1171 users online (223 members and 948 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 103
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    13,221

    The IDI Chickens have come home to roost

    For almost two weeks now, I've been agonizing over how best to do this, and now the answer gets dropped right into my lap. They say he who laughs last laughs best. Well, I don't feel much like laughing, but here goes.

    Roy, you listening, pilgrim? I sure hope you are! You and the other IDIs out there, listen up, because there's two big things that need to be said.

    Casey Anthony will walk free in three days, and as far as I'm concerned, IDI shares the blame for it. Not all, of it, certainly. That case and this one have a lot of blame to go around: Supreme Court decisions that give defense attorneys too much power and tie the hands of prosecutors and police; experts who can be hired to say anything you want; and TV shows, movies and books that dumb-down jurors and feed them a distorted view of how the system works.

    But the simple fact cannot be ignored: IDIs' chickens have come home to roost.

    And why do I say that? Because it's true. IDI have preached to hell and back that a circumstantial case can't win in court anymore in the era of modern technology. They've argued that again and again.

    This is the result: child-killers walking free, maybe to kill again. The jury in the Casey Anthony case believed the nonsense IDI gives us on a daily basis: that circumstantial evidence is not real evidence. This is the CSI Effect with a vengeance. This is the LOGICAL, INEVITABLE result of IDI arguments.

    And NOW, some IDI have the unmitigated GALL to get angry because Casey Anthony walked free! They get indignant over what they have unleashed! Observe:

    Quote Originally Posted by Roy23
    However, for me and I hope you will try and understand, I need a break after witnessing the Casey Anthony debacle. It has given me a deep heart ache and challenged my beliefs. I know we have the best system in the world but I am still trying to come up with the right thing to explain to my family on how this can happen.
    That would be funny if it weren't so horrible.

    And that leads to the OTHER part of it. Roy, let me take you back in time:

    Quote Originally Posted by Roy23
    And I am not gonna buy the theory you explained about them not knowing which one did it.
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperDave
    Number two, and even more importantly, WHO would they charge, and WITH what? See, that's the whole point of what I'm trying to tell you about the cross finger-pointing problem. You said you weren't going to buy that explanation, but you STILL haven't told me why. So before you do, maybe it would help if I told you about a few prosecutors--GOOD ones--who agree with me:

    Bill Ritter, from PMPT:

    That left prosecutors with the troubling question of which parent had knowingly caused the child's death. Until investigators could identify each parent's individual actions, two suspects meant no suspects.

    And Vincent Bugliosi:

    the inevitable question presents itself: which parent did it? A prosecutor can't argue to a jury, "Ladies and gentlemen, the evidence is very clear the either Mr. or Mrs. Ramsey committed this murder and the other one covered it up." Even if you could prove that Patsy Ramsey wrote the ransom note, that doesn't mean she committed the murder."

    And if THAT's not enough, Wendy Murphy writes extensively about this case in her book, And Justice for Some, in which she outlines how the Ramsey case is the best-known example of cross finger-pointing in modern history.
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy23
    And I have heard some of Wendy Murphy's theories but not in detail on that. As a matter of fact, I heard her mention that theory in regards to the Anthony trial.
    You told me you'd look into it, Roy. I thought you meant it. But then you admitted what I always suspected: that you were just humoring me, like I was some kind of LUNATIC ranting for your amusement!

    Well, it's not so funny, now, is it? Not after the jury foreman in the Anthony case went on TV this week and said that the jury let Casey go specifically because of Wendy's argument: that the defense cast enough of a guilty shadow on George Anthony to believe that he may have been Caylee's killer.

    Pilgrim, I'm not usually the kind of man who says "I told you so." But in this case, I'm only too damn happy to make an exception!

    I TOLD YOU SO!
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    2,309
    Dave,

    That was deeply profound...... I wanted to stand up and clap.
    There are things that we don't want to happen but have to accept, things we don't want to know but have to learn, and people we can't live without but have to let go.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,034
    Holy cow!
    I thought this forum was to discuss Jon Benet Ramsey, not to be used to call out other posters with a differing opinion!
    I knew this forum was a little different than the others, but wow.
    "Life's splendor forever lies in wait about each one of us in all its fullness, but veiled from view, deep down, invisible, far off. It is there, though, not hostile, not reluctant, not deaf. If you summon it by the right word, by its right name, it will come."
    - Kafka
    "Know the right moment."

    What I type here is mostly my opinion.
    I really don't care if my opinions offend.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    3,577
    The outcome of the Anthony circus truly surprised me. Even more highly than OJ, which is saying a lot.

