Failure to communicate

BBB167893

Former Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2006
Messages
13,259
Reaction score
109
Over the last few hours, I've read comments about how this case would have been so simple if LE had done their jobs. Well, those comments are absolutely right. The problem is, every time someone like me points out the ways they could have done their jobs to make it simple, those making the comments are the first to bring down the hammer.

A puzzlement! Or is that a paradox? I can't keep it straight anymore.
 
Over the last few hours, I've read comments about how this case would have been so simple if LE had done their jobs. Well, those comments are absolutely right. The problem is, every time someone like me points out the ways they could have done their jobs to make it simple, those making the comments are the first to bring down the hammer.

A puzzlement! Or is that a paradox? I can't keep it straight anymore.



You still have that pesky DNA to deal with Dave. It is a smoking gun and RDI does not have a smoking gun. It is cool, though, Dave. It will be solved pretty soon.
 
Over the last few hours, I've read comments about how this case would have been so simple if LE had done their jobs. Well, those comments are absolutely right. The problem is, every time someone like me points out the ways they could have done their jobs to make it simple, those making the comments are the first to bring down the hammer.

A puzzlement! Or is that a paradox? I can't keep it straight anymore.

Can I tell you why I think this happens?
For ex you say LE was wrong not to separate the Ramsey's
LE was wrong because they didn't secure the scene and maybe that's why there is not enough RDI evidence
LE was wrong for not keeping an eye on JR that morning

etc

(btw I agree with everything above)

BUT you never say for ex

LE was wrong for not thoroughly checking people like CW,etc
LE was wrong for focusing only on PR
LE was wrong for disregarding the content of the ransom note and taking for granted that it's fake, so probably written by a family member
and so on

IMO

Your arguments ,which are good,are meant only for those who believe RDI,that's the problem.You only point out the mistakes that are related to RDI.
 
You still have that pesky DNA to deal with Dave. It is a smoking gun and RDI does not have a smoking gun. It is cool, though, Dave. It will be solved pretty soon.

Condescension isn't very becoming, Roy. It also misses my point. That being that if LE had done their jobs, we'd either HAVE a smoking gun or would not NEED one.

As we've discussed many times, 90% of cases are not "smoking gun" cases. They're circumstantial cases, and their outcome relies on the prosecutor's ability to put the pieces together into a a solid picture. But in cases where a victim is found in their own home, what breaks the case is not the forensic evidence. What breaks it is the cops getting a confession.

As for your statements:

1) Yes, I do have to deal with the DNA. But where you and I part is that I'm not overly worried about my ability to do that. You call it a smoking gun. All I can say to that is, "don't you wish." Because right now, without anyone to match it against with corroborating evidence, it's just like the rest of IDI's "evidence:" random elements haphazardly strung together as if they meant something. You can't make a cow out of hamburger, Roy.

2) True, RDI does not have a smoking gun. BUT, as I said at the beginning of this post, the idea that a case NEEDS one every time is a very dangerous and limiting viewpoint. I focus more on trying to put all of the pieces together.

3) It's not "cool," whatever that means. And it never will be, no matter how this turns out.

4) I wish I had your confidence.
 
Can I tell you why I think this happens?
For ex you say LE was wrong not to separate the Ramsey's
LE was wrong because they didn't secure the scene and maybe that's why there is not enough RDI evidence
LE was wrong for not keeping an eye on JR that morning

etc

(btw I agree with everything above)

Good to know. But those are only some of what I say LE was remiss in not doing. They could have done those things and any number of other actions to make headway in this case. They COULD have thrown the Rs in jail until one turned on the other. They COULD have called a Grand Jury immediately. They COULD have planted listening devices in the Rs' home to pick up incriminating conversations.

They did NONE of these. And to this day, I have yet to hear a good explanation as to why. From what I can gather, they were all shot down on the grounds that they offended the political sensibilities of those in charge, which the Georgia cops and FBI found ludicrous.

BUT you never say for ex

LE was wrong for not thoroughly checking people like CW,etc
LE was wrong for focusing only on PR
LE was wrong for disregarding the content of the ransom note and taking for granted that it's fake, so probably written by a family member
and so on

I never say them, maddy, because I'm not convinced they happened. I get what you're saying, but it would be pretty hard for me to make those arguments.

