Would you pull a cord

[DeeDee249]

I'm lost on this.

How does a foreign entity proving by means of handwriting ownership, DNA, photos, etc., amount to 'case closed'? I mean, wouldn't that be more like 'case open'?

Is that what happens, people raise their arms and say 'case closed' and go home? I believe this is wrong. What would REALLY happen?

Hard to say. If they are providing these items and also DNA and writing samples that would imply that they are already in custody or at least in contact with LE. So when you say an SFF who satisfies all the items on your list, how do you envision them providing them?
For me- they'd make a public announcement declaring responsibility (like Karr) except at that point they would be able to say they had the items. Saying it and really having it are not the same things, so at this point unless the SFF is actually in physical contact (and not merely phone or web) with LE, there would be no way to corroborate their claims. So following it to the next step- claiming responsibility, then providing PROOF by submitting DNA and handwriting samples that are shown to be a match as well as proving possession of the items on your list and turning them over to LE. At that point, they would be arrested, indicted and hopefully convicted, unless they pled guilty.
Is there some other way you see it happening?
As far as my "case closed" comment- that was figurative, not literal. Case closed in the minds of many.
Some people (as well as some media) thought that same thing when Karr was arrested. But that quickly dissipated when all there WAS were his claims. He knew NOTHING that was not information available to anyone. Media reports that he knew things about the case that only the killer could know obviously had to be false, or they would NOT have let him go. They'd have tried to find out if his knowledge came from being there, or from someone who HAD been there. And since we never heard another word about it, and he was released, that tells me that Karr had nothing to offer other than his sick fantasies.
With Karr there were the claims, but nothing else. So though he was taken into custody it stopped there, and he was released.

 

[WHITEFANG]

So far, 37 people have voted. 34, or 91.89%, indicate they could not do what is alleged the Ramsey's did.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

So far, 37 people have voted. 34, or 91.89%, indicate they could not do what is alleged the Ramsey's did.

Yeah, what I get from this is the oft-touted claim that there's a killer in all of us--just waiting for the right circumstances--doesn't really have popular support. RDI needs these false claims and stereotypes like 'when a child is found dead in the home...' to support their weak argument.

RDI is a weak argument, as arguments go. IDI is stronger.

 

[pistolina]

Yeah, what I get from this is the oft-touted claim that there's a killer in all of us--just waiting for the right circumstances--doesn't really have popular support. RDI needs these false claims and stereotypes like 'when a child is found dead in the home...' to support their weak argument.

RDI is a weak argument, as arguments go. IDI is stronger.

So, if I understand the statement above you are saying that unless I can admit to being able to pull the cord then the Ramsey’s couldn’t do it either? Wow - I would have to disagree with that. Being RDI doesn’t not mean that I could hurt my own child even to save myself. That is totally and utterly ridiculous. But I will say when a child is found dead in the home and the parents do nothing but try to keep the truth from the cops then yes they are guilty of something.

Not that it matters but when I started reading this thread a few months ago I was IDI myself. The information provided by the posters on both sides helped me to change my views. And I will say that there are a few IDI posters that I can thank directly from turning me to the dark side of RDI.

 

[WHITEFANG]

Kind of interesting.

Most Americans think the Ramsey's are guilty.

The vast majority of those who answered this poll state they could never do what the Ramsey's did (allegedly.)

Most people believe rich, well-educated white folk are capable of committing a heinous crime like this.

At the same time, an oft' repeated assertion made on this site proclaims that most people do not believe rich, well-educated whites could do something like this.

"In 1999, Colorado Governor Bill Owens claimed the Ramseys were hiding behind their lawyers."

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

So, if I understand the statement above you are saying that unless I can admit to being able to pull the cord then the Ramsey’s couldn’t do it either? Wow - I would have to disagree with that. Being RDI doesn’t not mean that I could hurt my own child even to save myself. That is totally and utterly ridiculous. But I will say when a child is found dead in the home and the parents do nothing but try to keep the truth from the cops then yes they are guilty of something.

Not that it matters but when I started reading this thread a few months ago I was IDI myself. The information provided by the posters on both sides helped me to change my views. And I will say that there are a few IDI posters that I can thank directly from turning me to the dark side of RDI.

No, you are saying that. Instead, I said what I had said, which is what I meant:

the oft-touted claim that there's a killer in all of us--just waiting for the right circumstances--doesn't really have popular support.

