View Poll Results: Would you tighten a noose around the neck of your child

Voters
112. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, but only to stay out of jail

    1 0.89%
  • Yes.

    0 0%
  • Yes, only if I knew she was already dead.

    3 2.68%
  • Are you out of your mind? No way.

    108 96.43%
Page 11 of 24 FirstFirst ... 9 10 11 12 13 21 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 356
  1. #151
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,990
    Quote Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat View Post
    This makes no sense to me. What are you talking about?
    Well- before JB was killed, did YOU know who the Rs were? I'd never heard of JB or her family before her murder, despite her pageant wins. That's what I meant. The general public was not aware of the R or JB outside of Boulder or Atlanta, where Patsy's family (and some of JR's business) was. They were not players on the national stage. They were local "celebrities" because of their wealth and JB's pageant wins.
    So the public opinion I mentioned had to be formed after her death as the case hit the news.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.


  2. #152
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,299
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    Well- before JB was killed, did YOU know who the Rs were? I'd never heard of JB or her family before her murder, despite her pageant wins. That's what I meant. The general public was not aware of the R or JB outside of Boulder or Atlanta, where Patsy's family (and some of JR's business) was. They were not players on the national stage. They were local "celebrities" because of their wealth and JB's pageant wins.
    So the public opinion I mentioned had to be formed after her death as the case hit the news.
    While I have admired your case knowledge, I also have read that PR entered JBR in pageants in 'several states'. I also read that JR's business (referred to in the ransom note) had foreign customers. True/True? True/False?, False/True?, or False/False?


  3. #153
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,990
    Quote Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat View Post
    While I have admired your case knowledge, I also have read that PR entered JBR in pageants in 'several states'. I also read that JR's business (referred to in the ransom note) had foreign customers. True/True? True/False?, False/True?, or False/False?
    I am sure you are right on all counts BUT what I said is true as well. I had never heard of JB or her family UNTIL she was killed and I am pretty sure you did not as well. This is true for most of the country as well. Of course, people in the pageant circuit would know JB, wherever the pageants were held. And people who had business dealings with JR would know him and possibly about his daughter and his former Miss America contestant wife.
    But I do not think JB or her family were NATIONALLY known OR known on even a state level until after her murder. Patsy was a Miss America contestant, but I'd never heard of her till this case, did you? Even if I watched the pageant that year, she didn't win and I doubt she would have national prominence based on that.
    That's the point I am trying to make. JB and her family were NOT household names before this murder.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.


  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DeeDee249 For This Useful Post:


  5. #154
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,299
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    I was talking about after the crime. Before it, no one outside Boulder or Atlanta knew who they were. Hardly a fitting target for a SFF with a grudge against the US.
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    I am sure you are right on all counts BUT what I said is true as well. I had never heard of JB or her family UNTIL she was killed and I am pretty sure you did not as well. This is true for most of the country as well. Of course, people in the pageant circuit would know JB, wherever the pageants were held. And people who had business dealings with JR would know him and possibly about his daughter and his former Miss America contestant wife.
    But I do not think JB or her family were NATIONALLY known OR known on even a state level until after her murder. Patsy was a Miss America contestant, but I'd never heard of her till this case, did you? Even if I watched the pageant that year, she didn't win and I doubt she would have national prominence based on that.
    That's the point I am trying to make. JB and her family were NOT household names before this murder.
    OK I think I'm getting a handle on this. You're saying that the R's weren't famous enough to be suitable targets.

    But that was then and this is now.

    Are they famous enough now? I mean, to be suitable targets? What if the foreign faction claimed responsibility now?


  6. #155
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,990
    Quote Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat View Post
    OK I think I'm getting a handle on this. You're saying that the R's weren't famous enough to be suitable targets.

    But that was then and this is now.

    Are they famous enough now? I mean, to be suitable targets? What if the foreign faction claimed responsibility now?
    Well...that's not exactly what I was saying. But in a way, it is one way of looking at it. That they weren't suitable for an SFF with a problem with the US. If an SFF claimed responsibility now, it wouldn't prove their involvement without some other type of evidence linking them to the crime, like a handwriting or DNA match or (as we both discussed previously) possession of the missing piece of paintbrush, original panties, etc.
    There have been cases where extremist groups (sometimes more than one at a time) have taken responsibility for things they did not do.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.


