Defending the R's

[MurriFlower]

It was no surprise at all to see your comment. You don't accept evidence from LE who were investigating the case, and now you obviously feel this was a fictional interview. The National Enquirer is, well....a tabloid, but they HAVE been sued for printing lies, and they surely would have been if this had been a fictional (even in part) article.

Patsy's dead, BR, JR and JAR are silent. LW looms. Just curious, who WOULD you find credible- because the three people I just mentioned ain't talking!

I think to refer to ST as "LE" when he clearly has a pecuniary interest (via book sales) is drawing a long bow. Shall we say a 'disgrundled, former LE'.

Yes the National Enquires is a tabloid. Need I say more?

I've been interviewed by our local newspaper only to see something quite different printed to what I actually said. In fact, I now type everything up and hand it to them, so there is no excuse for getting it wrong!!

 

[DeeDee249]

I think to refer to ST as "LE" when he clearly has a pecuniary interest (via book sales) is drawing a long bow. Shall we say a 'disgrundled, former LE'.

Yes the National Enquires is a tabloid. Need I say more?

I've been interviewed by our local newspaper only to see something quite different printed to what I actually said. In fact, I now type everything up and hand it to them, so there is no excuse for getting it wrong!!

ST wrote his book after he left the case and after he left LE. Yes the NE is a tabloid. But nevertheless, the Rs did talk to them. They refused to talk to LE, and other more mainstream (the broadsheets) papers.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

KING: And you resigned because?
THOMAS: Because I felt that Patsy is involved in this death, in this tragedy, and I felt that it had become such a debacle and was going nowhere. Out of frustration, I left the case and police work.

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0005/31/lkl.00.html

Riiiiight.

I can't quite remember who, but somebody stated that ST left for health reasons. This trascript supports my view he simply gave up the fight for justice for JBR, ESPECIALLY if he believed RDI.

 

[DeeDee249]

KING: And you resigned because?
THOMAS: Because I felt that Patsy is involved in this death, in this tragedy, and I felt that it had become such a debacle and was going nowhere. Out of frustration, I left the case and police work.

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0005/31/lkl.00.html

Riiiiight.

I can't quite remember who, but somebody stated that ST left for health reasons. This trascript supports my view he simply gave up the fight for justice for JBR, ESPECIALLY if he believed RDI.

I am sure this case did take a toll on his health. I think he saw he was fighting a losing battle. He couldn't do it alone. He wasn't a DA. The prosecution had to start there.

 

[claudicici]

This thread is Defending the Rs.

You stated that they definitely lied about BR being asleep and then later "admitted" he was awake. You posted an Enquirer article, to back up this claim.
In that article they say they DIDN'T KNOW he was awake. This is not the same as they DEFINITELY LIED. It is a distortion, designed to support your case against them.

When I point out the error in what you have written, you then say they SHOULD have asked him, again implying not to do so is an indicator of guilt.

So when I asked what evidence there was against them, you cannot supply anything.

fair enough,Murry.See I started this thread because I want to believe IDI,I want to at least explore IDI but these are the R actions and statements I can't get passed.I want to hear what explanations you guys have so I may understand why people would act that way or say these things?I'm not concerned about hard evidence against the R's in this thread ,I want to understand as a human being why would another human being act that way? Only then would I be able to move on to IDI theories.Unfortunately,so far,I don't understand,not at all,why someone who is innocent would have done and said what the R's did and said.

 

[MurriFlower]

fair enough,Murry.See I started this thread because I want to believe IDI,I want to at least explore IDI but these are the R actions and statements I can't get passed.I want to hear what explanations you guys have so I may understand why people would act that way or say these things?I'm not concerned about hard evidence against the R's in this thread ,I want to understand as a human being why would another human being act that way? Only then would I be able to move on to IDI theories.Unfortunately,so far,I don't understand,not at all,why someone who is innocent would have done and said what the R's did and said.

It is not my role to try to convince anyone of anything, but merely to investigate and try to unravel the truth. There is much mis-information about this case and I cannot blame anyone for forming an incorrect opinion -- indeed I have done so myself in the past and will probably do so in future.

I think you should be concerned about hard evidence against the Rs because there is precious little, but, there is a whole lot of ineundo and not a little direct accusation of guilt.

