The Trouble with RDI

[BBB167893]

And you know for sure PR didn't uncover her? You were now there, so you cannot know that unless someone witnessed it and swore to what happened.

Far as I know, the police reports did swear to it.

So...it's kind of a moot point.

That's not what I meant. There's absent-minded and then there's willfully ignorant.

So if PR was presumably standing over JB in the basement, why weren't there red fibers from her sweater on JB's body?

Excellent. That was precisely the question I was waiting for you to ask. To put it simply, James, my whole point is that the sweater did not easily shed and thus could only transfer those fibers onto those objects if those objects came into direct contact with it, which should not have been possible I should thank you. I've been trying for a while now to put that into words. You've helped me greatly.

Well books and TV shows tell us that perps leaves clues behind. Hence detective stories. So the more clues the better if they'd been watching TV.

You forget a few things. One, those shows were a bit different than they are today. Two, and more importantly, a devoted viewer would know that. I don't think the Rs were regular viewers of such fare.

Then why did they revise that opinion when John presumably saw later that the perp had wedged a chair against a door leading to the alleged basement exit point, demonstrating that the perp had to have exited that way? Couldn't they have simply maintained the key storyline? There's no reason why the perp couldn't have had a key.

James, don't think that I haven't thought about all these things. I have. And I sincerely doubt that he changed his mind at that point. The "key story" may have seemed like a good one at the time, but it was kind of limited. But the idea of a random intruder who used a less conventional means of entry and exit means that the whole WORLD is suspect! The killer could be anyone anywhere. Plus, LS was selling the window story. Their defense would sound more authoritative coming from him, so go with it. If there's one thing a good business man knows, it's that you don't go against the grain.

 

[BBB167893]

SuperDave wrote:
I think you mean if they were not "fixed."

Police fixed on R`s -> Interviewed others- not fixed -> Interviewed to eliminate -> That`s SOP -> Would interview and eliminate even if fixed on R´s guilt.

Just making sure.

SuperDave wrote:
It may well BE more complicated than that.

Tell me then, why do you think the R`s needed to be protected and how does that differ from my view- otherwise your point is lost on me. I wrote: Because they were considered suspects and might face charges.

I suppose that's a good way to say it.

(Oh, and BTW that "investigators had to focus on defending" was just me being provocative. Should be careful with that, as well as with sarcasm.)

Got it!

 

[BBB167893]

Well we'd need to be sure about that now that that claim has been made.

I suppose.

Also you say nothing of the paint tray. I can't see how these fibers got into the paint tray if they came from JB's doll.

Guess it would depend on how long the doll had been around. There's a website devoted to that subject. I'll see if I can find it. Even if you don't agree with it, it's worth a read, I think.

I don't think you can draw much of a conclusion from that one way or the other. Even if the Rs had spent all day and every day looking for the killer (which was not their job, by the way), someone would have said: "They were just trying to protect themselves."

Make no mistake, James. It's one thing for what you describe to happen. It's another thing altogether to try and sabotage a potential witness. I've talked about that before.

Again, I don't see what that proves.

It proves, James, that JR's rhetoric about his devotion to JB doesn't match the reality. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Again, I see nothing in that to prove anything one way or othe other, except that you seem to have it in for JR.

I went a little overboard there. I'm sorry.

With people like you around convinced of their guilt even though there is no smoking gun? ;-) Of course they needed protection.

Don't confuse the issue, James. For a long time, I was as much in their corner as anyone could be. As for smoking guns, the best thing that ever happened to me was when I realized how many murders are solved without them. Sometimes a little prosecutorial skill can overcome a lot.

The first thing I'd do if I had money and was innocent is hire a lawyer for my family's protection. Is that so hard to understand?

Of course it isn't. But that's not what I was trying to say. My point was that hiring a lawyer can be self-defeating in some ways.

And have you ever thought that if a lawyer can establish their innocence, then people might start to believe that there really is a perp out there after all?

Well, that was kind of my point, James. A lawyer's job isn't to establish innocence. Indeed, it's been said that defense attorneys hate innocent clients.

So I see excellent reasons why they needed to hire lawyers, whether they were guilty or not, and personally I would regard them as complete and utter fools if they were innocent and hadn't.
The legal world is a mine-field. Even if you are innocent, you can inadvertently incriminate yourself.

Indeed.

 

[James50]

I suppose.Indeed.

I have great respect for you SD. I think you're one of the coolest people I know. I do feel that you have this wrong about the R's, but I admire you for the fact that you're a very thorough sleuther and you've certainly done your homework, even if you're mistaken in this case, and let me very quickly add that although I would still be surprised, you may very well be right about RDI. It is, after all, a very trying case.

 

[DeeDee249]

I have great respect for you SD. I think you're one of the coolest people I know. I do feel that you have this wrong about the R's, but I admire you for the fact that you're a very thorough sleuther and you've certainly done your homework, even if you're mistaken in this case, and let me very quickly add that although I would still be surprised, you may very well be right about RDI. It is, after all, a very trying case.

James, I think we would ALL be thrilled if this case were solved and the parents were completely cleared. NOT "token" cleared, as with Lacy, but to have this awful crime proven to have been committed by a KNOWN intruder would make all of us, RDI as well, very happy.
I know I will be the first one to say "I am glad I was wrong".

 

[BBB167893]

I have great respect for you SD. I think you're one of the coolest people I know. I do feel that you have this wrong about the R's, but I admire you for the fact that you're a very thorough sleuther and you've certainly done your homework, even if you're mistaken in this case, and let me very quickly add that although I would still be surprised, you may very well be right about RDI. It is, after all, a very trying case.

You flatter me, James. I would extend the same courtesy.

Moreover, DeeDee has it right: this is one instance where I'd LOVE to be wrong.