it was with Marilyn Van Derbur's father, too. He was a pillar of his community. But away from public eyes, he was a monster. My whole point here is that monsters aren't obvious. They look like you and me.



I wish I could believe that, Roy. But bitter experience has taught me--and this is what I've been trying to get across here--that if you tell me that a person is incapable of something, for WHATEVER reason, it's not going to fly, because anyone is capable of anything.



And the Rs are totally innocent of that? They played the game just as fervently, Roy. They matched hold for hold and then some.



We all know how that works.



Roy, you know I like you, but I can't agree with either of those points. RDI does not require a conspiracy; IDI does. It requires a conspiracy of the police, FBI, mass media and a whole mess of elements. You've articulated that very thing very well in this post, whether or not you meant to. And I'm sorry, I'm not going for it. Fool me once, and all that.
And as for overwheliming evidence that a Ramsey didn't do this, I'd laugh at that assertion if the subject wasn't so grim. I apologize for being so blunt, but I can't not see what is right in front of me. I can't shut my eyes, plug my ears and hold my tongue. I just can't do it.



I can't agree with that, either. No way. And you're not the first to make that assertion, but it flies in the face of an ARMY of experts. Now, you've talked a good game about paid experts and liars-for-hire and all of that, and to a degree, I'm with you. But this goes WAY, WAY beyond the opinion of one or even two random news consultants.



That's another area where we part company, Roy. It would be evil NOT to do it.

I know you believe in your theory. And I really want to express that I don't think you are evil. But, I think you have information overload. You have read so much crap and made this your hobby that some synapsis somehow has made you believe you were interpreting truths.

This Army you speak of are people from 13 to 14 years ago. The theories have been debunked by DNA that was once put under the critical eye. I wish they would just come out and tell you the truth. Of course, I understand you weren't going to believe a limited statement from ML. For the integrity of what is left of the investigation, they can't tell guys like you and me anymore. You have to read between the lines from here because it really wasn't ML who told you the Ramsey's were innocent. She just reported it. The judgment day is coming, don't be left out in the cold and complain the government made you do what you did. And say what you said.

Have a great Holiday weekend Dave!

 

[WHITEFANG]

I agree 100%



BEAUTIFUL.

NO. Try again.

 

[WHITEFANG]

Roy23;5355651]I know you believe in your theory. And I really want to express that I don't think you are evil. But, I think you have information overload. You have read so much crap and made this your hobby that some synapsis somehow has made you believe you were interpreting truths.

This Army you speak of are people from 13 to 14 years ago. The theories have been debunked by DNA that was once put under the critical eye. I wish they would just come out and tell you the truth. Of course, I understand you weren't going to believe a limited statement from ML. For the integrity of what is left of the investigation, they can't tell guys like you and me anymore. You have to read between the lines from here because it really wasn't ML who told you the Ramsey's were innocent. She just reported it. The judgment day is coming, don't be left out in the cold and complain the government made you do what you did. And say what you said.

Have a great Holiday weekend Dave![/quote]

iginally Posted by SuperDave View Post
Let's have it. But that doesn't address my point, Roy. I understand your meaning, but I don't believe you understand mine.
That's how it was with Marilyn Van Derbur's father, too. He was a pillar of his community. But away from public eyes, he was a monster. My whole point here is that monsters aren't obvious. They look like you and me

.

I wish I could believe that, Roy. But bitter experience has taught me--and this is what I've been trying to get across here--that if you tell me that a person is incapable of something, for WHATEVER reason, it's not going to fly, because anyone is capable of anything.

And the Rs are totally innocent of that? They played the game just as fervently, Roy. They matched hold for hold and then some.

"Anyone is capable of anything," therefore, the R's did it. It is the same ridiculous, non-logical, double-speak. He'll say, "I did not say that." He expects the rest of us to accept that as gospel. He just doesn't get it. Just ask for proof and he'll say, "I already gave you proof and you were quite impressed if I recall."

Like this. I mentioned a little history of physics and he couldn't handle the application so he said this is a murder not physics. But, the analogy fit just fine. Like this.
In the world of quantum mechanics there is a probability that if a person leans against s solid rock wall long enough, he will fall through it. A quiz to calculate the length of time for this probability to occur is given to certain university physics students. The reality is this. It will take more time than is available in the life of the universe for this event to take place, but nevertheless, there is a probability it will happen.

What's my point? Anyone is capable of anything is a dumb thing to say. For even if it was true, the probability that this loving, caring couple could do what he says they did based on "Anybody is capable of anything" has the same odds as this quantum mechanics' illustration.

Roy, you know I like you, but I can't agree with either of those points. RDI does not require a conspiracy; IDI does.