Heck I didn't even say that the popular belief was right. I was merely interpreting the lopsided results of this enlightening poll, which clearly shows that even when pushed into a corner, the great majority of people would not choose voluntarily to harm a child.

Where did I say that because I couldn't do it the R's couldn't do it either? You'll have to point that out to me, otherwise you're just putting words into my mouth. I do a fine job of that all by myself, don't need your help!

 

[BBB167893]

You are judging this man's insides by his outside's appearance? "Totally flat affect..."

He was without outward expression and as such he meets the criteria for a cold-hearted, calculating killer.

*He changed profoundly between the time his other daughter died and Joni's death. Or, he was acting when he mourned over her death.

You believe this guy had no remorse and he was cold-blooded.

Say what you like, Fang. His affect bothers me. He was a wreck after Beth died, and that was an accident. His little one is supposedly murdered right under his nose on Christmas, and he's all "I just want to get on with my life?" Not buying it, man.

Quite frankly, if it was ONLY his being totally flat and emotionless, that would be one thing. The guys LAUGHS when asked about certain issues. In fact, the only time I've ever seen him get animated is when ST mentioned the sexual abuse findings, and even then, ST made no mention of HIM being responsible. My father used to tell me that a hit dog barks.

These opinions are not important, however, because of the proof that he was involved.

Now you're talking.

JFK's son Pat died shortly after his birth in 1963. JFK did not display grief in public.

Fang, you've mentioned JFK in regard to this case several times. I suggest you would be better off studying the behavior of ANOTHER Kennedy brother, Ted: drives a car off a bridge, leaves a young woman to die a horrible, slow drowning death while he gets to safety, goes home and sleeps it off, then has the unmitigated gall to present himself to the American people as a victim, even using the national grief over the deaths of John and Robert to do it.

He was living proof of the people I've been talking about here.

 

[BBB167893]

Supe,
List the reasons you believe the Rs were involved, please. WF

Already did, Fang. "Ask Super, Part 2."

 

[BBB167893]

So far, 37 people have voted. 34, or 91.89%, indicate they could not do what is alleged the Ramsey's did.

Which proves absolutely nothing, just as I've always said. None of us have ever been in the kind of position that the Rs would have been in, and most of us don't want to think about these things, much less take ourselves into those areas.

 

[BBB167893]

Yeah, what I get from this is the oft-touted claim that there's a killer in all of us--just waiting for the right circumstances--doesn't really have popular support.

What did you EXPECT, HOTYH? The fact that people don't want to admit it is what makes this thread such an exercise in self-righteous futility.

 

[cynic]

Which proves absolutely nothing, just as I've always said. None of us have ever been in the kind of position that the Rs would have been in, and most of us don't want to think about these things, much less take ourselves into those areas.

Would you eat the flesh of another human being?

When the plane carrying a Uruguayan rugby team crashed in the Andes in October 1972, the story should have ended there, but it was only just beginning. Of the 45 people on board, 12 died in the crash or shortly afterward, another five passed away the next morning from injuries, another on the eighth day, then eight in a later avalanche.
The remaining 16 struggled through extreme cold and starvation before resorting to cannibalism of those who had perished.

Would you cut your own arm off?

Amputating your arm with a blunt knife is a task the average person would find virtually inconceivable. But on May 1, 2003, it was the only option left to Aron Ralston after an 800-pound boulder fell on his arm, pinning it to a canyon wall.
After five days, the little food and water he had was gone and it was unlikely anyone would find him in the remote canyon in Utah.
In his book, Between a Rock and a Hard Place, he describes how he managed to literally break free, first using the boulder to leverage his arm until the bones snapped and then sawing away at muscle and tendon with his pocket knife. He then had to rappel down a 65-foot wall. He was walking back to his car when hikers found him.

http://survivalbound.com/intro/articles-a-news/10-8-incredible-survival-stories.html

 

[BBB167893]

So, if I understand the statement above you are saying that unless I can admit to being able to pull the cord then the Ramsey’s couldn’t do it either?

I think that was the whole point of this thread.

Wow - I would have to disagree with that. Being RDI doesn’t not mean that I could hurt my own child even to save myself. That is totally and utterly ridiculous. But I will say when a child is found dead in the home and the parents do nothing but try to keep the truth from the cops then yes they are guilty of something.

:clap:

Not that it matters but when I started reading this thread a few months ago I was IDI myself. The information provided by the posters on both sides helped me to change my views. And I will say that there are a few IDI posters that I can thank directly for turning me to the dark side of RDI.

