The Trouble with RDI

[James50]

Hi James50,

certain types of cancer, like ovarian stage five, there is no victory, only percentages; survival rates witin a specific time period .... if you have that type of cancer ..... the battle's against time, you may win a battle but not the war.

Yeah, there's that too, too right Tadpole.

 

[Roy23]

Also, SD, it all depends on what sort of crime was being commited. If it was a kidnapping, sure it looked like an amateur did it, but if it was an intruder murder dressed up as a kidnapping, JB's head bashed in then her throat garotted to make sure she was dead, then it was a professional enough job.

That is actually an excellent point. Well done.

 

[BBB167893]

Whatever she admitted, she couldn't have known for sure. If what you mean is that she knew she was with JB in the basement, which is why she admitted they were hers, but gave a dubious explantion as to how they got there, I would appreciate it if I could have your exact source, as I seem to remember seeing something like that somewhere but can't remember it now.

Okay, here goes. On a broadcast of the show "48 Hours" dated October 4th, 2002, the Rs were interviewed. One segment involved the questioning they sat through in the summer of 2000 with representatives from the DA's office. At the time of the questioning, PR had no explanation for why her fibers would be in those places (her reaction had to be seen to be believed). But on the show, she claimed that her fibers were there because of when she threw herself on JB's body after she was brought up from the basement. "I had my whole body on her body" she said. Problem is, that doesn't wash with what JR wrote in Death of Innocence In it, he claims (and this is apparently borne out by other sources) that JB's body was already covered from head to foot, literally.

I know, but she was also absent-minded, don't forget [no pun intended ;-)].

I'm well aware. But there's absent-minded and then there's absent-minded, you know?

Her body was cleaned up, remember?

Her vaginal area was cleaned up. And even then it was wiped down. I'm pretty sure nobody took the time to vacuum JB's clothes.

Then they are inexperienced at dealing with people who do B&E.

Highly doubtful.

If RDI then why didn't they make it more obvous as to how the perp got out of the house?

My answer to that is two-fold:

1) Because they thought it would look better if the "intruder" looked like someone who was so good, he didn't leave anything solid behind. After all, we're talking about people who had no idea how real criminals act and were just going by books and TV shows. (That's not just my opinion, either.)

2) Doesn't it strike you as a bit odd that the first people they pointed to were people who had keys? (Hint hint)

 

[BBB167893]

Also, SD, it all depends on what sort of crime was being commited.

My sentiments exactly.

If it was a kidnapping, sure it looked like an amateur did it, but if it was an intruder murder dressed up as a kidnapping, JB's head bashed in then her throat garotted to make sure she was dead, then it was a professional enough job.

Sounds like the "Battle of Wits" in The Princess Bride to me.

 

[Ravyn]

The Ramsey's made themselves look guilty...Every time they open their mouths to newpapers and TV stations.and we can't forget their book ...But it's funny with the LE I don't remember or I don't recall...Now still what makes anyone here thinks the R's was so high up that a professional would target JB and you will noticed I didn't say JR like the RN says cause what did JB do to have a professional hit done and what not marked JR or PR ...And the fibers that you mention except the rope and duct tape have been sourced...

 

[Mysteeri]

Great, is there some way to know for a fact that the light brown fibers were sourced? And were they found on the paint tray and ligature? AND were the black fibers sourced to JR`s shirt or not?

Seems to me that JR was honest about those investigators. it`s unfortunate that they had to focus on the R´s defense at least before the GJ decision, since the police was fixed on RDI.

 

[Ravyn]

Now two days after JonBenet got killed her dear parents had lawyers now in this time Aunt Pam went to the house and took a heck alot of stuff and she filled a patrol car full mind you...And the DA said treat the Ramsey's as victims and LE did just that and besides ST came into this case 3 days after the murder and tell me how the was targeted after two days.....And about being honest about the investigators hired for HIS defense now how long did he know this and why if this is the case they all made it sound like they were following leads on the killing...

 

[BBB167893]

Great, is there some way to know for a fact that the light brown fibers were sourced? And were they found on the paint tray and ligature?

I guess it comes down to who you trust more.

AND were the black fibers sourced to JR`s shirt or not?