    As for the R's, they should have charged them both with murder and made them fight it out or turn states evidence. I know, just a pipe dream of mine, but if LE truly collected 90% more evidence than what the public has seen, there has to be something there. If the evidence cleared the R's, which I truly doubt, then I believe there would have been a public statement made!
    ___________________

    "This Time We Get It Right!"
    If you can read this, thank a teacher, if it's in English, thank a soldier!
    If I forget to mention it. Everything I post is my opinion, right or wrong, good or bad.
    If you have questions about Rebecca Zahaus death, please watch this:http://websleuths.com/forums/showpos...00&postcount=1

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    8,769
    If Patsy had gone on trial for JonBenet's murder, I could see her defense arguing that JonBenet's murder was premeditated, and there's no proof that a mother like Patsy would ever plan to kill her daughter. Most IDI's believe that the strangulation came first, which is why they don't believe that Patsy or John were involved, because they couldn't see either of them strangulating their daughter. I don't think I've ever met an IDI who thought the intruder had caused JonBenet's head injury, and then strangled her.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    5,290
    Okay don't laugh. What is IDI?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    3,577
    IDI is intruder did it, RDI is a Ramsey did it.
    ___________________

    "This Time We Get It Right!"
    If you can read this, thank a teacher, if it's in English, thank a soldier!
    If I forget to mention it. Everything I post is my opinion, right or wrong, good or bad.
    If you have questions about Rebecca Zahaus death, please watch this:http://websleuths.com/forums/showpos...00&postcount=1

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    3,577
    Quote Originally Posted by eileenhawkeye View Post
    If Patsy had gone on trial for JonBenet's murder, I could see her defense arguing that JonBenet's murder was premeditated, and there's no proof that a mother like Patsy would ever plan to kill her daughter. Most IDI's believe that the strangulation came first, which is why they don't believe that Patsy or John were involved, because they couldn't see either of them strangulating their daughter. I don't think I've ever met an IDI who thought the intruder had caused JonBenet's head injury, and then strangled her.
    Eileen, there are different types of murder charges. It would not have to be a premeditated charge. It could have been manslaughter. I have read enough newspaper articles, seen enough on television and read here enough to know that not all child killers are crazy, abusive, or committed other crimes against children in the past.

    Personally, I think Patsy is guilty of covering up the crime, not causing the head bash or strangulation. I have my theory on that. On the other hand, I wonder how much she truly knew, or if she was lied to regarding the true circumstances of JonBenets death and who killed her.

    I do however think that by not charging both parents, they may have allowed the R's to become so entrenched in their lies and cover up that now, the truth, may never be known.

    I believe one of the R's got away with murder and the rest are guilty of tampering with evidence and impeding an investigation. Done somewhat legally, with the help of their lawyers and the DA's office.
    ___________________

    "This Time We Get It Right!"
    If you can read this, thank a teacher, if it's in English, thank a soldier!
    If I forget to mention it. Everything I post is my opinion, right or wrong, good or bad.
    If you have questions about Rebecca Zahaus death, please watch this:http://websleuths.com/forums/showpos...00&postcount=1

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,298
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperDave View Post
    For almost two weeks now, I've been agonizing over how best to do this, and now the answer gets dropped right into my lap. They say he who laughs last laughs best. Well, I don't feel much like laughing, but here goes.

    Roy, you listening, pilgrim? I sure hope you are! You and the other IDIs out there, listen up, because there's two big things that need to be said.

    Casey Anthony will walk free in three days, and as far as I'm concerned, IDI shares the blame for it. Not all, of it, certainly. That case and this one have a lot of blame to go around: Supreme Court decisions that give defense attorneys too much power and tie the hands of prosecutors and police; experts who can be hired to say anything you want; and TV shows, movies and books that dumb-down jurors and feed them a distorted view of how the system works.

    But the simple fact cannot be ignored: IDIs' chickens have come home to roost.

    And why do I say that? Because it's true. IDI have preached to hell and back that a circumstantial case can't win in court anymore in the era of modern technology. They've argued that again and again.

    This is the result: child-killers walking free, maybe to kill again. The jury in the Casey Anthony case believed the nonsense IDI gives us on a daily basis: that circumstantial evidence is not real evidence. This is the CSI Effect with a vengeance. This is the LOGICAL, INEVITABLE result of IDI arguments.

    And NOW, some IDI have the unmitigated GALL to get angry because Casey Anthony walked free! They get indignant over what they have unleashed! Observe:



    That would be funny if it weren't so horrible.

