Would you pull a cord

Would you tighten a noose around the neck of your child

  • Yes, but only to stay out of jail

    Votes: 3 2.0%
  • Yes.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes, only if I knew she was already dead.

    Votes: 4 2.7%
  • Are you out of your mind? No way.

    Votes: 143 95.3%

  • Total voters
    150
You know,I never took any of this personal.But if I think different it doesn't make me stupid only because I don't agree with certain things other are so SURE of.
If some know it all,fine with me.But it doesn't make you allmighty,it only makes you sound arrogant,especially in this case where there are so many possibilities.
So if I don't agree with you that makes me pathetic and you're sad about it,hey it's even funny that some are so dumb and don't see PR is a monster and she wrote a note,isn't it?
I know that there are idiots out there who only come and throw such lines at us without even having a theory,what makes me sad is that others who claim to be unbiased are right behind thanking these kind of idiots for their posts.
yes I started wondering whether I was wrong and whether the R's might be indeed innocent,If that makes me a sad person and even a funny one then I guess you can have this place for yourself and fill it with PR DID IT.I can go somewhere else.

I think some are just glad to have somebody, (anybody) on their side LOL. It's getting a bit lonely in RDI land.
 
Well, JR fits the first two in these ways: in his appearances, he presents a totally flat affect, as though nothing excites or bothers him. As for the "extremely violent" thing, I think Koby was trying to lay a guilt trip on the killer(s) by saying "you think what you did was all antiseptic, but this is what you did."

cold blooded person
no remorse
doing extremely violent things

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.

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

Coach Vermeil cried publicly when he spoke of his love for his players. JFK's son Pat died shortly after his birth in 1963. JFK did not display grief in public.
 
If Mother Teressa was found in compromising circumstances, if she were still alive, would what we know about her character be a factor in evaluating the "evidence" for and against her? The question, is a person's past conduct and character a legitimate issue to take into consideration in terms of his guilt or innocence in the commission of a crime?

Of course it is.
 
My point was,even the chief of police admits that it was an extremely violent person who did this.So that contradicts the accident+cover up scenario.

Ah, well that's the crux of the matter, isn't it? Indeed, that's been my argument all along. The argument should not be, "is someone capable of doing it?" but rather "did they do it?" And you are quite correct. I do base it on something. A lot of somethings.



Correct. The question of capability gets us nowhere from any angle. That's why I was against it.



I don't know about that.



Actually, I DON'T agree with that. There were a lot of things LE could have done that they didn't do. Just off the top of my head, tapping their phones and bugging their house and cars. I know that's what I would have done.


Supe,
List the reasons you believe the Rs were involved, please. WF
 
If Mother Teressa was found in compromising circumstances, if she were still alive, would what we know about her character be a factor in evaluating the "evidence" for and against her? The question, is a person's past conduct and character a legitimate issue to take into consideration in terms of his guilt or innocence in the commission of a crime?

Of course it is.

Sure, you can't help but look at a person's past when when they are accused of a crime. But not every person who committed a crime HAS a past that gives any indication of their crime. Actually in a crime like this (as opposed to abusive parents like Joel Steinberg and Hedda Nussbaum who kill their kids) there often IS no prior behavior that would be suspect. No bruised child sitting in the classroom. No child protective services involvement or domestic dispute calls. If there was any sexual abuse, it was unknown outside the parties involved.
Juries are often not told about a suspects' past anyway. But the court of public opinion is another matter.
 
Actually in a crime like this (as opposed to abusive parents like Joel Steinberg and Hedda Nussbaum who kill their kids) there often IS no prior behavior that would be suspect. No bruised child sitting in the classroom. No child protective services involvement or domestic dispute calls. If there was any sexual abuse, it was unknown outside the parties involved.

This puzzles me. Can you cite several examples "in a crime like this."
 
Sure, you can't help but look at a person's past when when they are accused of a crime. But not every person who committed a crime HAS a past that gives any indication of their crime. Actually in a crime like this (as opposed to abusive parents like Joel Steinberg and Hedda Nussbaum who kill their kids) there often IS no prior behavior that would be suspect. No bruised child sitting in the classroom. No child protective services involvement or domestic dispute calls. If there was any sexual abuse, it was unknown outside the parties involved.
Juries are often not told about a suspects' past anyway. But the court of public opinion is another matter.

