Would you pull a cord

Wings Of Light said:

It's very clear what you thought. You stated that they were trying to call in political favors to put him on trial, and put him in jail.

Click to expand...

Well, to be perfectly accurate, that's what Miller has said.

They were talking about an extremely normal process that happens at every trial. I.e. Jail is not involved.

Click to expand...

I understand that. My point is they were hoping to get a conviction so they could use it against him in court if he were called to testify. You talked earlier about the importance of keeping innocent people out of prison. Well?

Wild accusations, very faulty information used to make them. You are sensationalizing something that didn't happen.

Click to expand...

Which part didn't happen?

It doesn't matter how long you've been at this.

Click to expand...

Experience, WOL. A lot of people around here appreciate me for that.

So now you've taken them talking about a technique taught in every law school anywhere, and used in thousands of courts everyday by virtually all lawyers... and transformed it into them "dirtying him up" themselves? I suppose you mean by finding dirt on him?

Click to expand...

Not exactly. They couldn't FIND dirt on him, so they tried to make some.

Whoever is asking the question here, is accusing him of what you are accusing him of. When he says "Go check him out," he's talking about personally, to find "dirt".

Click to expand...

I figured that. The person asking the question is Miller's lawyer. And he had already cross-examined Lee Foreman who said that they were "eager" to see Miller prosecuted. So yes, context is important.

The PI corrects him. He essentially says "No, that was not the purpose. The purpose was to develop information to be used in impeachment."

I.e. information that was relevant to the case and that could be used to impeach him during cross examination. Not information on him personally or to ruin his personal credibility.

Click to expand...

You're not seeing the bigger picture. The PIs were just part of the effort. When they couldn't find anything, Haddon turned to other means.

I don't care about your post count or how long you've been here. You've made huge mistakes in your interpretation and perception of what happened.

Click to expand...

Excuse me, but have you read the trial transcript? Are you aware of the plea bargain they tried to give this man or what the terms of it were? Or how the case went from "nothing here" to "gung ho?"

What are you making a big deal about? Nobody with any reasonable amount of knowledge of how criminal cases work would ever believe that private investigators would find the killers.

Click to expand...

The big deal is that I don't think they were hoping that people with knowledge of criminal cases would believe it, but rather regular people like myself.

Not only that, but without having seen the statements you are talking about, I can only assume you've made wild conclusions on faulty assumptions like you did previously.

Click to expand...

Ask around, WOL. I'm not known for doing either.

You do need some experience with the law to look at documents that use legal terminology that you don't understand and draw conclusions from them.

Click to expand...

I understand the difference between honest and dishonest. It's served me well up to now.

SuperDave said:

I don't see how they had a lot of options. That's where I'm coming from.

Click to expand...

Call 911 if it was an accident.
Remove the body from the house (they had money,a plane and friends).
Write the RN and that's it.Kidnapping gone wrong.Why bother complicate it so much?
Let her RIP.If it was an accident it's sick to mess with her body only to cover your @ss.A NORMAL person wouldn't do it but in order to get that you have to really think about it and put yourself in their shoes,I guess that's what this thread is all about.

Yep I said it before,I can understand it IF it was meant to cover up worse things like prior sexually abuse or other neck injuries.But so far I've seen NO evidence of prior sexually abuse or other forms of abuse that implicate violence.

SuperDave said:

Well, to be perfectly accurate, that's what Miller has said.

Click to expand...

Really, because you haven't produced a statement from him that said anything about putting anyone on trial or trying to send them to jail.

I understand that. My point is they were hoping to get a conviction so they could use it against him in court if he were called to testify. You talked earlier about the importance of keeping innocent people out of prison. Well?

Click to expand...

What in God's name are you talking about? What do you mean they were hoping to get a conviction? Do you not understand that impeachment has nothing to do with trial or convictions?

Which part didn't happen?

Click to expand...

He never said he was trying to send anyone to jail or put them on trial.

Experience, WOL. A lot of people around here appreciate me for that.

Click to expand...

You clearly lack experience. Experience researching stuff on the internet? Perhaps. But your lack of actual legal experience is obviously affecting your ability to understand what is happening in these transcripts.

