IDIs In Denial

Discussion in 'Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum' started by rashomon, Mar 3, 2008.

  1. rashomon

    rashomon Member

    Before I began posting about criminal cases on message boards, I naively asumed that the evidence would lead the way in a discussion, since facts are facts and can't lie.
    But facts obviously don't bother people who are convinced of a suspect's innocence despite overwhelming evidence of his/her guilt.
    There is one murder case which I have researched for many years (the Jeffrey MacDonald case), and in all the discussions and debates with the 'IDIs' there (i. e. those who believe intruders did it), one could observe a a pattern which also applies to the Ramsey IDI discussion tactics:


    "STICK TO MESSAGE" (= repeat the same magical mantras all over again)

    Typical examples:

    "The Ramseys were wonderful parents and can't have done this."
    "Nothing will convince me that they were involved."
    "The grand jury did not indict and therefore they must be innocent."

    "DENY DENY DENY" (= deny the relevance of the incriminating evidence by pretending it doesn't exist).

    Typical examples:
    "Patsy RAmsey did not write the note"
    "Lawyer Levin and Mike Kane lied about the fibers. There were no such fibers."
    "JonBenet ate the pineapple before going to the Whites' party" - (only topped by "what was in her stomach was not pineapple at all" :D)

    And quite often, when RDIs keep insisiting, some rabid IDIs resort to

    "ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK"

    Personal insults are common ("You are part of the RDI lynch mob who wants the Ramseys hanged!", a die-hard IDI on a forum spat at me recently).


    There are two groups of IDIs on the forums.

    Group 1) Those who believe the Ramseys are innocent but whose mind is open to other info also.
    Often, when confronted with such info, they'll reply "I'll have to think about this", "I didn't know that. Where can I find out more about this?" etc.
    But sadly, this is only a small group. The far bigger group are

    Group 2) Those IDIs who are not open to other info.

    What I keep ruminating about: what do these people in group 2 hope to GAIN from this?
    I can explain the Ramseys being in denial and constructing a parallel universe for themselves and for the public. I can also understand why relatives and good friends would cling to the picture they have always had of John and Patsy because it is just too horrible and painful to think they may have been involved in their daughter's death.
    But why would internet posters who have no personal connection to the Ramseys defend them as fervently as if they were their relatives?
    What is it which drives people to do that? What is their dog in that fight?

    Maybe they identify with the same values with which the Ramseys identified, and seeing the whole sugar-coated facade crash would thus threaten their own values too, so they push the mere thought of Ramsey involvement as far away from themselves as they can.
     
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2008
  2. Paradox

    Paradox Banned for Stupidity by RiverRat

    "What is it which drives people to do that? What is their dog in that fight?"

    Their weltanschauung. Much like those that think someone other than Patsy had anything to do with it.
     
  3. Jayelles

    Jayelles Alert Viewer in Scotland

    I think some people find it difficult to believe that anyone other than some unknown bogeyman did it. I've noticed that there is a small group of posters who seem incapable of believing that any named perp "did it". This group defend everyone from the Ramseys to Jeff McDonald to Scott Peterson.

    I'd love for a psychologist to analyse the discussion forums and reveal us all!
     
  4. RiverRat

    RiverRat FFJ Sr. Member Extraordinaire (Pictured at Lef

    To minimalize their own less than perfection?
     
  5. heymom

    heymom Member

    Some people, once they take a position, whatever it is, will die on that same hill before admitting they might be wrong. They dig their foxhole and nothing is going to pull them out of it, no matter what. The more logical one gets with them, the more irrational they become, and because they are wrong, they have no true evidence to support them, so it all has to come from vitriol and emotion. After 10 years of this case not being solved, you have a lot of these people left, talking to themselves.

    Then there are some people who are liars, narcissists, or borderline personalities themselves, and they admire the Ramseys for beating the system. They might not admit that to themselves, but there is an aspect of "Good for them, they beat THE MAN" within them, a secret thrill of rebellion and hate for authority, that carries them well into the defense of John and Patsy Ramsey.

    Similar attitudes and positions are seen in politics and hot-button issues. No amount of education and calm logic will change the mind that is closed to begin with.
     
  6. heymom

    heymom Member

    Look out, you might get what you wish for, and Paradox will be dis-robing us all in public!