I'd say so.

Seems to me that JR was honest about those investigators.

He wa? Initially, he claimed that they were following up on leads that the police weren't. Turns out he knew from Day One that they weren't, that they had been hired purely to undermine any case against them the police and DA might make. And as we now know, those investigators resorted to some pretty dirty tricks to do it. Remember Tom Miller? I'm not done talking about that.

it`s unfortunate that they had to focus on the R´s defense at least before the GJ decision, since the police was fixed on RDI.

1) The investigators were operating within a week. The cops couldn't have "fixed" on them that quickly.

2) The police were interviewing suspects as far away as North Carolina. Jeff Merrick said on the radio that, and I quote, "the cops were so fixated on the Ramseys that they interviewed me three times." Doesn't sound fixed to me.

3) Most importantly, the investigators didn't "have" to do anything. They did it because they were told to by the lawyers. Mysteeri, I'm not trying to come down on you. I like you. But I don't think you fully understand the subtleties of the American legal system. Well, there's a popular saying in legal circles that sums it up:

"Even if you're NOT guilty, a lawyer will defend you like you are guilty."

 

[Ravyn]

Whichever way you look at it, SD, there's not enough so far to make RDI stick, or you can be sure that at least one of the Rs would have gone on trial by now.

IDI don't have enough to stick either..And with lawyers and a DA how could it went to trial...Just my opinion....

 

[Mysteeri]

SuperDave wrote:
I guess it comes down to who you trust more.

It seems that some think the light brown fibers might have come from an American Girl Doll. Those fibers were found on the ligature and paintbrush too, which makes me wonder how they got there.

SuperDave wrote:
He wa? Initially, he claimed that they were following up on leads that the police weren't. Turns out he knew from Day One that they weren't, that they had been hired purely to undermine any case against them the police and DA might make. And as we now know, those investigators resorted to some pretty dirty tricks to do it. Remember Tom Miller? I'm not done talking about that.

I mean that he was probably honest when he said that the investigators were hired to protect them- that´s a statement that "makes him look bad" as we can see here. It would have been better for him to say that they hired them only to find JB´s killer and follow up leads that the police ignored. I`m not sure though, that the investigators only purpose was to protect them or that protecting them didn`t include following evidence that leads to the real killer. And I´m not sure the R´s knew from the beginning that the investigators only job was to protect them, since the lawyers seemed to take care of things for the R`s. I´d like to ask JR himself. I have not yet looked closely to the issue about Tom Miller.

SuperDave wrote:
1) The investigators were operating within a week. The cops couldn't have "fixed" on them that quickly.

Really? Well, perhaps not "fixed".

SuperDave wrote:
2) The police were interviewing suspects as far away as North Carolina. Jeff Merrick said on the radio that, and I quote, "the cops were so fixated on the Ramseys that they interviewed me three times." Doesn't sound fixed to me.

Perhaps fixed to eliminate suspects: "Your just one of several suspects that need to be eliminated, Thomas told him (Bud Henderson)". PMPT.

SuperDave wrote:
3) Most importantly, the investigators didn't "have" to do anything. They did it because they were told to by the lawyers. Mysteeri, I'm not trying to come down on you. I like you. But I don't think you fully understand the subtleties of the American legal system.

Certainly I don`t fully understand the subleties of the American legal system, but I`m not sure what you think I meant here. The investigators were hired by the lawyers to protect the Ramseys because they needed to be protected.

SuperDave wrote:
Well, there's a popular saying in legal circles that sums it up:

"Even if you're NOT guilty, a lawyer will defend you like you are guilty."

Yeah, that´s why I don`t make judgements about someone´s guilt based on lawyers protecting them. Or am I missing something here?

 

[madeleine]

It seems that some think the light brown fibers might have come from an American Girl Doll. Those fibers were found on the ligature and paintbrush too, which makes me wonder how they got there.

Red fibers,from PR's jacket.

Certainly I don`t fully understand the subleties of the American legal system, but I`m not sure what you think I meant here. The investigators were hired by the lawyers to protect the Ramseys because they needed to be protected.

They needed to be protected......why is it always that LE is the bad bad bad wolf in this case and the R's are the innocent lambs.Sigh.....