Not exactly. They couldn't FIND dirt on him, so they tried to make some.

Click to expand...

What are you talking about they tried to make some?

He stated that he was looking for information to help impeach his testimony during cross examination.

Let me make this clear. The impeachment you are talking about, the one that can end in jail, ONLY applies to elected officials. You are just hurting your argument by assuming you are right on that.

I figured that. The person asking the question is Miller's lawyer. And he had already cross-examined Lee Foreman who said that they were "eager" to see Miller prosecuted. So yes, context is important.

Click to expand...

If that was his lawyer than the original statement I quoted was in reference to something the plaintiffs lawyer was accusing him of. I suspect that the "Go check him out" part was a statement made by someone on plaintiffs side, and this was him addressing it.

You're not seeing the bigger picture. The PIs were just part of the effort. When they couldn't find anything, Haddon turned to other means.

Click to expand...

They weren't trying to find anything. As they said, they were looking for information to impeach his testimony. This happens in EVERY SINGLE TRIAL.

Excuse me, but have you read the trial transcript? Are you aware of the plea bargain they tried to give this man or what the terms of it were? Or how the case went from "nothing here" to "gung ho?"

Click to expand...

Link me to it...

The big deal is that I don't think they were hoping that people with knowledge of criminal cases would believe it, but rather regular people like myself.

Click to expand...

Why do they care that people like yourself believe what they want you to believe. You are not important, the public is not important. They are concerned about what happens in the courtroom.

Ask around, WOL. I'm not known for doing either.

Click to expand...

You've done both just in this thread. I'm guessing that you haven't been corrected on that before. I'm guessing that other's on the forum didn't understand it either.

I understand the difference between honest and dishonest. It's served me well up to now.

Click to expand...

Given this quote... It makes complete sense why you fail to understand what is happening in these transcripts.

madeleine said:

It's so easy to say well you are good,you wouldn't do that,I am good,I wouldn't do that but there are people who would.It's not that simple.

Click to expand...

:clap:

This is very unpleasant but why not bash her head one more time and get it over it.

Click to expand...

Because they couldn't be sure it would be clear enough. Don't forget: in order to do this cover up, they not only had to create a crime, they had to create a criminal to go with it.

It's not only the MO that botheres me (strangulation) but the one who did it obviously took her/his time with it.Broke the paintbrush in pieces,made the knots.Sounds more like something that person enjoyed doing.

Click to expand...

From a purely intellectual standpoint, I don't see how one leads to the other.

Call 911 if it was an accident.

Click to expand...

madeleine, that's my point: calling 911 was out of the question. Not only would it not do any good, but if they found her vaginal injuries, it's game over.

Remove the body from the house (they had money,a plane and friends).

Click to expand...

How? Going out with the car risked being spotted. Putting her on the plane meant diverting away from their family members who were waiting for them in Michigan. They'd wonder where they were. And then, when it turns out JB's gone, they'll get even more hinky.

Write the RN and that's it.Kidnapping gone wrong.Why bother complicate it so much?

Click to expand...

1) Because we're talking about amateurs who don't know how much is too much and how much is not enough.

2) Because that was PR's personality: everything over-the-top. That's not just my opinion, either. Mike Kane, the specialist, said that the overdone nature of the staging fit PR's theatrical nature. I quote: "it was a very theatrical production, and Patsy's a very theatrical person."

Let her RIP.If it was an accident it's sick to mess with her body only to cover your @ss.

Click to expand...

1) The FBI said that the RN was a way to "undo" the crime in the killer's mind. As in, "I didn't do it. The BAD person did it."

2) Maybe that's why that grand funeral was so important: it gave them a chance to "undo" the degradation and remember her as the angel she was.

A NORMAL person wouldn't do it

Click to expand...

Whose definition of "normal" are we using here?

but in order to get that you have to really think about it and put yourself in their shoes, I guess that's what this thread is all about.

Click to expand...

