1180 users online (246 members and 934 guests)  


Websleuths News

View Poll Results: Who owns the smoke and mirrors?

Voters
10. You may not vote on this poll
  • PR and/or JR

    9 90.00%
  • RDI

    1 10.00%

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 54
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,299

    Who owns the smoke and mirrors?

























    Crime Scene Item............... Prima Facie Contention......................... RDI Contention
    2nd ligature........................ restraining device ......................................NOT a restraining device
    ligature ............................. strangulation device ..................................NOT a strangulation device
    underwear DNA.................... evidence of an intruder ..............................NOT evidence of an intruder
    ransom note....................... extortion attempt......................................NOT an extortion attempt
    sexual injuries .....................sexual assault ..........................................NOT a sexual assault
    furrow & petechia ................strangled to death ....................................NOT strangled to death
    headbash ...........................deliberate part of murder ...........................NOT deliberate
    touch DNA .........................corroborating evidence ...............................NOT corroborating evidence
    misspelled words .................accidental misspellings ................................NOT accidental misspellings
    cord ..................................owned by intruder .....................................NOT owned by intruder
    foreign faction ....................foreign faction ..........................................NOT foreign faction
    SBTC................................. no data .................................................S aved by the cross, etc.

    PR and/or JR owns the smoke and mirrors: PR and/or JR in less than 8 hours made many of these items look like the work of an intruder

    RDI owns the smoke and mirrors: RDI over years and years has made actual criminal acts by an intruder appear to be the work of PR and/or JR.
    Last edited by Holdontoyourhat; 11-09-2009 at 02:31 AM.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    4,970
    Guess we'll never know for sure due to incompetent LE,the most stupid DA people I've ever heard about and the most selfish ignorant parents I've seen.

    I would have liked to be able to say "due to the most perfect killer in history" but....
    The rice is already cooked...

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,019
    As opposed to IDI who:

    Ignore the fact that most children are murdered by close family and relatives;
    Ignore the Ramseys' post-murder behaviour and believe the Ramsey story; that JBR was asleep when she got home (despite having been fed pineapple shortly before death and having a different hair arrangement when she was found dead than she had at the Whites' party etc ad infinitum);
    Ignore the fact that there was older damage to the child's vagina indicted by the autopsy;
    Ignore Ramsey fibres being found in criminally suggestive places or else suggest that the killer wore Patsy's and John's clothes while carrying out the crime;
    Ignore the stats that burglaries go up at Christmas generally but down on Christmas day itself while family violence escalates on that day and that is pretty much the case in the Christmas-celebrating world;
    Ignore the fact that three out of four people in that house survived the night without hearing the thundering report of a child getting her head staved in or any of the other events of the night;
    Ignore the fact that the duct tape had been used previously and had been placed on a dead or unconscious child;
    Ignore the fact that there is no evidence of JBR having struggled against restraints so she either had them placed on her when she was already dead or unconscious. Why? The job's already been done.
    Ignore the fact that the RN itself points to three separate motives for killing JBR while the sexual assault points to another;
    Ignore what an intruder would have had to do in an unknown house in complete darkness and complete silence in rather less than eight hours as opposed to what the family could do in their own home in at least eight hours (a full working day).


    And that's without skimming the surface..

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,299
    Quote Originally Posted by Sophie View Post
    As opposed to IDI who:

    Ignore the fact that most children are murdered by close family and relatives;
    Ignore the Ramseys' post-murder behaviour and believe the Ramsey story; that JBR was asleep when she got home (despite having been fed pineapple shortly before death and having a different hair arrangement when she was found dead than she had at the Whites' party etc ad infinitum);
    Ignore the fact that there was older damage to the child's vagina indicted by the autopsy;
    Ignore Ramsey fibres being found in criminally suggestive places or else suggest that the killer wore Patsy's and John's clothes while carrying out the crime;
    Ignore the stats that burglaries go up at Christmas generally but down on Christmas day itself while family violence escalates on that day and that is pretty much the case in the Christmas-celebrating world;
    Ignore the fact that three out of four people in that house survived the night without hearing the thundering report of a child getting her head staved in or any of the other events of the night;
    Ignore the fact that the duct tape had been used previously and had been placed on a dead or unconscious child;
    Ignore the fact that there is no evidence of JBR having struggled against restraints so she either had them placed on her when she was already dead or unconscious. Why? The job's already been done.
    Ignore the fact that the RN itself points to three separate motives for killing JBR while the sexual assault points to another;
    Ignore what an intruder would have had to do in an unknown house in complete darkness and complete silence in rather less than eight hours as opposed to what the family could do in their own home in at least eight hours (a full working day).