Yeah, that´s why I don`t make judgements about someone´s guilt based on lawyers protecting them. Or am I missing something here?

No one is saying they're guilty because they hired lawyers.That was a normal thing to do.There are many other things we're having a problem with when it comes to their spin team.

 

[Mysteeri]

Madeline wrote:
Red fibers,from PR's jacket.

And also light brown fibers, it seems.

Madeline wrote:
They needed to be protected......why is it always that LE is the bad bad bad wolf in this case and the R's are the innocent lambs.Sigh.....

I`m not saying that because the R´s needed to be protected against charges, LE is bad. And I highly disagree that LE is always the wolf and the R´s the lambs, at least on this forum.

Madeline wrote:
No one is saying they're guilty because they hired lawyers.That was a normal thing to do.There are many other things we're having a problem with when it comes to their spin team.

Alright. I`m not that interested in the "spin thing".

 

[BBB167893]

SuperDave wrote:
I guess it comes down to who you trust more.

It seems that some think the light brown fibers might have come from an American Girl Doll. Those fibers were found on the ligature and paintbrush too, which makes me wonder how they got there.

To my knowledge, those fibers were not found on the ligature. Certainly not tied into the knots.

SuperDave wrote:
He wa? Initially, he claimed that they were following up on leads that the police weren't. Turns out he knew from Day One that they weren't, that they had been hired purely to undermine any case against them the police and DA might make. And as we now know, those investigators resorted to some pretty dirty tricks to do it. Remember Tom Miller? I'm not done talking about that.

I mean that he was probably honest when he said that the investigators were hired to protect them- that´s a statement that "makes him look bad" as we can see here. It would have been better for him to say that they hired them only to find JB´s killer and follow up leads that the police ignored. I`m not sure though, that the investigators only purpose was to protect them or that protecting them didn`t include following evidence that leads to the real killer. And I´m not sure the R´s knew from the beginning that the investigators only job was to protect them, since the lawyers seemed to take care of things for the R`s. I´d like to ask JR himself. I have not yet looked closely to the issue about Tom Miller.

Well, the statement itself is kind of bad, but I suppose you could go either way. But when coupled with his earlier claim that they were there to solve this thing because the cops wouldn't, it becomes eerily similar to OJ Simpson claiming he wouldn't stop until he found the "real killers."

You have a point about them not knowing what the lawyers were up to. But even then, one has to consider that they kept themselves willfully ignorant (which JR's own statements about how he never even read the reports they made seem to bear out!). In this country, we have something called "plausible deniability." It refers to the practice of willfully keeping oneself ignorant of the dirty tricks used by their underlings. That way, if those dirty tricks are found out, the person can say they didn't know and not really be lying. I'd like to ask JR myself. But I might ask a little too hard, if you get my meaning.

SuperDave wrote:
1) The investigators were operating within a week. The cops couldn't have "fixed" on them that quickly.

Really? Well, perhaps not "fixed".

Thus the problem.

SuperDave wrote:
2) The police were interviewing suspects as far away as North Carolina. Jeff Merrick said on the radio that, and I quote, "the cops were so fixated on the Ramseys that they interviewed me three times." Doesn't sound fixed to me.

Perhaps fixed to eliminate suspects: "Your just one of several suspects that need to be eliminated, Thomas told him (Bud Henderson)". PMPT.

I think you'll find that's SOP for an investigation.

SuperDave wrote:
3) Most importantly, the investigators didn't "have" to do anything. They did it because they were told to by the lawyers. Mysteeri, I'm not trying to come down on you. I like you. But I don't think you fully understand the subtleties of the American legal system.

Certainly I don`t fully understand the subleties of the American legal system, but I`m not sure what you think I meant here. The investigators were hired by the lawyers to protect the Ramseys because they needed to be protected.

But WHY did the lawyers think they had to be protected? That was the whole point of me saying that even if you aren't guilty, a lawyer will defend you like you are, because most lawyers KNOW that a good percentage of the people who hire them ARE guilty.

SuperDave wrote:
Well, there's a popular saying in legal circles that sums it up:

"Even if you're NOT guilty, a lawyer will defend you like you are guilty."