You have only begun to discover your power, pistolina.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Would you eat the flesh of another human being?

When the plane carrying a Uruguayan rugby team crashed in the Andes in October 1972, the story should have ended there, but it was only just beginning. Of the 45 people on board, 12 died in the crash or shortly afterward, another five passed away the next morning from injuries, another on the eighth day, then eight in a later avalanche.
The remaining 16 struggled through extreme cold and starvation before resorting to cannibalism of those who had perished.

Would you cut your own arm off?

Amputating your arm with a blunt knife is a task the average person would find virtually inconceivable. But on May 1, 2003, it was the only option left to Aron Ralston after an 800-pound boulder fell on his arm, pinning it to a canyon wall.
After five days, the little food and water he had was gone and it was unlikely anyone would find him in the remote canyon in Utah.
In his book, Between a Rock and a Hard Place, he describes how he managed to literally break free, first using the boulder to leverage his arm until the bones snapped and then sawing away at muscle and tendon with his pocket knife. He then had to rappel down a 65-foot wall. He was walking back to his car when hikers found him.

[URL]http://survivalbound.com/intro/articles-a-news/10-8-incredible-survival-stories.html[/URL]

Apples and handgrenades, cynic.

PR and JR 'like everybody, backed into a corner would do anything' is a myth propagated by those who have nothing else. RDI has never shown that it was ever to JR's or PR's advantage to portray an accident as a brutal child sexual assault and murder. Staging, or staging within staging, has never been shown to be a fact. The idea of executing a young child by beheading is not precedented, and is superfluous to your claim. What you have is someone who is striving for true evil, not someone who simply wanted to appear bad enough for a day in some generic way that LE would believe.

To expand on your analogy and apply it to JBR's murder, the cannibal would be applying ketchup. Sorry, but thats a fact.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

What did you EXPECT, HOTYH? The fact that people don't want to admit it is what makes this thread such an exercise in self-righteous futility.

Uh oh. Now take it easy, SUPER-Dave...

 

[BBB167893]

Uh oh. Now take it easy, SUPER-Dave...

What would you have me do, HOTYH? I can't pretend that it doesn't bother me.

 

[pistolina]

Heck I didn't even say that the popular belief was right. I was merely interpreting the lopsided results of this enlightening poll, which clearly shows that even when pushed into a corner, the great majority of people would not choose voluntarily to harm a child.
QUOTE]

Without knowing why the cord was pulled - how would I know if I would do it? I only know that I wouldn’t do it to save myself.

But maybe I would if I was PR and I thought that:
1. Pulling the cord on a dying child would save a healthy one from knowing the truth of their actions?
2. Pulling the cord on a child who was fatally injured by a sibling, would make me the murder and not the sibling.
3. Pulling the cord would save my child from a lifetime sexual abuse?
4. Pulling the cord would be the only way to save my child from “unknown reasons” by giving them back to god? (STBC)

 

[crangel]

That is an absolutely and completely ridiculous thing to say.

If you don't already know this, and you should, the first thing you should do before talking to a police officer about ANYTHING other than a speeding ticket is invoke your right to remain silent and talk to an attorney. It doesn't matter if you are innocent and know absolutely nothing about the crime they are talking about, or guilty. Any time you have to deal with police, you do it through an attorney and say NOTHING beforehand. Why?

Watch this video (it's long, but this is something EVERYONE should see):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

If something horriable ever happened to my child I would get lawyer first thing. The reason being is because LE is always always going to look at the parents first and we have all heard and seen cases where parents who had absolutly nothing to do with their kids death or disapearence get taken to trial and locked up until they had someone fight for them. I'll even name a few cases. David and Cindi Dowaliby, all those parents that were accused of being in a santanic cult. so, I would hire a lawyer and take a poly first thing.

 

[MurriFlower]

If something horriable ever happened to my child I would get lawyer first thing. The reason being is because LE is always always going to look at the parents first and we have all heard and seen cases where parents who had absolutly nothing to do with their kids death or disapearence get taken to trial and locked up until they had someone fight for them. I'll even name a few cases. David and Cindi Dowaliby, all those parents that were accused of being in a santanic cult. so, I would hire a lawyer and take a poly first thing.