I've said it before and will repeat it here for your benefit cici. I have no 'vested' interest in defending the Rs and was prepared to accept initially that they most likely killed/molested their daughter. However, my own investigations as well as my own opinion has led me to believe they are innocent of any involvement in her murder. This has freed me from any lingering belief that "everything they say is a lie", in fact, quite the opposite. Whilst I agree, some things seem hard to defend, I would hate for my life and behaviour to be scrutinised as closely as theirs has been. Their every movement, inflection and word, both real and imagined, criticised and examined in the light of the belief that they sexually abused (prior to the night as well as on the night), murdered their daughter and then covered up for each other.

I can't answer all your questions as to why they behaved in ways that lead you to believe they were guilty, but might be able to offer altenatives to consider. At least I can ask you to look again and see if there is another reason? That is, if you will cut them some slack?

Perhaps it's the Aussie "Defence of the Underdog" that keeps me going, or just plain old pig-headedness. It seems those of us who believe IDI are swimming against the tide continually and it can get a bit tiring at times.

 

[BBB167893]

It was no surprise at all to see your comment. You don't accept evidence from LE who were investigating the case, and now you obviously feel this was a fictional interview.

I don't know why we bother, DD.

 

[BBB167893]

KING: And you resigned because?
THOMAS: Because I felt that Patsy is involved in this death, in this tragedy, and I felt that it had become such a debacle and was going nowhere. Out of frustration, I left the case and police work.

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0005/31/lkl.00.html

Riiiiight.

Not that I would have done it, but I can't say I blame him. No sense in banging your head against a brick wall, because it might fall on you. As I told CathyR, I wouldn't have stopped there.

I can't quite remember who, but somebody stated that ST left for health reasons.

Among other reasons. And if you read his book or PMPT, they make mention of his health problems resulting from this case.

This transcript supports my view he simply gave up the fight for justice for JBR, ESPECIALLY if he believed RDI.

Answer me honestly, HOTYH: what would YOU have done in his position?

 

[BBB167893]

You want an example of a flat-out lie, Murri? I got one for you. When the Rs hired their own investigative team, they said it was to follow up leads on suspects the police weren't interested in pursuing. We KNOW that was a lie, because JR said in his deposition that the private investigators were there solely for the purpose of keeping them out of prison should charges ever be filed. (I won't go into HOW they went about doing it, but suffice to say that the head PI QUIT because of what he was being asked to do.)

How's that for a starter?

 

[MurriFlower]

You want an example of a flat-out lie, Murri? I got one for you. When the Rs hired their own investigative team, they said it was to follow up leads on suspects the police weren't interested in pursuing. We KNOW that was a lie, because JR said in his deposition that the private investigators were there solely for the purpose of keeping them out of prison should charges ever be filed. (I won't go into HOW they went about doing it, but suffice to say that the head PI QUIT because of what he was being asked to do.)

How's that for a starter?

Nice try, but he said right at the outset that his lawyer friend had called around with food that evening and had observed the way the BPD was treating them and advised him that they needed lawyers, cause the cops were trying to fit them up with the murder!

Subsequently, when it became obvious that the Rs were the sole focus and that the BPD were not interested in investigating anyone else, their team took leads and did follow up some of these as far as they were able. The private investigator did some good work (you know, the one you said was crooked?). JR in earlier days had tried to contact the BPD to pass on some of these leads, but they didn't return his calls. All the other potential suspects interviewed by BPD were asked more questions about the Rs that about their own whereabouts etc.

So, again he didn't lie, both of these things were true. The lawyers were to keep him out of jail and at the same time they did try to follow up some leads given to them by the public, but as you would be aware, without access to all the evidence, this was pretty futile. The two aims were not mutually exclusive.

 

[claudicici]

It is not my role to try to convince anyone of anything, but merely to investigate and try to unravel the truth. There is much mis-information about this case and I cannot blame anyone for forming an incorrect opinion -- indeed I have done so myself in the past and will probably do so in future.

I think you should be concerned about hard evidence against the Rs because there is precious little, but, there is a whole lot of ineundo and not a little direct accusation of guilt.

I've said it before and will repeat it here for your benefit cici. I have no 'vested' interest in defending the Rs and was prepared to accept initially that they most likely killed/molested their daughter. However, my own investigations as well as my own opinion has led me to believe they are innocent of any involvement in her murder. This has freed me from any lingering belief that "everything they say is a lie", in fact, quite the opposite. Whilst I agree, some things seem hard to defend, I would hate for my life and behaviour to be scrutinised as closely as theirs has been. Their every movement, inflection and word, both real and imagined, criticised and examined in the light of the belief that they sexually abused (prior to the night as well as on the night), murdered their daughter and then covered up for each other.