Court of public opinion based on WHAT?

If there were counseling, pending divorce, criminal proceedings, etc. that would weigh heavily against them in the court of public opinion even if they were innocent of the actual murder. If some of these factors existed and JBR had an upcoming appointment, that could even suggest a motive and they would be duly damned in that court.

But none of these things existed.

There were no existing circumstances into which we could place the R's that would account for even one of the criminal acts of that night.

It is only by after-the-fact armchair experts looking for fame, notariety, or a quick buck at innocent peoples' expense that trumped up false claims of prior abuse. They used data that can be interpreted in multiple ways and chose the way that suited a preconception.

These after the fact claims are different than existing circumstances.
 
I was talking about after the crime. Before it, no one outside Boulder or Atlanta knew who they were. Hardly a fitting target for a SFF with a grudge against the US.
 
I was talking about after the crime. Before it, no one outside Boulder or Atlanta knew who they were. Hardly a fitting target for a SFF with a grudge against the US.

This makes no sense to me. What are you talking about?
 
This makes no sense to me. What are you talking about?

Well- before JB was killed, did YOU know who the Rs were? I'd never heard of JB or her family before her murder, despite her pageant wins. That's what I meant. The general public was not aware of the R or JB outside of Boulder or Atlanta, where Patsy's family (and some of JR's business) was. They were not players on the national stage. They were local "celebrities" because of their wealth and JB's pageant wins.
So the public opinion I mentioned had to be formed after her death as the case hit the news.
 
Well- before JB was killed, did YOU know who the Rs were? I'd never heard of JB or her family before her murder, despite her pageant wins. That's what I meant. The general public was not aware of the R or JB outside of Boulder or Atlanta, where Patsy's family (and some of JR's business) was. They were not players on the national stage. They were local "celebrities" because of their wealth and JB's pageant wins.
So the public opinion I mentioned had to be formed after her death as the case hit the news.

While I have admired your case knowledge, I also have read that PR entered JBR in pageants in 'several states'. I also read that JR's business (referred to in the ransom note) had foreign customers. True/True? True/False?, False/True?, or False/False?
 
While I have admired your case knowledge, I also have read that PR entered JBR in pageants in 'several states'. I also read that JR's business (referred to in the ransom note) had foreign customers. True/True? True/False?, False/True?, or False/False?

I am sure you are right on all counts BUT what I said is true as well. I had never heard of JB or her family UNTIL she was killed and I am pretty sure you did not as well. This is true for most of the country as well. Of course, people in the pageant circuit would know JB, wherever the pageants were held. And people who had business dealings with JR would know him and possibly about his daughter and his former Miss America contestant wife.
But I do not think JB or her family were NATIONALLY known OR known on even a state level until after her murder. Patsy was a Miss America contestant, but I'd never heard of her till this case, did you? Even if I watched the pageant that year, she didn't win and I doubt she would have national prominence based on that.
That's the point I am trying to make. JB and her family were NOT household names before this murder.
 
I was talking about after the crime. Before it, no one outside Boulder or Atlanta knew who they were. Hardly a fitting target for a SFF with a grudge against the US.

I am sure you are right on all counts BUT what I said is true as well. I had never heard of JB or her family UNTIL she was killed and I am pretty sure you did not as well. This is true for most of the country as well. Of course, people in the pageant circuit would know JB, wherever the pageants were held. And people who had business dealings with JR would know him and possibly about his daughter and his former Miss America contestant wife.
But I do not think JB or her family were NATIONALLY known OR known on even a state level until after her murder. Patsy was a Miss America contestant, but I'd never heard of her till this case, did you? Even if I watched the pageant that year, she didn't win and I doubt she would have national prominence based on that.
That's the point I am trying to make. JB and her family were NOT household names before this murder.

OK I think I'm getting a handle on this. You're saying that the R's weren't famous enough to be suitable targets.

But that was then and this is now.

Are they famous enough now? I mean, to be suitable targets? What if the foreign faction claimed responsibility now?
 
OK I think I'm getting a handle on this. You're saying that the R's weren't famous enough to be suitable targets.

But that was then and this is now.

Are they famous enough now? I mean, to be suitable targets? What if the foreign faction claimed responsibility now?