    And that's without skimming the surface..
    Well I could say that IDI is safer POV.

    RDI has gotten sued and almost gone to jail. RDI has been questioned by LE. Potential intruders have been questioned by LE. The R's have been questioned by LE.

    IDI is not required to be as contentious with prima facie. In fact, while IDI can prove some of the prima facie contentions, RDI can prove NONE of its own contentions. This should serve as a sign.
    Last edited by Holdontoyourhat; 11-08-2009 at 03:58 PM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,299
    Crime Scene Item............... Prima Facie Contention......................... RDI Contention
    foreign faction ....................foreign faction ..........................................NOT foreign faction
    SBTC................................. no data .................................................S aved by the cross, etc.

    For me, this represents a very dangerous circumstance. Prima facie believes it was a foreign faction, and doesn't know what SBTC means. Therefore, neither RDI nor IDI understands the ramifications or significance of JBR's murder. RDI will assume there is no significance or ramifications. That this is an assumption is glaringly obvious.
    Last edited by Holdontoyourhat; 11-08-2009 at 04:12 PM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    13,223
    I have to call BS on this one. Not because of the premise, which I think is worth pursuing. But because I believe it is being presented in an unfair way. It's kind of like listening to the announcing of a boxing match between Spider-Man and the Green Goblin, except that the announcer is Dr. Doom. Spidey's probably not going to get a fair shake.

    I just don't feel like the question is posed fairly. There's a lot (and I do mean a LOT) of oversimplification, and that's just one problem. Just to give some specific examples:

    -I don't know of anyone on any side who has claimed that the ligature did not strangle JB.

    -Most IDIs don't believe it was a foreign faction, and it's not like we RDIs twisted their arms to get them there.

    If it were up to me, I'd let all of this slide if the poll consisted of a third option:

    PR & JR

    RDI

    IDI

    Of course, I could take an equally cheap shot and say that "PR & JR" INCLUDES IDI because IDI are essentially lackeys of the Rs and are doing their bidding, but I won't because we all know that's not the case. So let's not dwell on that.

    Quote Originally Posted by HoldontoyourHat
    Well I could say that IDI is safer POV.
    I would actually agree with that, on a couple of different levels.

    -There's the things you mentioned (more on that in a moment), not the least of which is falling into the gunsights of the Rs and their million-dollar henchmen. I just LOVE it when someone says that the Rs aren't vindictive. Oh, no? I can think of a few people who might beg to differ on that. But I digress.

    -Your mileage may vary, but to me, there's something less upsetting about an intruder doing it than a parent doing it.

    -The whole world is your playground. You could name ANYONE and who could dispute you?

    RDI has gotten sued and almost gone to jail.
    The sued part I know about. But I'm a little vague on the "jail" part. If you mean Tom Miller, that just proves my point.

    IDI is not required to be as contentious with prima facie.
    I suppose one could make the accusation that they don't need to be because it doesn't really matter who did it as much as believing that the Rs did NOT do it. Not that I AM making that accusation, mind you. But it crops up in my mind every so often.

    In fact, while IDI can prove some of the prima facie contentions, RDI can prove NONE of its own contentions
    None? NONE? Oh, really?
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,019
    The irony is that HOTYH makes much of this stuff much more important than it need be because of the requirements of his own theory. Eg. The knots could speak to an incompetent/friendly intruder as well as to a Ramsey but he's so stuck fast on the combat-trained paramilitary type that he won't allow for them to be inadequate.