Let me explain. The R's didn't have friends in high places manipulating others in high places and who directed the investigation and ultimately the forgone conclusion that the Rs would get off. The DA had no ties with anyone who might help the Rs. The defense team had no appearance of a conflict of interest with anyone, particularly in the DA's office. They, J and P, did not consult with each other to deceive anyone. They made no effort to cover for one another and to back up each others' stories. The Rs only conspired to cooperate fully and to disclose everything they knew, separately or together, immediately and without the benefit of counsel.

Sounds like he is arguing the opposite, which he does quite well, too. Either way. Makes no difference. He has outsmarted us all, again, as usual.

It requires a conspiracy of the police, FBI, mass media and a whole mess of elements. You've articulated that very thing very well in this post, whether or not you meant to. And I'm sorry, I'm not going for it. Fool me once, and all that.
And as for overwheliming evidence that a Ramsey didn't do this, I'd laugh at that assertion if the subject wasn't so grim. I apologize for being so blunt, but I can't not see what is right in front of me. I can't shut my eyes, plug my ears and hold my tongue. I just can't do it.

All you have to do to get him completely flustered is to demand evidence the Rs did it. There isn't any. Despite his blurbs, "Oh yea! You think so? Wrong! Are you nuts? Prove there is no proof! I already gave you all the evidence and you were impressed," to infinity and beyond. Here's the secret. He loves this stuff. It doesn't make a bit of difference that there is no evidence. He is having fun as the Pied Piper of the gullible and easily impressed.

And you, the army of saboteurs, come on. We wait for you, come to us, you can't refuse. Out of thin air, in the never-never land of OZ, start your parade.

I can't agree with that, either. No way. And you're not the first to make that assertion, but it flies in the face of an ARMY of experts. Now, you've talked a good game about paid experts and liars-for-hire and all of that, and to a degree, I'm with you. But this goes WAY, WAY beyond the opinion of one or even two random news consultants.

Here we go again. PROOF?

That's another area where we part company, Roy. It would be evil NOT to do it.

Right.

That's how it was with Marilyn Van Derbur's father, too. He was a pillar of his community. But away from public eyes, he was a monster. My whole point here is that monsters aren't obvious. They look like you and me

Exactly. Neither P or J were monsters away from the public eye.

 

[BBB167893]

Could I do what they are accused of doing? I can't say I would or wouldn't because I don't know what happened in the house that night. To answer that question I would have to be caught up in that exact moment when JBR was fatally injured and know all the circumstances and consequences as they occured. Only then can I answer that question.

Wonderful, Zak. My point precisely. It's easy for us to sit at our computers and say "definitely not" or even "maybe." But it's sort of like swimming on dry land. You just can't do it. Without actually being in that position, with all of the factors involved, anyone who says "yes" or "no" is engaging in futility.

 

[BBB167893]

Maybe BUT in time you would probably feel so guilty and disgusted that it would kill you and you probably would confess.Or at least that would be me IF I did something SO horrible out of panic.You would end up hating yourself,it would change youcompletely..You would probably end up a drunk or a drug addict or worse,maybe you would kill yourself.

I think that's a subject worth pursuing, maddy.

But two people did this and felt ......none of this?HARD to believe,really.

Yeah, it is. But speaking for myself, I'm convinced that some of it DID happen.

They never blamed each other AND stayed together as well? Hard to believe again.

Not really. As I've said before, they HAD to stay together, because each other was all they had left. Committing murder isn't like taking a bus ride. They can't get off at different stops.

 

[BBB167893]

And if it was PR.....didn't she care about what she's going to put JR and BR through? If JR knew what she did,why didn't he protect BR by telling LE the truth about his wife,he had the money for the best defence.He would have kept her out of jail without having to mess with his daughters body.
Put yourself in his shoes for a second if you are a PDI.CAN YOU?Do you want to try at least?

Another line of thought worth pursuing, IMO.

 

[BBB167893]

All of us have the capacity to kill, depending on the circumstances. Those involved in LE for any length of time are rarely surprised by the seemingly "nice," or "ordinary," or "unlikely" individuals that commit horrific crimes.

Far from a bombshell, a defective dime store sparkler, perhaps. ML was impressed with the additional DNA findings, I’ll grant you that, but those who accept the limitations, and foibles, of the DNA in this case are far from impressed. It's no more significant than the fiber evidence.

:clap: :clap: :clap: Excellent, cynic. But it may be spitting in the wind.

 

[BBB167893]

What is wrong with the Bode Lab and their experts explaining the significance of the DNA? Who would be better to explain it to ML?