Well...that's not exactly what I was saying. But in a way, it is one way of looking at it. That they weren't suitable for an SFF with a problem with the US. If an SFF claimed responsibility now, it wouldn't prove their involvement without some other type of evidence linking them to the crime, like a handwriting or DNA match or (as we both discussed previously) possession of the missing piece of paintbrush, original panties, etc.
There have been cases where extremist groups (sometimes more than one at a time) have taken responsibility for things they did not do.
 
Well...that's not exactly what I was saying. But in a way, it is one way of looking at it. That they weren't suitable for an SFF with a problem with the US. If an SFF claimed responsibility now, it wouldn't prove their involvement without some other type of evidence linking them to the crime, like a handwriting or DNA match or (as we both discussed previously) possession of the missing piece of paintbrush, original panties, etc.
There have been cases where extremist groups (sometimes more than one at a time) have taken responsibility for things they did not do.


OK what if someone claimed responsibility and was able to easily prove involvement? What then?

Given all that missing evidence from the crime scene plus the handwriting that shouldn't be a problem. I'll jar your imagination a bit, with some ideas on how someone could prove responsibility almost at will:
  1. Panties (I didn't know any were missing.)
  2. Broken paintbrush
  3. Cord
  4. Tape
  5. Handwriting that matches
  6. Practice notes
  7. Blunt Instrument
  8. Photos
  9. Videos
  10. A convincing story
 
OK what if someone claimed responsibility and was able to easily prove involvement? What then?

Given all that missing evidence from the crime scene plus the handwriting that shouldn't be a problem. I'll jar your imagination a bit, with some ideas on how someone could prove responsibility almost at will:
  1. Panties (I didn't know any were missing.)
  2. Broken paintbrush
  3. Cord
  4. Tape
  5. Handwriting that matches
  6. Practice notes
  7. Blunt Instrument
  8. Photos
  9. Videos
  10. A convincing story

RDI believe that JB was wearing her own usual size (by Patsy's admission) panties in a size 6-8. Many RDI feel that Patsy bought TWO sets of the Bloomies panties on her NY shopping trip, one for JB and one for her niece. Patsy said she "couldn't recall" if she bough one set or two. Christmas that year was a Wednesday. JB was wearing panties that said "Wednesday" when she was found. If she was wearing a Wednesday pair from her own set and they were bloodied, that would be one reason why she needed to be redressed in another identical pair (of which there happened to BE such a pair- in the set bought for Jenny and wrapped in one of the gift boxes in the basement, waiting for after Patsy returned from her trips and she'd mail them late). If JB had worn her own panties that said Wednesday that day and there was any chance at all that someone at the White's may have helped her in the bathroom or seen those panties that would make it very important for her to be wearing the same ones. The fact that they were a few sizes too big wasn't thought to be important, as it was thought no one would really notice that. (wrong).
The fact that LE could find NO Bloomies Day-Of-The-Week panties was suspicious- at least there should have been Jenny's set. YEARS later the alleged remaining panties of the larger size were sent to LE.
So that's where the "missing" panties comes in. This was all discussed before, but its been a while.

As far as the rest of your list- I think it is obvious that if an SFF claimed responsibility AND was found to be in possession of the items you mentioned as well as match handwriting and DNA, the case would be closed. While many RDI consider the SFF theory to be preposterous (myself included- JR, too. He said from Day 1 "this is an inside job" - his words)- and many would still be suspicious as to whether the SFF actually WAS responsible or came into possession of the items some nefarious way. But as far as the case is concerned, and especially considering the "new" Boulder DA is pretty much the same as the "old" Boulder DA- that would be the end of the case. Game over. And that would be the case no matter who was found to be in possession of the items on the list AND match DNA/handwriting.
 
As far as the rest of your list- I think it is obvious that if an SFF claimed responsibility AND was found to be in possession of the items you mentioned, the case would be closed. While many RDI consider the SFF theory to be preposterous (myself included- JR, too. He said from Day 1 "this is an inside job" - his words)- and many would still be suspicious as to whether the SFF actually WAS responsible or came into possession of the items some nefarious way. But as far as the case is concerned, and especially considering the "new" Boulder DA is pretty much the same as the "old" Boulder DA- that would be the end of the case. Game over.

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?
 

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
188
Guests online
1,588
Total visitors
1,776

Forum statistics

Threads
589,974
Messages
17,928,574
Members
228,028
Latest member
Kac1991
Back
Top