I can't answer all your questions as to why they behaved in ways that lead you to believe they were guilty, but might be able to offer altenatives to consider. At least I can ask you to look again and see if there is another reason? That is, if you will cut them some slack?

Perhaps it's the Aussie "Defence of the Underdog" that keeps me going, or just plain old pig-headedness. It seems those of us who believe IDI are swimming against the tide continually and it can get a bit tiring at times.

That's exactly what I'm looking for ,alternative thoughts of why they may have said what they said and did what they did so I may understand ,it's really,really hard for me though but I'll continue to give it a try...
of course everyone can look bad and suspicious if put under a microscope but for the most part the R's really did it to themselves.I just can't imagine going on TV and media tabloids again and again to try to defend myself if my child was murdered.The only thing they should have done in the media was to plead to the public to help find the killer.Instead they made statement after statement trying to defend themselves which just made them look more guilty IMO.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

The only thing they should have done in the media was to plead to the public to help find the killer.Instead they made statement after statement trying to defend themselves which just made them look more guilty IMO.

This is a lie, because they did plead to the public for help. They published a profile, a flyer, and a full page ad. They hired profilers who developed this profile and I can prove it. They attempted to warn the public, which is more than the police ever did. Even today, JR's remark about someone outspoked on capitalism is a vital clue to this crime, which he published.

IMO their actions have been more appropriate than than BPD, CBI, or FBI both back then and now. Fact is, JR is further ahead on this investigation than the police.

 

[madeleine]

They hired profilers who developed this profile and I can prove it.

Who?JD?Cause all the info he got for making that profile came from the R's defence attys.And all people working for them were hired to prepare JR's defence not to look for the killer

They attempted to warn the public, which is more than the police ever did.

To warn the public about what since they themselves didn't feel THREATENED.BR was sent away without protection that morning and had no guard when he went to school.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Who?JD?Cause all the info he got for making that profile came from the R's defence attys.And all people working for them were hired to prepare JR's defence not to look for the killer



To warn the public about what since they themselves didn't feel THREATENED.BR was sent away without protection that morning and had no guard when he went to school.

You're making that up. There's no way you know that they did or did not feel threatened, or that BR did or did not have protection that morning or at school. Stating as fact things you don't really know but believe you can infer. Erroneously.

The R's published flyers, made press statements, and took out full page ads that contained the profile that was developed by professionals they hired for that very purpose.

 

[madeleine]

You're making that up.

No,if someone is making this up it's the media where I read it and it's John Ramsey's deposition,so he must be making stuff up.

 

[madeleine]

http://edition.cnn.com/US/9701/31/ramsey.murder/index.html?iref=allsearch

But Douglas also conceded that all the information for his "private" investigation came from the Ramsey team.


And there was also an article about how he made statements re how brutal JB's wounds were without even seeing the autposy report .How professional is that.He wasn't hired to make an intruder profile,he was hired to claim the R's didn't do it,big difference.

 

[madeleine]

And re the team being hired to prepare JR's defence and not to search for an intruder,just check his deposition,I am done posting that part,you'll ignore it anyway.

 

[madeleine]

or that BR did or did not have protection that morning or at school

that morning?he was sent away with FW,I don't recall them asking an officer to go along.
And PR says what happened re the guard they hired,BR didn't like it and they let him go. S.Stine took over...like she could handle a SFF if necessary.............

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

http://edition.cnn.com/US/9701/31/ramsey.murder/index.html?iref=allsearch

But Douglas also conceded that all the information for his "private" investigation came from the Ramsey team.


And there was also an article about how he made statements re how brutal JB's wounds were without even seeing the autposy report .How professional is that.He wasn't hired to make an intruder profile,he was hired to claim the R's didn't do it,big difference.

This is a claim easily disproven by simply noting that the flyer was published, and had the profile on it.

Ad hominem. This is digressing rapidly.

The original post was that the R's defended themselves instead of helping to find the killer. This is false because they published more information than anybody to do just that, and employed professionals to do it. That is still the case today.

BPD was so bent on PR or JR that they never published such a profile. Now with the IDI-corroborating DNA evidence it makes them look bad.

 

[madeleine]

This is false because they published more information than anybody to do just that, and employed professionals to do it. That is still the case today.

Yes they employed professionals to defend them.And that implied coming up with stuff about an alledged intruder.It's what defence atty's and their teams do,blame it on someone else.