What you are talking is EXACTLY what SD proposes that the BPD should have done in this case. Throw them in jail till one confesses. When the cops didn't do it, he says the DA should have. So, what you are saying is that having a lawyer to represent you is a way to stop this from happening? Why is this please (I'm not from USA)? I'm thinking the reason may be that if a lawyer can prevent this then perhaps it is neither legal nor ethical? It certainly sounds like something that would happen in a third world country, not where rule of law,as we understand it (that is innocent until proven guilty) exists.

 

[BBB167893]

What you are talking is EXACTLY what SD proposes that the BPD should have done in this case. Throw them in jail till one confesses.

No, there's a difference between what I'm proposing and what crangel is talking about. She's talking about people who had their day in court and were given actual prison sentences whose causes were then taken up by special lawyers. I'm talking about something much different.

So, what you are saying is that having a lawyer to represent you is a way to stop this from happening? Why is this please (I'm not from USA)? I'm thinking the reason may be that if a lawyer can prevent this then perhaps it is neither legal nor ethical?

It is legal and it is ethical. And it's an absolutely standard tactic that the greenest rookie on a beat would know to do. But what you say is correct in part: there are certain things cops can do to someone who doesn't have a lawyer. Once that person says "I want a lawyer," that's it. Everything has to be done through the attorney. The suspect cannot be questioned without the lawyer present or anything.

MurriFlower, just about every cop will tell you that it is absolutely VITAL to separate the parents and question them IMMEDIATELY after something like this happens before they have a chance to lawyer up. And if they won't go willingly, then arrest them and take them in just the way I say. The reasons being: A) Their minds will be fresher; B) less time to rehearse a story; C) if they are guilty, their emotions will still be all kicked up and will be more likely to talk.

It's not just ME saying that's what the BPD should have done with the Ramseys. Lou Smit, of all people, said that if he had been on the scene that day, that's exactly what he would have done: separate them, question them at the police station, and arrest them if they wouldn't go. I don't know what else to tell you.

It certainly sounds like something that would happen in a third world country, not where rule of law,as we understand it (that is innocent until proven guilty) exists.

Yeah, that's exactly what the DA thought. Thus the problem.

 

[MurriFlower]

No, there's a difference between what I'm proposing and what crangel is talking about. She's talking about people who had their day in court and were given actual prison sentences whose causes were then taken up by special lawyers. I'm talking about something much different.

It is legal and it is ethical. And it's an absolutely standard tactic that the greenest rookie on a beat would know to do. But what you say is correct in part: there are certain things cops can do to someone who doesn't have a lawyer. Once that person says "I want a lawyer," that's it. Everything has to be done through the attorney. The suspect cannot be questioned without the lawyer present or anything.

MurriFlower, just about every cop will tell you that it is absolutely VITAL to separate the parents and question them IMMEDIATELY after something like this happens before they have a chance to lawyer up. And if they won't go willingly, then arrest them and take them in just the way I say. The reasons being: A) Their minds will be fresher; B) less time to rehearse a story; C) if they are guilty, their emotions will still be all kicked up and will be more likely to talk.

It's not just ME saying that's what the BPD should have done with the Ramseys. Lou Smit, of all people, said that if he had been on the scene that day, that's exactly what he would have done: separate them, question them at the police station, and arrest them if they wouldn't go. I don't know what else to tell you.

Yeah, that's exactly what the DA thought. Thus the problem.

Hey SD, thanks for the answer. I know that some think you are the foremost expert on this case, but I was actually looking for some input from another source.

Crangel was answering a quote from WOL that went thus:

Originally Posted by Wings Of Light View Post
That is an absolutely and completely ridiculous thing to say.

If you don't already know this, and you should, the first thing you should do before talking to a police officer about ANYTHING other than a speeding ticket is invoke your right to remain silent and talk to an attorney. It doesn't matter if you are innocent and know absolutely nothing about the crime they are talking about, or guilty. Any time you have to deal with police, you do it through an attorney and say NOTHING beforehand. Why?

and in response to the above, this was what Crangel said

If something horriable ever happened to my child I would get lawyer first thing. The reason being is because LE is always always going to look at the parents first and we have all heard and seen cases where parents who had absolutly nothing to do with their kids death or disapearence get taken to trial and locked up until they had someone fight for them. I'll even name a few cases. David and Cindi Dowaliby, all those parents that were accused of being in a santanic cult. so, I would hire a lawyer and take a poly first thing.

Please show me where Crangel said:

Quote SD: She's talking about people who had their day in court and were given actual prison sentences whose causes were then taken up by special lawyers. I'm talking about something much different.