  7. #156
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,299
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    Well...that's not exactly what I was saying. But in a way, it is one way of looking at it. That they weren't suitable for an SFF with a problem with the US. If an SFF claimed responsibility now, it wouldn't prove their involvement without some other type of evidence linking them to the crime, like a handwriting or DNA match or (as we both discussed previously) possession of the missing piece of paintbrush, original panties, etc.
    There have been cases where extremist groups (sometimes more than one at a time) have taken responsibility for things they did not do.

    OK what if someone claimed responsibility and was able to easily prove involvement? What then?

    Given all that missing evidence from the crime scene plus the handwriting that shouldn't be a problem. I'll jar your imagination a bit, with some ideas on how someone could prove responsibility almost at will:
    1. Panties (I didn't know any were missing.)
    2. Broken paintbrush
    3. Cord
    4. Tape
    5. Handwriting that matches
    6. Practice notes
    7. Blunt Instrument
    8. Photos
    9. Videos
    10. A convincing story


  8. #157
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,990
    Quote Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat View Post
    OK what if someone claimed responsibility and was able to easily prove involvement? What then?

    Given all that missing evidence from the crime scene plus the handwriting that shouldn't be a problem. I'll jar your imagination a bit, with some ideas on how someone could prove responsibility almost at will:
    1. Panties (I didn't know any were missing.)
    2. Broken paintbrush
    3. Cord
    4. Tape
    5. Handwriting that matches
    6. Practice notes
    7. Blunt Instrument
    8. Photos
    9. Videos
    10. A convincing story
    RDI believe that JB was wearing her own usual size (by Patsy's admission) panties in a size 6-8. Many RDI feel that Patsy bought TWO sets of the Bloomies panties on her NY shopping trip, one for JB and one for her niece. Patsy said she "couldn't recall" if she bough one set or two. Christmas that year was a Wednesday. JB was wearing panties that said "Wednesday" when she was found. If she was wearing a Wednesday pair from her own set and they were bloodied, that would be one reason why she needed to be redressed in another identical pair (of which there happened to BE such a pair- in the set bought for Jenny and wrapped in one of the gift boxes in the basement, waiting for after Patsy returned from her trips and she'd mail them late). If JB had worn her own panties that said Wednesday that day and there was any chance at all that someone at the White's may have helped her in the bathroom or seen those panties that would make it very important for her to be wearing the same ones. The fact that they were a few sizes too big wasn't thought to be important, as it was thought no one would really notice that. (wrong).
    The fact that LE could find NO Bloomies Day-Of-The-Week panties was suspicious- at least there should have been Jenny's set. YEARS later the alleged remaining panties of the larger size were sent to LE.
    So that's where the "missing" panties comes in. This was all discussed before, but its been a while.

    As far as the rest of your list- I think it is obvious that if an SFF claimed responsibility AND was found to be in possession of the items you mentioned as well as match handwriting and DNA, the case would be closed. While many RDI consider the SFF theory to be preposterous (myself included- JR, too. He said from Day 1 "this is an inside job" - his words)- and many would still be suspicious as to whether the SFF actually WAS responsible or came into possession of the items some nefarious way. But as far as the case is concerned, and especially considering the "new" Boulder DA is pretty much the same as the "old" Boulder DA- that would be the end of the case. Game over. And that would be the case no matter who was found to be in possession of the items on the list AND match DNA/handwriting.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.


  9. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DeeDee249 For This Useful Post:


  10. #158
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,299
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post

    As far as the rest of your list- I think it is obvious that if an SFF claimed responsibility AND was found to be in possession of the items you mentioned, the case would be closed. While many RDI consider the SFF theory to be preposterous (myself included- JR, too. He said from Day 1 "this is an inside job" - his words)- and many would still be suspicious as to whether the SFF actually WAS responsible or came into possession of the items some nefarious way. But as far as the case is concerned, and especially considering the "new" Boulder DA is pretty much the same as the "old" Boulder DA- that would be the end of the case. Game over.
    I'm lost on this.

    How does a foreign entity proving by means of handwriting ownership, DNA, photos, etc., amount to 'case closed'? I mean, wouldn't that be more like 'case open'?

    Is that what happens, people raise their arms and say 'case closed' and go home? I believe this is wrong. What would REALLY happen?


  11. #159
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,299
    Quote Originally Posted by DeeDee249 View Post
    RDI believe that JB was wearing her own usual size (by Patsy's admission) panties in a size 6-8.
    When? During the day or when she was found?


  12. #160
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,990
    Quote Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat View Post
    When? During the day or when she was found?
    During the day. To the White's (and home again).
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.