    The issue with HOTYH's theory (as opposed to general IDI) is that it will allow of no latitude in anything. Lou Smit admits that the pineapple is a problem but HOTYH claims it's RDI spin. Even the Paugh and Ramsey families saw some similarities between Patsy's handwriting and that of the RN-writer but HOTYH just won't have it. Polly Paugh wondered why John and Patsy didn't talk to police but HOTYH tells us that he would have co-operated even less. The vaginal injuries were facts, as noted in the autopsy. But they have no place in his theory so he just ignores them or treats them as spin.

    None of this is conclusive of anyone's guilt so I really don't know why HOTYH sweats such small stuff.
    Last edited by Sophie; 11-08-2009 at 05:40 PM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,299
    RDI has to admit that it goes against the face values of the crime. Most of the items of evidence are contended by RDI to be NOT what they appear. This is called SPIN. RDI has completely spun the original crime scene items into something else because the original crime scene items at face value tell a much different story.

    RDI now adds another contention to prima facie: unknown male DNA, not initially discovered but later reported by worldwide media, is contended to actually be JR + PR DNA mix. Of course there's nothing about this anywhere in the media, and nobody connected to the research can be quoted as saying PR DNA + JR DNA = CODIS DNA.

    RDI continues to be contentious with prima facie, because it HAS to be. And that should be a clue.

    There is no proof of any of RDI's contentions. There is no proof the RN is fake. There's no proof of prior abuse. Instead, there IS proof that JBR was injured THAT NIGHT.

    It is probably better to consider what there IS proof of. There IS proof JBR was strangled that night. THere IS proof she was alive at the time. That the strangler thought she was dead is CONJECTURE.

    If we consider what we have proof of, it can be extrapolated to the rest of the events. If she was strangled while alive, then the most pragmatic view is that her death was no accident. Really, RDI should come up with another scenario where JBR's death was no accident because there's proof it was no accident.
    Last edited by Holdontoyourhat; 11-08-2009 at 07:10 PM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    13,223
    Quote Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat View Post
    RDI has to admit that it goes against the face values of the crime.
    I don't know, HOTYH. There's one instance of prima facie in this case that you won't touch: the fact that JB was strangled from behind. I'll tell you what that tells ME at face value: whoever killed her couldn't bear to look her in the face. I'm very interested in that.

    Most of the items of evidence are contended by RDI to be NOT what they appear.
    That's why it's called staging. And it's not just us, either...

    RDI has spun the original appearance of the crime, in order to make the R's appear more guilty.
    The way we look at it is, we're cutting through the artificial edifice the Rs tried construct. It's not OUR fault that makes them look guilty. Also, speaking purely for myself, I don't appreciate the implication. I don't know of ANYONE on any side who WANTS the Rs to be guilty. Quite the opposite.

    There is no proof of any of RDI's contentions. There is no proof the RN is fake. There's no proof of prior abuse.
    Oh, really? How much time do you have?

    Really, RDI should come up with another scenario where JBR's death was no accident
    There are a few out there.

    because there's proof it was no accident.
    Really? Then where are the scratch marks on her neck? The bites on the inside of her mouth? The bruises from flailing around?

    RDI continues to be contentious with prima facie, because it HAS to be.
    Agreed, but in a MUCH different way than you're thinking. That's what you have to do with staged scenes. In fact, don't take my word for it. Ask Gregg McCrary:

    "You've got elaborate staging. Where else should you look?"
    Last edited by SuperDave; 11-08-2009 at 07:29 PM.
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,299
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperDave View Post
    I don't know, HOTYH. There's one instance of prima facie in this case that you won't touch: the fact that JB was strangled from behind. I'll tell you what that tells ME at face value: whoever killed her couldn't bear to look her in the face. I'm very interested in that.
    That JBR was strangled from behind doesn't make the ligature any less of a strangulation device, or make her any less alive while being strangled.

    Besides, normally ligature strangulation is from behind and not from the front, and has nothing to do with the reason you listed.

    JBR strangled from the front or back isn't really a crime scene item anyway. Its more like a conclusion based on some observations.