You think so? I agree, this thread could be useful for that purpose, if that was the intent of creating it. But so far, I'm not seeing it. It's so EASY to say "never" and "no way" and "not me." But what purpose does that serve?

madeleine, at no point am I trying to be a smart-*advertiser censored** or condescending or anything of the kind. You know that's not how I do business. But like you said: you have to really think about it. And I have. I've asked myself these very questions many times in the past.

SuperDave said:

Don't forget: in order to do this cover up, they not only had to create a crime, they had to create a criminal to go with it.




1) Because we're talking about amateurs who don't know how much is too much and how much is not enough.

Click to expand...

It's kinda contradicting IMO.And there's no evidence that supports any of this.

Wings Of Light said:

Really, because you haven't produced a statement from him that said anything about putting anyone on trial or trying to send them to jail.

Click to expand...

It's in the foreword to "Salute to American Justice."

What in God's name are you talking about? What do you mean they were hoping to get a conviction? Do you not understand that impeachment has nothing to do with trial or convictions?

Click to expand...

Don't you get it? If he had gotten convicted, can you imagine the field day the Rs' defense attorneys would have with him if he were called to tesitify?

He never said he was trying to send anyone to jail or put them on trial.

Click to expand...

Williams, you mean? I never said he said that. I'm talking about Haddon and Foreman.

You clearly lack experience. Experience researching stuff on the internet? Perhaps. But your lack of actual legal experience is obviously affecting your ability to understand what is happening in these transcripts.

Click to expand...

My researching abilities are held in some regard. I never claimed to be a Junior Clarence Darrow.

What are you talking about they tried to make some?

Click to expand...

Just what I said. Haddon wanted some dirt on Miller. When the PIs couldn't find it, he called in a favor to his friend Dave Thomas to have the man charged with a crime. "Commercial bribery" was it.

He stated that he was looking for information to help impeach his testimony during cross examination.

Click to expand...

I know what Williams said. It's the big picture I'm looking at.

Let me make this clear. The impeachment you are talking about, the one that can end in jail, ONLY applies to elected officials. You are just hurting your argument by assuming you are right on that.

Click to expand...

No, no. I'm not now, not have I ever said, that impeachment at trial will land you in jail. I'm saying they wanted him to go to jail so they could use his conviction as impeachment material if he were called to testify against PR later. I'm sorry for the mix-up.

If that was his lawyer than the original statement I quoted was in reference to something the plaintiffs lawyer was accusing him of. I suspect that the "Go check him out" part was a statement made by someone on plaintiffs side, and this was him addressing it.

Click to expand...

First of all, this was not a civil case. The other side was the prosecutor. And the prosecutor was not accusing Williams of this, the defense was. And as Williams himself said, the "go check him out" part was an order from Hal Haddon.

They weren't trying to find anything. As they said, they were looking for information to impeach his testimony. This happens in EVERY SINGLE TRIAL.

Click to expand...

They weren't trying to impeach his testimony in his OWN trial. They were trying find something to impeach him if he were ever called as a witness against PR.

Link me to it...

Click to expand...

I'll have to find it again.

Why do they care that people like yourself believe what they want you to believe.

Click to expand...

Why indeed? Even Ellis Armistead was concerned about their need for public approval. Actually, I can think of a reason beyond simple egomania: because people like me make up a jury.

You are not important, the public is not important. They are concerned about what happens in the courtroom.

Click to expand...

Last I knew, the public made up juries.

You've done both just in this thread. I'm guessing that you haven't been corrected on that before. I'm guessing that other's on the forum didn't understand it either.

Click to expand...

Some of them won't touch it, WOL. They understand the implications too well.

Given this quote... It makes complete sense why you fail to understand what is happening in these transcripts.

Click to expand...

I might take it into my head to get offended by that.

SuperDave said:

:
Whose definition of "normal" are we using here?

Click to expand...

Dunno,am I the only person thinking that a normal person( no criminal records,no history of abuse or violence or mental illness) wouldn't think of making a garrote in order to strangle a child so that LE looks elsewhere?Or that a normal person wouldn't think of sexually assault a dead child's body only to cover up an accident?

SuperDave said:

You think so? I agree, this thread could be useful for that purpose, if that was the intent of creating it. But so far, I'm not seeing it. It's so EASY to say "never" and "no way" and "not me." But what purpose does that serve?

madeleine, at no point am I trying to be a smart-*advertiser censored** or condescending or anything of the kind. You know that's not how I do business. But like you said: you have to really think about it. And I have. I've asked myself these very questions many times in the past.

Click to expand...

My point is I guess that people like us with no criminal record,no history of violence or mental illness wouldn't think of creating such a scene by messing with their dead child's body.This wouldn't be your first thought trust me,to make a garrote using YOUR OWN paintbrush you usually use to create ART with or digitally penetrate your 6 years old vagina!GEEZ!!!

I haven't killed anyone so I don't know what I'd do if I did. I hope I'd do the right think and own up to it.

I have been with several family members when they took their final breath, including my own son, and each time, I treated the deceased with love and care, and insisted the people moving them take care not to "hurt" them. Not only that, I made the funeral home dress my son the way he liked being dressed, including his underwear and socks. I warned them I'd be checking so they needed to be sure they dressed him properly. Yes, I made sure he had on his underwear and socks before they closed that coffin for the viewing.

I couldn't imagine pulling a rope around my child's neck just to save my skin. There's one thing about PRamsey. JonBenet was paraded in front of thousands of people, dressed in clothing inappropriate for a young child, and painted with heavy makeup, so it wouldn't surprise me if Patsy could wrap a rope around her. How could a loving mother do that to her young daughter? IMO, it was child abuse.

So THIS is why LE shouts accident??Because they can't prove history of violence or prior abuse and they know that without being able to prove all this they have no case?You have no case ops but this was an accident that's why we got nothing,all the non sense has an explanation because it was an accident.It doesn't look like an accident though ops then it was staging.

Sorry,don't think so.

SuperDave said:

From a purely intellectual standpoint, I don't see how one leads to the other.

Click to expand...

It does IMO.It would be easy for a criminal to do it.Or if revenge is on your mind and hate is all you feel.But for a parent?It's like killing her twice.And the second time you took the time to make that garrote.Just imagine,holding that cord,making the nods,breaking the brush,KNOWING that you're doing this in order to strangle your baby.


NAH.Doesn't work.

SuperDave said:

Don't forget: in order to do this cover up, they not only had to create a crime, they had to create a criminal to go with it.

1) Because we're talking about amateurs who don't know how much is too much and how much is not enough.

Click to expand...

madeleine said:

It's kinda contradicting IMO.

Click to expand...

Well, madeleine, you know I respect your opinion. But I don't see how they contradict at all. Frankly, I find them to be mutually reinforcing: they had to create a WHAT, then they had to show WHO, WHY and HOW. But they didn't know how a real criminal operates, so they went with their best guess. Gregg McCrary said this a long time ago, so it's not like I'm out in left field here.

And there's no evidence that supports any of this.

Click to expand...

Really? There's quite a bit as I see it. The CASKU profilers said this stuff long before I did, so it's not like I'm just pulling this out of thin air.

Dunno, am I the only person thinking that a normal person (no criminal records, no history of abuse or violence or mental illness) wouldn't think of making a garrote in order to strangle a child so that LE looks elsewhere? Or that a normal person wouldn't think of sexually assault a dead child's body only to cover up an accident?

Click to expand...

No, you're probably not. It just strikes me as a faulty idea. I myself am often shocked by what seemingly "normal" people are capable of. Evil wears many masks. None is as dangerous as the mask of virtue.

SuperDave said:

Well, madeleine, you know I respect your opinion. But I don't see how they contradict at all. Frankly, I find them to be mutually reinforcing: they had to create a WHAT, then they had to show WHO, WHY and HOW. But they didn't know how a real criminal operates, so they went with their best guess. Gregg McCrary said this a long time ago, so it's not like I'm out in left field here.

Really? There's quite a bit as I see it. The CASKU profilers said this stuff long before I did, so it's not like I'm just pulling this out of thin air.

No, you're probably not. It just strikes me as a faulty idea. I myself am often shocked by what seemingly "normal" people are capable of. Evil wears many masks. None is as dangerous as the mask of virtue.

Click to expand...