  13. #161
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    In the Federal Witness Protection Program
    Posts
    7,990
    Quote Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat View Post
    I'm lost on this.

    How does a foreign entity proving by means of handwriting ownership, DNA, photos, etc., amount to 'case closed'? I mean, wouldn't that be more like 'case open'?

    Is that what happens, people raise their arms and say 'case closed' and go home? I believe this is wrong. What would REALLY happen?
    Hard to say. If they are providing these items and also DNA and writing samples that would imply that they are already in custody or at least in contact with LE. So when you say an SFF who satisfies all the items on your list, how do you envision them providing them?
    For me- they'd make a public announcement declaring responsibility (like Karr) except at that point they would be able to say they had the items. Saying it and really having it are not the same things, so at this point unless the SFF is actually in physical contact (and not merely phone or web) with LE, there would be no way to corroborate their claims. So following it to the next step- claiming responsibility, then providing PROOF by submitting DNA and handwriting samples that are shown to be a match as well as proving possession of the items on your list and turning them over to LE. At that point, they would be arrested, indicted and hopefully convicted, unless they pled guilty.
    Is there some other way you see it happening?
    As far as my "case closed" comment- that was figurative, not literal. Case closed in the minds of many.
    Some people (as well as some media) thought that same thing when Karr was arrested. But that quickly dissipated when all there WAS were his claims. He knew NOTHING that was not information available to anyone. Media reports that he knew things about the case that only the killer could know obviously had to be false, or they would NOT have let him go. They'd have tried to find out if his knowledge came from being there, or from someone who HAD been there. And since we never heard another word about it, and he was released, that tells me that Karr had nothing to offer other than his sick fantasies.
    With Karr there were the claims, but nothing else. So though he was taken into custody it stopped there, and he was released.
    THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

    This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.


  14. #162
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,070
    So far, 37 people have voted. 34, or 91.89%, indicate they could not do what is alleged the Ramsey's did.


  15. #163
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,299
    Quote Originally Posted by WHITEFANG View Post
    So far, 37 people have voted. 34, or 91.89%, indicate they could not do what is alleged the Ramsey's did.
    Yeah, what I get from this is the oft-touted claim that there's a killer in all of us--just waiting for the right circumstances--doesn't really have popular support. RDI needs these false claims and stereotypes like 'when a child is found dead in the home...' to support their weak argument.

    RDI is a weak argument, as arguments go. IDI is stronger.


  16. #164
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    188
    Quote Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat View Post
    Yeah, what I get from this is the oft-touted claim that there's a killer in all of us--just waiting for the right circumstances--doesn't really have popular support. RDI needs these false claims and stereotypes like 'when a child is found dead in the home...' to support their weak argument.

    RDI is a weak argument, as arguments go. IDI is stronger.
    So, if I understand the statement above you are saying that unless I can admit to being able to pull the cord then the Ramsey’s couldn’t do it either? Wow - I would have to disagree with that. Being RDI doesn’t not mean that I could hurt my own child even to save myself. That is totally and utterly ridiculous. But I will say when a child is found dead in the home and the parents do nothing but try to keep the truth from the cops then yes they are guilty of something.

    Not that it matters but when I started reading this thread a few months ago I was IDI myself. The information provided by the posters on both sides helped me to change my views. And I will say that there are a few IDI posters that I can thank directly from turning me to the dark side of RDI.
    Last edited by pistolina; 06-09-2010 at 04:28 PM.


  17. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to pistolina For This Useful Post:


  18. #165
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,070

    And all the promises they made are ground beneath the sadist's fall.

    Kind of interesting.

    Most Americans think the Ramsey's are guilty.

    The vast majority of those who answered this poll state they could never do what the Ramsey's did (allegedly.)

    Most people believe rich, well-educated white folk are capable of committing a heinous crime like this.

    At the same time, an oft' repeated assertion made on this site proclaims that most people do not believe rich, well-educated whites could do something like this.

    "In 1999, Colorado Governor Bill Owens claimed the Ramseys were hiding behind their lawyers."
    Last edited by WHITEFANG; 06-09-2010 at 05:31 PM.


Page 11 of 24 FirstFirst ... 9 10 11 12 13 21 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 78
    Last Post: 02-03-2007, 01:59 AM
  2. The cord and tape.
    By Holdontoyourhat in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 12-15-2005, 07:52 PM
  3. Replies: 52
    Last Post: 08-26-2005, 08:09 PM
  4. Alternate cord source
    By why_nutt in forum JonBenet Ramsey
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 03-01-2004, 11:31 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •