1507 users online (379 members and 1128 guests)  


The Killing Season - Websleuths

Websleuths News


Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 47
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,970

    Would We Be Willing To Change Our Theories?

    Most of the posters here,in this point of the JB murder (8 long years!),after grueling novice investigating and reviewing (with the help of this forum),have pretty iron clad theories.

    Would we at this time be willing to change our theories,if something was discovered that pulled you away from your theory.I'm not talking big this is the smoking gun discovery,but something that would make you say ...hmmmm,never thought of that?

    Would you ... honestly?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    36
    People who are close-minded may not realize that they're close-minded, so posing the question directly may not get you far. That said, part of the draw of following cases such as this is continually gauging the accuracy of one's own instincts and analytical abilities in general, as well as in particular. If information is available that can help establish one's gaps in knowledge, prejudices, misunderstandings, etc., it's valuable in many ways--once the humble pie is eaten.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by capps
    Most of the posters here,in this point of the JB murder (8 long years!),after grueling novice investigating and reviewing (with the help of this forum),have pretty iron clad theories.

    Would we at this time be willing to change our theories,if something was discovered that pulled you away from your theory.I'm not talking big this is the smoking gun discovery,but something that would make you say ...hmmmm,never thought of that?

    Would you ... honestly?

    capps,

    Yes. My BDI theories change all the time to include newly discovered credible evidence.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,795
    Had the 911 called contained Burke and John's voices, I would have seriously reconsidered. If certain, specific Ramsey supporters i,e, Jeanne Boylan, Lou Smit, etc were to change their positions it would carry a lot of weight. But I think without new evidence we are all pretty much left spinning our wheels.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Dumpwater, Arkansas..LOL
    Posts
    5,338
    It would depend on what the evidence was. I can't say yes and I can't say no. However, the evidence would have to be really compelling to change my mind. IOW, not propaganda by the Ramsey's, Mary Keenan (or whatever her name is this week), or Lin Wood.
    "If at first you don't succeed, skydiving isn't for you!"

    The above post is my opinion and my opinion only. Please do not copy and past to other forums.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by tipper
    Had the 911 called contained Burke and John's voices, I would have seriously reconsidered. If certain, specific Ramsey supporters i,e, Jeanne Boylan, Lou Smit, etc were to change their positions it would carry a lot of weight. But I think without new evidence we are all pretty much left spinning our wheels.

    tipper,

    The final four seconds of the 911 call were enhanced, not the entire 911 call.

    You were allowed to hear the original tape in its entirety including the final four seconds -- but not the ENHANCED final four seconds. Therefore, it was near impossible for you to hear Burke's and John's voices at the end -- all you could hear at the end was the noise prior to it being enhanced. The voices are there, but not easily distinguishable as voices.

    It was just one more "semantics" trick by Mary Keenan and Lin Wood, and you and many others fell for it.

    Burke's voice is on the final four enhanced seconds of the 911 tape. Those four seconds ARE what is misleadingly referred to as the "enhanced 911 tape'". The enhanced final four seconds has never been released to the public.

    BlueCrab

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,795
    I don't want to get into yet another debate on the 911 call. I listened, I heard the Help me Jesus and I read Tricia's expert's opinion. If Aerospace starts talking (which they won't and shouldn't) I'll pay attention again.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    3,486

    Summer of 2001

    The thread asks about willingness to change views and I will mention a real case that might say something about the position of "advocates." Chandra Levy disappeared in early Summer 2001. The media and a lot of the public frenzied (until 9-11-2001 knocked it off the screen) over Congressman Condit and his perceived guilt. Who can forget CNN's Bob Franken stationed outside the Levy home to report Dr. Levy's leaving for work, returning for lunch, and driving home each day. Full time Condit attacks ruled.

    The perception of Condit's "guilt" despite an apparent alibi that included the VP had rocketed upward after a well known press conference by the Levy attorney. He had answered a question about Chandra's possibly being pregnant by saying the family knew, but were not going to reveal the answer to the public. I saw it with friends and everyone said "Oh my God, she was pregnant." That was the consensus and it "confirmed" a motive for Condit to kill the poor girl.

    But then about 8-11-01, a reporter from (I think) "Talk" magazine was on the "Today" show and revealed that Mrs Levy knew for an absolute fact that Chandra was NOT pregnant. So, the motive evaporated, and the issue came down to the supposition that a philanderer supposedly killed his last fling while she had her bags packed and was ready to fly out of his life and open him up for the next in line. No good reason to kill had ever existed after all...in fact, for a serial philanderer, it might have been an ideal result.

    But what happened was an enomous nothing. Noone would even cover that dramatic revelation. Despite cosiderable personal dislike for Condit, I contacted every cable and news network and asked why they avoided it and suggested it was a "big story". No luck. It wasn't the "In" thing to report. The story was "Condit guilt". Some people, I'm sure still think she was pregnant.

    As applied to the topic here, I can say I personally can change when new facts emerge and I have in the past. Getting newly emerging facts that challenge a prevailing focus through an indifferent press to the public may be tough. Maybe the public at large doesn't really want to hear them. Forems like this may represent one of the few places where people really can change.
    Last edited by Lacy Wood; 05-15-2005 at 05:50 PM. Reason: Two typos

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    2,970
    Quote Originally Posted by BlueCrab
    capps,

    Yes. My BDI theories change all the time to include newly discovered credible evidence.
    lol ... nice try BC ... but the key words in my thread was discoveries that pulled you AWAY from your THEORY.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    NSW Australia
    Posts
    9,183
    I really have no idea what happened there that night.
    I would be really suprised if a Ramsey isnt involved in this, but I dont care who gets the blame, I just want to know who did it.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    225
    If the evidence presented was solid, yes, I'd change my opinion.