Your arguments ,which are good,are meant only for those who believe RDI,that's the problem.You only point out the mistakes that are related to RDI.

That's where you're wrong, maddy. My arguments are NOT meant only for RDI. Even Lou Smit (RIP) said that if he had been in charge, he would have done many, if not all, of the things that I've argued for. The missed opportunities I keep mentioning would have gone just as far in proving the Rs innocent as they would toward proving guilt had they been done.
 
Good to know. But those are only some of what I say LE was remiss in not doing. They could have done those things and any number of other actions to make headway in this case. They COULD have thrown the Rs in jail until one turned on the other. They COULD have called a Grand Jury immediately. They COULD have planted listening devices in the Rs' home to pick up incriminating conversations.

They did NONE of these. And to this day, I have yet to hear a good explanation as to why. From what I can gather, they were all shot down on the grounds that they offended the political sensibilities of those in charge, which the Georgia cops and FBI found ludicrous.



I never say them, maddy, because I'm not convinced they happened. I get what you're saying, but it would be pretty hard for me to make those arguments.



That's where you're wrong, maddy. My arguments are NOT meant only for RDI. Even Lou Smit (RIP) said that if he had been in charge, he would have done many, if not all, of the things that I've argued for. The missed opportunities I keep mentioning would have gone just as far in proving the Rs innocent as they would toward proving guilt had they been done.


SD you've been arguing your cockeyed notions for so long you don't even recognise them as cockeyed anymore.
 
SD you've been arguing your cockeyed notions for so long you don't even recognise them as cockeyed anymore.

Man do I agree with this. And Dave I try not to be condescending. I really honestly do. I know we can't match the DNA as of now. That is why I believe as I do. This has been pushed as RDI from the start. It started because the BPD was concerned about Xmas, but it is kind of normal. I just know the truth is coming and when it does the RDI's are gonna say that if the Ramsey's would have cooperated, this truth could have come out sooner.
 
You are right, Dave. If the BPD had handled this case from the very beginning the way that any other police dept. in this country would have, it would have been solved long ago. If the Ramseys were innocent it could have been proven and there would be no need for this discussion. I cannot understand why the da's office would hinder an investigation unless they themselves feared where it would lead. It should not matter whether or not you are RDI or IDI, we should all be wishing the BPD had done a more thorough job (or been allowed to).
 
You are right, Dave. If the BPD had handled this case from the very beginning the way that any other police dept. in this country would have, it would have been solved long ago. If the Ramseys were innocent it could have been proven and there would be no need for this discussion. I cannot understand why the da's office would hinder an investigation unless they themselves feared where it would lead. It should not matter whether or not you are RDI or IDI, we should all be wishing the BPD had done a more thorough job (or been allowed to).

Wow! It has been proven about as much as it could have been. They went to a grand jury for christ sakes.
 
Man do I agree with this.

What a shock. Well, I suppose it's easier than actually making an argument. I expect so much better than such pettiness. So, I'll just remind you guys that they're not MY notions. Everything I've said on this thread has been said before, by people a LOT higher up the LE food chain than I am!

And Dave I try not to be condescending. I really honestly do.

I just thought you'd want to know.

I know we can't match the DNA as of now. That is why I believe as I do.

You know the DNA can't be matched, but that's why you believe as you do. I don't get it.

This has been pushed as RDI from the start. It started because the BPD was concerned about Xmas, but it is kind of normal.

You'll have to rephrase, because you've lost me.

I just know the truth is coming and when it does the RDI's are gonna say that if the Ramsey's would have cooperated, this truth could have come out sooner.

What do you mean, "when it does?" That's what we've BEEN saying! That's why I started this rotten thread in the first place: to find out just what is so damn hard to understand about that.

I'm sorry. I don't mean to get angry. But my argument seems so straightforward.
 
You are right, Dave. If the BPD had handled this case from the very beginning the way that any other police dept. in this country would have, it would have been solved long ago. If the Ramseys were innocent it could have been proven and there would be no need for this discussion. I cannot understand why the da's office would hinder an investigation unless they themselves feared where it would lead. It should not matter whether or not you are RDI or IDI, we should all be wishing the BPD had done a more thorough job (or been allowed to).

YES! Yes, yes, yes! Finally, someone understands what I'm saying!
 