    And that leads to the OTHER part of it. Roy, let me take you back in time:







    You told me you'd look into it, Roy. I thought you meant it. But then you admitted what I always suspected: that you were just humoring me, like I was some kind of LUNATIC ranting for your amusement!

    Well, it's not so funny, now, is it? Not after the jury foreman in the Anthony case went on TV this week and said that the jury let Casey go specifically because of Wendy's argument: that the defense cast enough of a guilty shadow on George Anthony to believe that he may have been Caylee's killer.

    Pilgrim, I'm not usually the kind of man who says "I told you so." But in this case, I'm only too damn happy to make an exception!

    I TOLD YOU SO!

    You actually are looking like a Lunatic right now Dave. You haven't told me anything. The Grand Jury did not come up with enough evidence to hand out an indictment. There is a big big difference between Casey Anthony and The Ramsey's. Enormous. Why would you blame me for a Grand Jury that I was not part of? They couldn't make a Ham Sandwich much less get a conviction.

    Dave this is wrong on so many different levels. And keep in mind another thing, Pilgrim, making a circumstancial case against the Ramsey's is fine. I got no problem with it. You can't make it stick when DNA from an unknown male is all over the place.

    And is it my fault the BPD had different opinions? Is it my fault they didn't secure the house? Went to the media? Had unknown DNA in their closet?

    Game, Set, Match!
    The discovery of additional matching DNA in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case is important information that raises more questions in the search for JonBenet's killer. The BPD concurs with the Boulder District Attorney's Office that this is a significant finding. The PD has continued to look diligently for the source of the foreign DNA, and to date, we have compared DNA samples taken from more than 200 people. Finding the source of the DNA is key to helping us determine who killed JonBenet

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,298
    Quote Originally Posted by SunnieRN View Post
    The outcome of the Anthony circus truly surprised me. Even more highly than OJ, which is saying a lot.

    As for the R's, they should have charged them both with murder and made them fight it out or turn states evidence. I know, just a pipe dream of mine, but if LE truly collected 90% more evidence than what the public has seen, there has to be something there. If the evidence cleared the R's, which I truly doubt, then I believe there would have been a public statement made!
    The opposite happened. They got more corroborating DNA from an unknown male. And that is exactly why no statements have been made other than subtly apologizing to Mr. Ramsey.
    The discovery of additional matching DNA in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case is important information that raises more questions in the search for JonBenet's killer. The BPD concurs with the Boulder District Attorney's Office that this is a significant finding. The PD has continued to look diligently for the source of the foreign DNA, and to date, we have compared DNA samples taken from more than 200 people. Finding the source of the DNA is key to helping us determine who killed JonBenet


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,298
    Quote Originally Posted by Evan's Mom View Post
    Holy cow!
    I thought this forum was to discuss Jon Benet Ramsey, not to be used to call out other posters with a differing opinion!
    I knew this forum was a little different than the others, but wow.

    Please don't worry about this.

    He knows not of what he speaks. Circumstancial cases get prosecuted all the time. They even get convictions. His rantings are frustration for a Grand Jury that deemed not enough evidence to get into a courtroom. I don't support Wendy Murphy's theory in either the Jon Benet or the Anthony case.
    The discovery of additional matching DNA in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case is important information that raises more questions in the search for JonBenet's killer. The BPD concurs with the Boulder District Attorney's Office that this is a significant finding. The PD has continued to look diligently for the source of the foreign DNA, and to date, we have compared DNA samples taken from more than 200 people. Finding the source of the DNA is key to helping us determine who killed JonBenet

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,878
    SD

    Over the years I've been reading about JBR here on Websleuths, I've developed an enormous respect for your detailed knowledge of the case.

    So, this is a little hard to say but it must be said - Chill Out. Roy is right, you're off the deep end now.

    The CA trial isn't the first where the jury couldn't feel definite about who did the murder, and it won't be the last. Jurors naturally want to be very certain about such a serious charge.

    You may feel their doubts were unreasonable, but they are the ones who had to decide. We can play this game all day and in the end, the jurors just weren't convinced CA did the deed she was charged with.

    As for circumstantial evidence, when a case is built on nothing else it probably shouldn't succeed.

    Getting to the specifics of the JBR case, there was room for doubt during the indictment, and there is even more room for doubt now. Even those of us who are leaning way way towards RDI have to admit there is a little something to IDI theory.