Because they didn't explain the significance of it to her, Roy. That's the whole point: her well-established biases GAVE it more significance than it might (I'll concede that much) merit. This was not Nixon going to China here. Let's be honest.

BTW, Roy, I should thank you. Although, given words like "clowns" and "morons" you probably won't accept it. You inspired me to create this thread. I realize that for you, the question was rhetorical, but I decided that it was worth pursuing. Got a lot of results, too.

 

[BBB167893]

I know you believe in your theory. And I really want to express that I don't think you are evil.

Thank you. I do my best to remind myself that everyone here is interested in one thing: justice.

But, I think you have information overload.

I can guarantee that!

You have read so much crap and made this your hobby that some synapsis somehow has made you believe you were interpreting truths.

Never mind playing psychoalalyst with me, Roy. There's nothing wrong with me.

This Army you speak of are people from 13 to 14 years ago.

I haven't heard any recanting.

The theories have been debunked by DNA that was once put under the critical eye.

That's your opinion.

I wish they would just come out and tell you the truth.

I want that, too.

Of course, I understand you weren't going to believe a limited statement from ML.

NO ONE should believe her, Roy. Remember the story of the boy who cried wolf? There you go. Of all the people involved with this case, she has consistently made IDI look foolish. JMK was merely the climax of it. JMK didn't affect me. It just confirmed what others who knew her have said about her. But it made IDI look like a bunch of jerks. ANYBODY would have had more sense than that. So why aren't you angrier with her?

For the integrity of what is left of the investigation, they can't tell guys like you and me anymore.

You think that's what it is? Or is it CYA?

You have to read between the lines from here because it really wasn't ML who told you the Ramsey's were innocent. She just reported it.

Not that it matters. She can't harm this case anymore.

The judgment day is coming, don't be left out in the cold and complain the government made you do what you did. And say what you said.

I don't plan to. I don't foresee having to defend anything I've done or said. I realize this sounds very arrogant, and I apologize for that, but to paraphrase the great Winston Churchill, the history of this case will be very kind to me, for I intend to write it.

Have a great Holiday weekend Dave!

You too, man. Have fun and be safe.

 

[BBB167893]

"Anyone is capable of anything," therefore, the R's did it.

I figured that's how you'd interpret it. So to be perfectly accurate, it would be, "anyone is capable of anything, so it's ridiculous to say the Rs could not have done it." Glad we got that straight.

He just doesn't get it.

For you to say I'm the one who doesn't get it is really rich.

Just ask for proof and he'll say, "I already gave you proof and you were quite impressed if I recall."

Not my fault if some people can't be bothered to read what I say the first time.

What's my point?

That would be my question.

Anyone is capable of anything is a dumb thing to say. For even if it was true, the probability that this loving, caring couple could do what he says they did based on "Anybody is capable of anything" has the same odds as this quantum mechanics' illustration.

What's dumb is to say that this person over here is capable, but not this person over here. It's BS.

Let me explain. The R's didn't have friends in high places manipulating others in high places and who directed the investigation and ultimately the forgone conclusion that the Rs would get off.

I don't believe I ever made that claim.

The DA had no ties with anyone who might help the Rs. The defense team had no appearance of a conflict of interest with anyone, particularly in the DA's office.

Give me a break, man! I can't ignore it when it's right in front of me.

They, J and P, did not consult with each other to deceive anyone. They made no effort to cover for one another and to back up each others' stories.

How do YOU know? Were you there? Did you have them wired or something?

The Rs only conspired to cooperate fully and to disclose everything they knew, separately or together, immediately and without the benefit of counsel.

Please. I don't care if you think I'm stupid. Just don't talk to me like I'm stupid.

Sounds like he is arguing the opposite,

You bet I am.

which he does quite well, too.

I suppose I should thank you.

All you have to do to get him completely flustered is to demand evidence the Rs did it.

That doesn't bother me in the least. It's when I DO it and people keep acting like they never saw it before. After the fourth or fifth time, it gets old.

There isn't any. Despite his blurbs, "Oh yea! You think so? Wrong! Are you nuts? Prove there is no proof! I already gave you all the evidence and you were impressed," to infinity and beyond.

I'm tired of these games.

Here's the secret. He loves this stuff. It doesn't make a bit of difference that there is no evidence. He is having fun as the Pied Piper of the gullible and easily impressed.

That's not worth a response.

Here we go again. PROOF?