  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    13,223
    Quote Originally Posted by Holdontoyourhat View Post
    That JBR was strangled from behind doesn't make the ligature any less of a strangulation device, or make her any less alive while being strangled.
    I'm not saying it DOES, HOTYH.

    Besides, normally ligature strangulation is from behind and not from the front, and has nothing to do with the reason you listed.
    It's the weapon of cowards: people who can't look their victims in the eyes. Let me expand on that. Ligature strangulation has another feature that someone close to the victim would find useful. It doesn't make a mess. It adds up.

    JBR strangled from the front or back isn't really a crime scene item anyway.
    It damn well could be.

    Its more like a conclusion based on some observations.
    Isn't that a big part of profiling?
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,299
    Quote Originally Posted by Sophie View Post
    As opposed to IDI who:

    Ignore the fact that most children are murdered by close family and relatives; irrelevant
    Ignore the Ramseys' post-murder behaviour and believe the Ramsey story; that JBR was asleep when she got home (despite having been fed pineapple shortly before death and having a different hair arrangement when she was found dead than she had at the Whites' party etc ad infinitum);heresay
    Ignore the fact that there was older damage to the child's vagina indicted by the autopsy;speculation.
    Ignore Ramsey fibres being found in criminally suggestive places or else suggest that the killer wore Patsy's and John's clothes while carrying out the crime;ramsey fibers not remarkable in their house or on their daughter esp from clothes they wore that day. too many transfer paths. intruder and JBR can transfer PR and JR's fibers.
    Ignore the stats that burglaries go up at Christmas generally but down on Christmas day itself while family violence escalates on that day and that is pretty much the case in the Christmas-celebrating world;irrelevant
    Ignore the fact that three out of four people in that house survived the night without hearing the thundering report of a child getting her head staved in or any of the other events of the night;speculation.
    Ignore the fact that the duct tape had been used previously and had been placed on a dead or unconscious child;speculation.
    Ignore the fact that there is no evidence of JBR having struggled against restraints so she either had them placed on her when she was already dead or unconscious. Why? The job's already been done.speculation.
    Ignore the fact that the RN itself points to three separate motives for killing JBR while the sexual assault points to another;speculation. motive is not known.
    Ignore what an intruder would have had to do in an unknown house in complete darkness and complete silence in rather less than eight hours as opposed to what the family could do in their own home in at least eight hours (a full working day)speculation.


    And that's without skimming the surface..


    Responses in blue.

    What is presented as fact is really speculation. Maybe I should give an example of a fact and a conclusion drawn from the fact.

    Fact: JBR had petechial hemmorhaging on her neck.
    Conclusion: She was alive when strangled.

    There is proof that JBR was alive when strangled. That she was 'barely alive' is speculation.
    When we consider that JBR was alive when strangled, accidental death can be safely ruled out.
    Last edited by Holdontoyourhat; 11-08-2009 at 08:49 PM.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Ceti Alpha V
    Posts
    13,223
    Ignore the fact that most children are murdered by close family and relatives; irrelevant
    "Irrelevant," my eye!
    I'm as mad as HELL and I'm NOT gonna take it anymore!.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,299
    Quote Originally Posted by SuperDave View Post
    "Irrelevant," my eye!
    What happens somewhere else isn't relevant to what happened there. Everybody else in every house in the neighborhood could've abused their kids.

    Doesn't mean they did.
    Last edited by Holdontoyourhat; 11-08-2009 at 09:22 PM.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    Posts
    1,040
    So the tape was used and since there was perfect lips prints on it shows she didn't wear it being strangled...So the brown tan fibers could very well came from the American Doll then....
    Knowledge of time is precious.Wisdom of truth is more precious than time..Opinions I write are mine..

Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. "Smoke, Mirrors and Murder" by Ann Rule
    By oceanblueeyes in forum Past Trial Discussion Threads
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 11-06-2009, 07:42 PM
  2. Video - who owns the tape?
    By Chemaster in forum Caylee Anthony 2 years old
    Replies: 116
    Last Post: 01-15-2009, 01:09 AM
  3. neon signs and mirrors
    By RElady in forum WS-BAY!
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-20-2004, 04:56 PM