    Personally, the CA trial has re-affirmed my faith in the justice system. It was more important for the jury to be certain than to make someone pay for the crime. That is the way it should be.
    I'm just playing detective here. I have no idea who killed JonBenet. It's just an opinion.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    3,577
    Quote Originally Posted by Roy23 View Post
    The opposite happened. They got more corroborating DNA from an unknown male. And that is exactly why no statements have been made other than subtly apologizing to Mr. Ramsey.
    I respectfully disagree. Is the person in LE who apologized, that you are referring to ML? She is a total joke. This is the same person who brought a suspect from another country, without first doing a DNA test.

    The DNA is not necessarily that of one person. It could just as easily be a mixed DNA sample. It has been stated that if so, it will never be matched to anyone.

    ChrisHope, you stated that RDI's should 'have to admit' there is a little something to IDI theory. Honestly, the only people PROVEN to be in the house that night were four Ramseys. I say it may be interesting for you to give RDI a little benefit of doubt concerning their theories. They are not all the same, if you haven't noticed.
    ___________________

    "This Time We Get It Right!"
    If you can read this, thank a teacher, if it's in English, thank a soldier!
    If I forget to mention it. Everything I post is my opinion, right or wrong, good or bad.
    If you have questions about Rebecca Zahaus death, please watch this:http://websleuths.com/forums/showpos...00&postcount=1

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,878
    Quote Originally Posted by SunnieRN View Post
    I
    ChrisHope, you stated that RDI's should 'have to admit' there is a little something to IDI theory. Honestly, the only people PROVEN to be in the house that night were four Ramseys. I say it may be interesting for you to give RDI a little benefit of doubt concerning their theories. They are not all the same, if you haven't noticed.
    I not only give RDI a "little benefit of doubt", I'm died in the wool RDI myself. I've been RDI since I found out from TV news reports at the time, that JBR's body was found in the house. I already knew a RN was found in the house. I've been RDI since those two facts came together.

    Yes, I've noticed not all RDI theories are the same. In fact I find BDI theory much less plausible than other RDI theories. I don't find the bed wetting-rage theory all that plausible either.

    I agree, JR/PR were in the house that night. That is a fact even IDI have to admit. Outside the unknown, and probably unknowable DNA on the underwear there isn't one credible bit of evidence of an intruder.

    And yet, we must give IDI their due. Intruders do sometimes come in and leave no trace. There is the DNA on the underwear. There is no known history of child abuse (it's possible there is an unknown history, but that would be speculation, not fact)
    I'm just playing detective here. I have no idea who killed JonBenet. It's just an opinion.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,298
    Quote Originally Posted by SunnieRN View Post
    I respectfully disagree. Is the person in LE who apologized, that you are referring to ML? She is a total joke. This is the same person who brought a suspect from another country, without first doing a DNA test.

    The DNA is not necessarily that of one person. It could just as easily be a mixed DNA sample. It has been stated that if so, it will never be matched to anyone.

    ChrisHope, you stated that RDI's should 'have to admit' there is a little something to IDI theory. Honestly, the only people PROVEN to be in the house that night were four Ramseys. I say it may be interesting for you to give RDI a little benefit of doubt concerning their theories. They are not all the same, if you haven't noticed.

    Sunnie,

    You have the right to believe whatever you want. I have reason to believe it is important the DNA is there and when you have it in many different areas calling it mixed is uninformed. I also have good reason to believe that they had already substantiated it even BEFORE the touch DNA results.

    The bottom line though is that at least over the past couple of years I have tried to behave in a manner that Websleuths was founded on. I have tried to even avoid the fights and attacks. Dave and I are stuck on opposite ends of the spectrum and I have accepted that. I don't attack or try to belittle any RDI besides the ring leader who attacks me on this board anymore.

    I also totally believe that the BPD and Mark Beckner are almost certain of IDI. Is it not my right to believe that?
    Last edited by Roy23; 07-16-2011 at 11:56 AM.
    The discovery of additional matching DNA in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case is important information that raises more questions in the search for JonBenet's killer. The BPD concurs with the Boulder District Attorney's Office that this is a significant finding. The PD has continued to look diligently for the source of the foreign DNA, and to date, we have compared DNA samples taken from more than 200 people. Finding the source of the DNA is key to helping us determine who killed JonBenet

Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Fencesitters: Roost & Post Discussion
    By KOOL LOOK in forum Haleigh Cummings
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 09-29-2009, 06:04 PM
  2. Man was raised by chickens
    By Casshew in forum Bizarre and Off-Beat News
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-11-2004, 04:24 PM