SD, I know you SAY you respect other's opinions, but you are constantly 'speaking down' to others as if your perspective is somehow validated by the length of time you have been on this forum. If an idea is faulty, it doesn't matter how long or how frequently you have espoused it, it remains faulty. Madeline doesn't think RDI fits with her opinions any longer. I don't understand the reason you feel that you have to continually justify RDI and try to 'turn' someone else's opinion to your own way of thinking. All you seem to be doing at times on this forum is interfering with the flow of the conversation that's aimed at solving this mystery.

madeleine said:

My point is I guess that people like us with no criminal record,no history of violence or mental illness wouldn't think of creating such a scene by messing with their dead child's body.This wouldn't be your first thought trust me,to make a garrote using YOUR OWN paintbrush you usually use to create ART with or digitally penetrate your 6 years old vagina!GEEZ!!!

Click to expand...

madeleine, don't get your irish up with me. How do you know what my first thought would or wouldn't be when I don't even know?

You're giving yourself away: "people like us?" Just what kind of people are we? There are monsters living within each and every person on this planet. Many of us successfully fight them off our whole lives; a few let them rule their lives. And the unlucky have them burst free despite their best efforts.

Because they can't prove history of violence or prior abuse and they know that without being able to prove all this they have no case?

Click to expand...

Quite frankly, madeleine, if you need those things to make a case, that speaks more of people's prejudices than anything else. The same prejudices I'm seeing and pointing out on this thread right here and now.

to the questioned asked,
the answer is no way could i do something like that to one of my kids.
and to be honest theres no reason i could think of that would make me do something like that to cover for anyone else.

But is it possible that someone else could of course it is there are people who would do anything to cover the guilt they feel.

I find it hard to believe that if there was an accident with one parent that the other parent would help cover it up but there are alot of people who will react differently to a given situation, and the problem with this case is there are many things that could point to RDI and many to IDI.

Can I say something else? I don't understand the point of this thread. To me, it doesn't make much sense to ask US what WE would do, since we've never had to deal with a situation like this.

Click to expand...

We can use our imaginations, our own sense of what is and isn't possible for us. And the question isn't asked of "US" or "WE" per se. It is a question for anyone who would care to think about it. I think it is a perfectly acceptable question.

SuperDave said:

madeleine, don't get your irish up with me. How do you know what my first thought would or wouldn't be when I don't even know?

Click to expand...

Fine,than I guess MY thoughts wouldn't be as sick as you think the R's were.DUNNO about you.

You're giving yourself away: "people like us?" Just what kind of people are we? There are monsters living within each and every person on this planet. Many of us successfully fight them off our whole lives; a few let them rule their lives. And the unlucky have them burst free despite their best efforts.

Click to expand...

Yes people like ME if you don't like the "us" with no criminal record,no history of violence or mental illness.And I know perfectly what people are capable of and I know about dark sides but whenever it comes to this you are talking in general ,I am talking about THESE people cause they are the players in this crime.Why is it that you think THESE people are so EVIL and chose to do such horrible things to their daughters body?Where;s the evidence that supports that they ARE such people?Oh they COULD be because look how many are??

SuperDave said:

Quite frankly, madeleine, if you need those things to make a case, that speaks more of people's prejudices than anything else. The same prejudices I'm seeing and pointing out on this thread right here and now.

Click to expand...

That's not what I meant.I was wondering who started this accident scenario and why,based on what.And what I said was one of the possible explanations.LE needed to explain somehow why a parent would do such horrible things because it makes no sense.They didn't find a motive.So their explanation for this crime being so brutal and sick was "accident followed by cover-up".Because they couldn't push the parents did it theory otherwise.

But is it possible that someone else could of course it is there are people who would do anything to cover the guilt they feel.

I find it hard to believe that if there was an accident with one parent that the other parent would help cover it up but there are alot of people who will react differently to a given situation, and the problem with this case is there are many things that could point to RDI and many to IDI. slug

Click to expand...

And Supe has made it an important topic for discussion, and rightfully so; that is, who among us is capable of this kind of behavior given similar circumstances? Maybe more of us than we'd like to think?