Wow! It has been proven about as much as it could have been.

Excuse me??

They went to a grand jury for christ sakes.

You say that as if it meant something. Need I remind you the myriad problems associated with the GJ in this case? Had it been somewhere else, it MIGHT have gone somewhere.

Look, if someone wants to try to defend the decisions that were made by LE in this case, I'm all for it. But lately, it's gone beyond that straight into attempting to rewrite history. Well, that bird's not gonna fly. Not with me, it won't.
 
You are right, Dave. If the BPD had handled this case from the very beginning the way that any other police dept. in this country would have, it would have been solved long ago. If the Ramseys were innocent it could have been proven and there would be no need for this discussion. I cannot understand why the da's office would hinder an investigation unless they themselves feared where it would lead. It should not matter whether or not you are RDI or IDI, we should all be wishing the BPD had done a more thorough job (or been allowed to).

You could equally wonder why the BPD could not have handled this case "the way any other police dept. in this country would have". As you said, if the Rs 'were innocent, then it could have been proved and there would be no need for this discussion'. Of course, this would mean that 'someone else' was guilty, so did the BPD botch it on purpose? Could it have been rather because it was they who feared where a 'properly conducted' investigation might lead?

No need to blame the DA, as you said all you needed to in those two sentences.
 
You could equally wonder why the BPD could not have handled this case "the way any other police dept. in this country would have". As you said, if the Rs 'were innocent, then it could have been proved and there would be no need for this discussion'. Of course, this would mean that 'someone else' was guilty, so did the BPD botch it on purpose? Could it have been rather because it was they who feared where a 'properly conducted' investigation might lead?

No need to blame the DA, as you said all you needed to in those two sentences.

Hunter's actions on this case defied every known protocol. He wouldn't allow the parents to be treated as suspects. He wouldn't ALLOW them to be arrested. He wouldn't allow the BPD to get the phone records, JB's school or medical records. He allowed defense lawyers to see some of the evidence, which is NEVER done until an indictment is handed down. He acted like he was part of the defense team, and for all practical purposes, he was. Assistant DA Pete Hofstrom, too. He courted the tabloid media (Jeff Shapiro, who worked for the Globe- the paper who printed the stolen autopsy photos). He attempted to dig dirt on one of the detectives in the case (ST) for no reason other than that ST felt the Rs were guilty. Hunter may have felt the same, but there was no way he was going to let anyone prove it. I'd LOVE to have a look at HIS phone records to see who called him after the Rs hired their law firm. Did a call from the governor's office take place? Was he given "instructions" on how to deal with such wealthy and well-connected suspects?
 
Hunter's actions on this case defied every known protocol. He wouldn't allow the parents to be treated as suspects. He wouldn't ALLOW them to be arrested. He wouldn't allow the BPD to get the phone records, JB's school or medical records. He allowed defense lawyers to see some of the evidence, which is NEVER done until an indictment is handed down. He acted like he was part of the defense team, and for all practical purposes, he was. Assistant DA Pete Hofstrom, too. He courted the tabloid media (Jeff Shapiro, who worked for the Globe- the paper who printed the stolen autopsy photos). He attempted to dig dirt on one of the detectives in the case (ST) for no reason other than that ST felt the Rs were guilty. Hunter may have felt the same, but there was no way he was going to let anyone prove it. I'd LOVE to have a look at HIS phone records to see who called him after the Rs hired their law firm. Did a call from the governor's office take place? Was he given "instructions" on how to deal with such wealthy and well-connected suspects?

Everything you said here is from an RDI point of view. You of course, like SD, have been arguing this for so long you cannot even see how biased it is.

If the BPD had done it's job rather than go all out to pin it on the Rs, they would not have needed to:

treat the parents as suspects
arrest the Rs
get their phone records
get JBRs school records
get JBRs medical records

Instead, they would have INVESTIGATED the murder.

While they were concentrating on fighting with the DA and trying to find something to convict the Rs, the killer escaped detection.

Evidence that was there for the finding was ignored.
Tips given to the cops by the public were ignored.

Can't you see this DD??

In fact, it was so blatant, I'm now wondering if someone in the BPD was actively misdirecting the investigation. Perhaps this is why someone was 'digging dirt' on ST as it appears he was the main RDI proponent.
 