Would you like me to name them? Henry Lee, Werner Spitz, Tom Henry, Ronald Wright, Robert Kirschner, Gregg McCrary, Robert Ressler, Roger DePue, John McCann, James Monteleone, Virginia Rau, David Jones, the FBI's CASKU division, Barry Scheck, Dan Hoffman, Rich Baer, Bob Miller, Chet Ubowski, Gideon Epstein, Larry Ziegler, Richard Williams, Steven Pitt, Tom Miller, Norm Early...

Yeah, that'll do for a starter!

Right.

I know you'll agree with that, Fang, or you wouldn't be here.

Exactly. Neither P or J were monsters away from the public eye.

You state things as fact when you don't have any notion. At least I consider the possibility. You won't even do THAT. WHY? I'm very interested in WHY.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

"Anyone is capable of anything," therefore, the R's did it. It is the same ridiculous, non-logical, double-speak. He'll say, "I did not say that." He expects the rest of us to accept that as gospel. He just doesn't get it. Just ask for proof and he'll say, "I already gave you proof and you were quite impressed if I recall."

Like this. I mentioned a little history of physics and he couldn't handle the application so he said this is a murder not physics. But, the analogy fit just fine. Like this.
In the world of quantum mechanics there is a probability that if a person leans against s solid rock wall long enough, he will fall through it. A quiz to calculate the length of time for this probability to occur is given to certain university physics students. The reality is this. It will take more time than is available in the life of the universe for this event to take place, but nevertheless, there is a probability it will happen.

What's my point? Anyone is capable of anything is a dumb thing to say. For even if it was true, the probability that this loving, caring couple could do what he says they did based on "Anybody is capable of anything" has the same odds as this quantum mechanics' illustration.




Let me explain. The R's didn't have friends in high places manipulating others in high places and who directed the investigation and ultimately the forgone conclusion that the Rs would get off. The DA had no ties with anyone who might help the Rs. The defense team had no appearance of a conflict of interest with anyone, particularly in the DA's office. They, J and P, did not consult with each other to deceive anyone. They made no effort to cover for one another and to back up each others' stories. The Rs only conspired to cooperate fully and to disclose everything they knew, separately or together, immediately and without the benefit of counsel.

Sounds like he is arguing the opposite, which he does quite well, too. Either way. Makes no difference. He has outsmarted us all, again, as usual.






All you have to do to get him completely flustered is to demand evidence the Rs did it. There isn't any. Despite his blurbs, "Oh yea! You think so? Wrong! Are you nuts? Prove there is no proof! I already gave you all the evidence and you were impressed," to infinity and beyond. Here's the secret. He loves this stuff. It doesn't make a bit of difference that there is no evidence. He is having fun as the Pied Piper of the gullible and easily impressed.

And you, the army of saboteurs, come on. We wait for you, come to us, you can't refuse. Out of thin air, in the never-never land of OZ, start your parade.





Here we go again. PROOF?





Right.




Exactly. Neither P or J were monsters away from the public eye.

Your argument about statistics and probability has validity that RDI obviously hasn't appreciated but I have separately read about:

The fallacy of sweeping generalization is also at work when a statistical average is applied to specific people.

Example: "Divorce is rampant in America, Mary. I heard that 50% of marriages end in divorce within three years. So I've decided not to marry you because the odds are against us."

Here, a statistic is used to arrive at a conclusion, when the situation in question (between the speaker and Mary) may be quite different from the average. This couple may be much more serious about marriage than all those couples that were divorced, and consequently their chances of success may be better. They should find out what the main causes for divorce are, then determine whether these things are worth considering.

What RDI has generally failed to recognize is that the statistics for filicide can't be applied blindly despite RDI's obvious desire to do so.

Instead, the R's first need to be categorized as well-off people with no criminal record, no history of abuse. Of the families like this, with demonstrated core values, financially secure, high-functioning, loving, caring, and healthy children, how many filicides? What are the odds? This probability is the only probability that is truly applicable to this case. Anything else is propaganda and hype.

Another way to look at it is this: RDI would never quote statistics or make sweeping generalizations if there were actually evidence that JR or PR killed their daughter.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Would you like me to name them? Henry Lee, Werner Spitz, Tom Henry, Ronald Wright, Robert Kirschner, Gregg McCrary, Robert Ressler, Roger DePue, John McCann, James Monteleone, Virginia Rau, David Jones, the FBI's CASKU division, Barry Scheck, Dan Hoffman, Rich Baer, Bob Miller, Chet Ubowski, Gideon Epstein, Larry Ziegler, Richard Williams, Steven Pitt, Tom Miller, Norm Early...

Yeah, that'll do for a starter!

I admit I'm beside myself... Its puzzling to me that supreme RDI banner-waver Steve Thomas gets no mention here.

I am somehow feeling flattered to find myself on the right side of the fence having never switched sides. The more names you have, the more flattered I get.