    Rainsong

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Louisville
    Posts
    324
    Quote Originally Posted by Lacy Wood
    The thread asks about willingness to change views and I will mention a real case that might say something about the position of "advocates." Chandra Levy disappeared in early Summer 2001. The media and a lot of the public frenzied (until 9-11-2001 knocked it off the screen) over Congressman Condit and his perceived guilt. Who can forget CNN's Bob Franken stationed outside the Levy home to report Dr. Levy's leaving for work, returning for lunch, and driving home each day. Full time Condit attacks ruled.

    The perception of Condit's "guilt" despite an apparent alibi that included the VP had rocketed upward after a well known press conference by the Levy attorney. He had answered a question about Chandra's possibly being pregnant by saying the family knew, but were not going to reveal the answer to the public. I saw it with friends and everyone said "Oh my God, she was pregnant." That was the consensus and it "confirmed" a motive for Condit to kill the poor girl.

    But then about 8-11-01, a reporter from (I think) "Talk" magazine was on the "Today" show and revealed that Mrs Levy knew for an absolute fact that Chandra was NOT pregnant. So, the motive evaporated, and the issue came down to the supposition that a philanderer supposedly killed his last fling while she had her bags packed and was ready to fly out of his life and open him up for the next in line. No good reason to kill had ever existed after all...in fact, for a serial philanderer, it might have been an ideal result.

    But what happened was an enomous nothing. Noone would even cover that dramatic revelation. Despite cosiderable personal dislike for Condit, I contacted every cable and news network and asked why they avoided it and suggested it was a "big story". No luck. It wasn't the "In" thing to report. The story was "Condit guilt". Some people, I'm sure still think she was pregnant.

    As applied to the topic here, I can say I personally can change when new facts emerge and I have in the past. Getting newly emerging facts that challenge a prevailing focus through an indifferent press to the public may be tough. Maybe the public at large doesn't really want to hear them. Forems like this may represent one of the few places where people really can change.
    I realize this is off topic but... I recently attended a cold case conference where the Levy murder was discussed. A powerpoint presentation was given before several hundred investigators. I won't disclose the name of the expert who led the seminar but he is very well known from the Levy case and others. He said there is no way to know for sure whether Chandra was pregnant because of the condition her remains were in, and that her previous gynecology appointment was a while before she went missing. Had she taken a recent pregnancy test and got a positive result, she might not have told her friends or family yet (although she did indicate to her aunt by marriage that she had "news"). This is not to suggest she took such a test and was pregnant, only that her status died with her and there was no forensic way to prove it. The expert also said there was reason to have hope that the case might one day be solved as a federal grand jury had been hearing testimony.
    It's just my opinion.

  13. #13
    yeah i'll change my ill-thought-out theories, from one improbable theory to another. No problemo!

    it's a bizarre case and i can't imagine it being solved.

    BC, are you saying that you are so sure with regards to your BDI theories that a non-BDI theory is now out of the question for you to support, even though you may change elements of your BDI theories to account for new evidence?

    Is your evidence for BDI that strong?

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    3,486
    Quote Originally Posted by halycon
    I realize this is off topic but... I recently attended a cold case conference where the Levy murder was discussed. A powerpoint presentation was given before several hundred investigators. I won't disclose the name of the expert who led the seminar but he is very well known from the Levy case and others. He said there is no way to know for sure whether Chandra was pregnant because of the condition her remains were in, and that her previous gynecology appointment was a while before she went missing. Had she taken a recent pregnancy test and got a positive result, she might not have told her friends or family yet (although she did indicate to her aunt by marriage that she had "news"). This is not to suggest she took such a test and was pregnant, only that her status died with her and there was no forensic way to prove it. The expert also said there was reason to have hope that the case might one day be solved as a federal grand jury had been hearing testimony.
    Thanks for your comment on my earlier post. What you say is undoubtably true but yet confirms my earlier thought. Why? Because it shows "several hundred investigators" at a conference were not even aware that Chandra was at home in California 2 weeks before her disappearance and she and her mother were both having their periods simultaneously. This information came from Mrs Levy. It is a fact that was revealed at the height of the case frenzy but ignored by individuals and those of the press who wanted to downplay a factoid that eliminated motive. Her mother "knew" Chandra was not pregnant, but a bunch of experts at a conference were apparent "explaining" and rationalizing why no evidence of a fetus was found with the remains. The conference members were probably being objective, but an important detail had never reached them. (For those who want to point out that having a period doesn't absolutely rule out pregnancy or that Chandra could have lied to her Mom...That's possible, but the point is that the compelling contrary info was ignored.)

    This thread deals with ability to change views following revelations, so the Levy pregnancy issue isn't really off-topic...and being no fan of Mr. Condit, it's the only reason I introduced it.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,053
    Quote Originally Posted by capps
    lol ... nice try BC ... but the key words in my thread was discoveries that pulled you AWAY from your THEORY.

    capps,

    No one other than the killer knows for sure what happened that night. Therefore, I have a lot of theories, but they all revolve around BR. A new item of evidence may be able to pull me away from one or more of my BDI theories, but that's all.

    I'll never abandon my general BDI theory. The physical evidence, such as the fingerprints on the bowl of pineapple, and the Ramsey coverup featuring endless lies, obfuscations, and losses of memory to protect BR are compelling that BR did it or he knows who did it.

    The Ramseys would coverup such a brutal murder of their little girl ONLY to protect BR, no one else.

    BlueCrab

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2151
    Last Post: 06-19-2015, 01:36 AM
  2. Replies: 445
    Last Post: 12-19-2009, 03:00 PM
  3. Change.org announces top 10 ideas for change!!
    By believe09 in forum Up to the Minute
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-17-2009, 02:46 PM