Everything you said here is from an RDI point of view. You of course, like SD, have been arguing this for so long you cannot even see how biased it is.

If the BPD had done it's job rather than go all out to pin it on the Rs, they would not have needed to:

treat the parents as suspects
arrest the Rs
get their phone records
get JBRs school records
get JBRs medical records

Instead, they would have INVESTIGATED the murder.

While they were concentrating on fighting with the DA and trying to find something to convict the Rs, the killer escaped detection.

Evidence that was there for the finding was ignored.
Tips given to the cops by the public were ignored.

Can't you see this DD??

In fact, it was so blatant, I'm now wondering if someone in the BPD was actively misdirecting the investigation. Perhaps this is why someone was 'digging dirt' on ST as it appears he was the main RDI proponent.

Correct.
 
Everything you said here is from an RDI point of view. You of course, like SD, have been arguing this for so long you cannot even see how biased it is.

If the BPD had done it's job rather than go all out to pin it on the Rs, they would not have needed to:

treat the parents as suspects
arrest the Rs
get their phone records
get JBRs school records
get JBRs medical records

Instead, they would have INVESTIGATED the murder.

While they were concentrating on fighting with the DA and trying to find something to convict the Rs, the killer escaped detection.

Evidence that was there for the finding was ignored.
Tips given to the cops by the public were ignored.

Can't you see this DD??

In fact, it was so blatant, I'm now wondering if someone in the BPD was actively misdirecting the investigation. Perhaps this is why someone was 'digging dirt' on ST as it appears he was the main RDI proponent.

Not quite. It is standard procedure to clear those who had access before moving on to countless others who may or may not be involved. How could the pd clear any of the Ramseys when they were denied access to the very items that could clear them? Why would the Ramseys not want everything out in the open to begin with? Does anyone really believe the police should have just moved on because the Ramseys were insulted that they were being looked at first?
 
Not quite. It is standard procedure to clear those who had access before moving on to countless others who may or may not be involved. How could the pd clear any of the Ramseys when they were denied access to the very items that could clear them? Why would the Ramseys not want everything out in the open to begin with? Does anyone really believe the police should have just moved on because the Ramseys were insulted that they were being looked at first?

You make it sound so reasonable that they wanted to concentrate on the Rs to the exclusion of everyone else in the world. It was plain for everyone to see that they had no interest in any other suspects.
How could the pd clear any of the Ramseys when they were denied access to the very items that could clear them?
Again, you are RDI blind. How could they find any other evidence if they wouldn't look past the Rs?

Why would the Rs not want everything out in the open?? Just look at pretty much any RDI post to this forum.... she wrapped the panties/she put the panties in the drawer (both incriminating), her fingerprints were on her own possessions/her fingerprints weren't on her own possessions (both incriminating), the doll, the bear, the golf bag, all totally innocent items but imaginated into 'evidence' of the Rs guilt and then either missing or stolen (or not, equally incrimitating). While ever the BPD had any information on them at all, they would scurry around trying to fit it into the crime. Meanwhile ignoring tips and evidence of the real killers.
 
Everything you said here is from an RDI point of view. You of course, like SD, have been arguing this for so long you cannot even see how biased it is.

If the BPD had done it's job rather than go all out to pin it on the Rs, they would not have needed to:

treat the parents as suspects
arrest the Rs
get their phone records
get JBRs school records
get JBRs medical records

Instead, they would have INVESTIGATED the murder.

While they were concentrating on fighting with the DA and trying to find something to convict the Rs, the killer escaped detection.

Evidence that was there for the finding was ignored.
Tips given to the cops by the public were ignored. Can't you see this DD??

In fact, it was so blatant, I'm now wondering if someone in the BPD was actively misdirecting the investigation. Perhaps this is why someone was 'digging dirt' on ST as it appears he was the main RDI proponent.

What ever makes you think that the LE didn't investigate other people? I seem to remember that they did in fact look at many other people.

When the wealthy parents of a murdered child won't be interviewed by the LE because they are insulted that anyone would even think they could be involved, then how can the LE clear them?
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
145
Guests online
959
Total visitors
1,104

Forum statistics

Threads
589,931
Messages
17,927,829
Members
228,004
Latest member
CarpSleuth
Back
Top