Anyway, there can be no lynch without a mob.

 

[BBB167893]

I admit I'm beside myself... Its puzzling to me that supreme RDI banner-waver Steve Thomas gets no mention here.

Not that puzzling. He just took what was said by the ones I did mention.

I am somehow feeling flattered to find myself on the right side of the fence having never switched sides. The more names you have, the more flattered I get.

I don't understand that statement at ALL. If I had that kind of heavy artillery arrayed against me, I'd be pretty daunted! Unless I was only interested in being contrarian...

Anyway, there can be no lynch without a mob.

Thanks, HOTYH. You just illustrated my point about IDI conspiracy theories and dismissial better than I EVER could have.

 

[MurriFlower]

What RDI has generally failed to recognize is that the statistics for filicide can't be applied blindly despite RDI's obvious desire to do so.

Instead, the R's first need to be categorized as well-off people with no criminal record, no history of abuse. Of the families like this, with demonstrated core values, financially secure, high-functioning, loving, caring, and healthy children, how many filicides? What are the odds? This probability is the only probability that is truly applicable to this case. Anything else is propaganda and hype.

Now, add the RN, the head bash, the garrotting and you got one teeensy little statistic.

So small in fact, that the chance of an IDI from another galaxy doesn't seem quite so unlikely afterall.

Another way to look at it is this: RDI would never quote statistics or make sweeping generalizations if there were actually evidence that JR or PR killed their daughter.

Yup, yes, absolutely, correcto!

 

[Roy23]

Because they didn't explain the significance of it to her, Roy. That's the whole point: her well-established biases GAVE it more significance than it might (I'll concede that much) merit. This was not Nixon going to China here. Let's be honest.

BTW, Roy, I should thank you. Although, given words like "clowns" and "morons" you probably won't accept it. You inspired me to create this thread. I realize that for you, the question was rhetorical, but I decided that it was worth pursuing. Got a lot of results, too.

How could you say that for sure? You have no proof of that. Bode laid it out there and she reported it.

 

[WHITEFANG]

Would you like me to name them? Henry Lee, Werner Spitz, Tom Henry, Ronald Wright, Robert Kirschner, Gregg McCrary, Robert Ressler, Roger DePue, John McCann, James Monteleone, Virginia Rau, David Jones, the FBI's CASKU division, Barry Scheck, Dan Hoffman, Rich Baer, Bob Miller, Chet Ubowski, Gideon Epstein, Larry Ziegler, Richard Williams, Steven Pitt, Tom Miller, Norm Early...

Yeah, that'll do for a starter!

Here's my best SD response. "I couldn't have said it better myself."

 

[WHITEFANG]

Here's my best SD response. "I couldn't have said it better myself."

Thanks, HOTYH. You just illustrated my point about IDI conspiracy theories and dismissial better than I EVER could have.

Proof.

Another clandestine trick used by the Alpha and the Omega. Make up something that sounds good and post it to back up more nonsense. Asked for proof and the Beginning and the End retreats a bit. Asked again, he retreats further and diverts. Asked again, more retreating and more diversions. Asked again and he concedes he didn't understand the question, his family background made him do it, "well I may have overstated just a tad" and he's off to the races with more b.s.

 

[BBB167893]

How could you say that for sure?

I'm doing like you: going by what I know.

You have no proof of that. Bode laid it out there and she reported it.

Perhaps I should rephrase: Bode's tests can only show what is there (leaving any problems with the testing aside). It cannot tell you that it came from the killer. At least not until someone matches it. Until then, it's just another piece of the puzzle, as you and I have a tendency to put it.

 

[BBB167893]

Proof.

Proof of what? That he illustrated it better than I could have? Fang, I've been following this case from Day One, man. First on one side, then the other. And in all of that time, one thing has remained constant: every time an authority in their field comes out with something that reflects badly on the Rs, IDI will always claim that he/she is a hack just out for money or publicity or some other damn thing.

Another clandestine trick used by the Alpha and the Omega. Make up something that sounds good and post it to back up more nonsense. Asked for proof and the Beginning and the End retreats a bit.

I hope you realize that you're the best free publicity agent I could have asked for!

Asked again, he retreats further and diverts. Asked again, more retreating and more diversions.

If my answers frighten you, don't ask scary questions.

Asked again and he concedes he didn't understand the question,

The way you conduct business, a Ph.D would have trouble understanding the questions.

his family background made him do it,

Hey, my family background doesn't MAKE me do anything. And I'm very proud of my family.

"well I may have overstated just a tad"

It happens. I get overamped sometimes. And when it happens, I try to scale back.