Yeah, that´s why I don`t make judgements about someone´s guilt based on lawyers protecting them. Or am I missing something here?

I think what I said above sums it up.

 

[Mysteeri]

SuperDave wrote:
To my knowledge, those fibers were not found on the ligature. Certainly not tied into the knots.

Alright. Do you think they could have come from gloves?

SuperDave wrote:
I think you'll find that's SOP for an investigation.

Yes, they would interview and eliminate other suspects even if they were "fixed" on RDI.

SuperDave wrote:
But WHY did the lawyers think they had to be protected? That was the whole point of me saying that even if you aren't guilty, a lawyer will defend you like you are, because most lawyers KNOW that a good percentage of the people who hire them ARE guilty.

Umm, well I think because they were considered suspects and might face charges. If it`s more complicated than that, I think I can live without further information that makes this case even more confusing.

Alright, now I know about "plausible deniability".

 

[BBB167893]

SuperDave wrote:
To my knowledge, those fibers were not found on the ligature. Certainly not tied into the knots.

Alright. Do you think they could have come from gloves?

Hard to say.

SuperDave wrote:
I think you'll find that's SOP for an investigation.

Yes, they would interview and eliminate other suspects even if they were "fixed" on RDI.

I think you mean if they were not "fixed."

SuperDave wrote:
But WHY did the lawyers think they had to be protected? That was the whole point of me saying that even if you aren't guilty, a lawyer will defend you like you are, because most lawyers KNOW that a good percentage of the people who hire them ARE guilty.

Umm, well I think because they were considered suspects and might face charges. If it`s more complicated than that, I think I can live without further information that makes this case even more confusing.

It may well BE more complicated than that.

Alright, now I know about "plausible deniability".

One of the less savory phrases in American politics.

 

[James50]

IDI don't have enough to stick either..And with lawyers and a DA how could it went to trial...Just my opinion....

Well, no. Since there isn't enough to pin this on the Rs (who were at the scene of the crime and still don't fit the perp profile) and seeing as they have been exonerated, that only leaves IDI.

 

[James50]

In it, he claims (and this is apparently borne out by other sources) that JB's body was already covered from head to foot, literally.

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.

I'm well aware. But there's absent-minded and then there's absent-minded, you know?

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

Her vaginal area was cleaned up. And even then it was wiped down. I'm pretty sure nobody took the time to vacuum JB's clothes.

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

My answer to that is two-fold:

1) Because they thought it would look better if the "intruder" looked like someone who was so good, he didn't leave anything solid behind. After all, we're talking about people who had no idea how real criminals act and were just going by books and TV shows. (That's not just my opinion, either.)

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

2) Doesn't it strike you as a bit odd that the first people they pointed to were people who had keys? (Hint hint)

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'thave had a key.

 

[Mysteeri]

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.

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.

(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.)

 

[James50]

To my knowledge, those fibers were not found on the ligature. Certainly not tied into the knots.

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

Well, the statement itself is kind of bad, but I suppose you could go either way. But when coupled with his earlier claim that they were there to solve this thing because the cops wouldn't, it becomes eerily similar to OJ Simpson claiming he wouldn't stop until he found the "real killers."

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."

You have a point about them not knowing what the lawyers were up to. But even then, one has to consider that they kept themselves willfully ignorant (which JR's own statements about how he never even read the reports they made seem to bear out!).

Again, I don't see what that proves.

In this country, we have something called "plausible deniability." It refers to the practice of willfully keeping oneself ignorant of the dirty tricks used by their underlings. That way, if those dirty tricks are found out, the person can say they didn't know and not really be lying. I'd like to ask JR myself. But I might ask a little too hard, if you get my meaning.

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

But WHY did the lawyers think they had to be protected? That was the whole point of me saying that even if you aren't guilty, a lawyer will defend you like you are, because most lawyers KNOW that a good percentage of the people who hire them ARE guilty.

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

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?

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.

 

[Ravyn]

Well, no. Since there isn't enough to pin this on the Rs (who were at the scene of the crime and still don't fit the perp profile) and seeing as they have been exonerated, that only leaves IDI.

Go check the DNA cause the coroner didn't take the right procedures to take the DNA...This is done be dicuss on other threads....