    :beammeup:
     
  7. Barbara

    Barbara FFJ Senior Member

    Forewarned is forearmed. I warn you: In my case it's not a pretty sight :D
     
  8. Why_Nut

    Why_Nut FFJ Senior Member

    Hope. Let me explain with an example.

    As Jameson's documented early chat log entry and various forum postings showed, she claimed (before it became expedient for her to spin otherwise) that she had grown up with a history of being abused by siblings and acquaintances. Such abuse is also implicitly connected to her parents (she absolutely LOVES to pull out that quote from the section of the Janet McReynolds play which had an adult caregiver pretending an act of child abuse was no big deal), through their lack of interest in protecting her.

    So you have someone like diehard intruder-theorist Jameson beating the drum that says that because JonBenet's parents were not abusive, they must not have been of the character to escalate to homicide. How do the two things connect? Hope. Jameson has to live her life every day HOPING that it is possible for parents to love their children without abusing them, because as a parent herself she may live in fear that she is a ticking time bomb of domestic abuse. The Ramsey case comes along. There is no obvious signs of abuse. The Ramseys become her domestic gods, an example, a role model, of how a child can suffer and even die within the bosom of her own family and yet not have that be at the hands of those who should have protected her.

    I hope this is coming through clearly, because this is one of those areas in which it is difficult to provide established proof, but knowlege of human behavior makes it a credible theory. It is also a theory that I felt recent reinforcement for when noticing a thread that had some of Jameson's posters casually describing that they were being abused by their spouses.

    (The too-long-didn't-read version: people who think an intruder did it may need to think so because they have been domestic abuse victims themselves and need to know that the chain can be broken or maybe even never exist; if the Ramseys were capable of murder, they see themselves as certainly capable and maybe are even more vulnerable to that loss of control)
     
  9. AMES

    AMES Member

    I don't know about you, but the majority of the IDI's that I have came across...my own sister for example.....doesn't know alot about this case. I don't know if its because they do not want to know all the facts in this case...or they just don't have the time to study up on it. My sister...for example...is a die-hard IDI...who told me that the Ramsey's were POOR...they "didn't have alot of money". HUH? Yeah, okay. I have also noticed that with them, that they know so little about this case..that if you ask them questions, regarding their IDI scenario...they will not or can not answer them. There is an IDI on another board...that believes not one, but three members of a small foreign faction wanted to kidnap JB, take her out of their country, and hold her captive until she reaches the age of marriage...whatever THAT is, and then marry her off. The SFF fed her pineapple in the basement, because they didn't want her to get hungry on their long trip .....out of the country... :rolleyes: The reason that they killed her is because the realized that her eyes were NOT REALLY BLUE...but actually green...and that she was not a natural blonde...she had dark roots. ANYWAY...as absurd as this is, I have posed several EASY questions to this poster, regarding this ridiulous theory of his (for example...why didn't the intruders wait until they got into the "getaway car" to feed her? Why didn't they take her straight out the door and into the awaiting car? Why did the intruder bring the pineapple bowl back upstars and place it on the table, why not just leave it in the basement? ) that he should have been able to answer...and he has YET to answer me. Because he CAN'T....he doesn't know the facts of this case, and I highly doubt that he has even read the autopsy report.
     
    Last edited: Mar 3, 2008
  10. Barbara

    Barbara FFJ Senior Member

    Excellent analysis WN; however, I have felt for quite some time that Jameson doesn't really believe the Ramseys to be innocent

    She may have in the beginning for all the reasons you mentioned, but I have come to a point in time where I believe at this stage of the game she just has a vested interest on many levels that they be innocent, although I don't really believe that SHE believes it anymore

    Of course, this is just my personal opinion; maybe I'm giving her too much credit for not being as stupid as her followers :beammeup:
     
  11. Zotto

    Zotto FFJ Senior Member

    As always, great insight Why_Nut and I think there is probably a lot of truth in what you have said, however, although Jameson may have initially thought they were innocent, like Barb, for a long time now I have doubted that she genuinely does anymore.

    I've thought this ever since the David Westerfield case when she admitted to her faithful behind the scenes that she didn't really think he was innocent, but it made for good discussion or some such thing.

    To see her spin all the evidence against Westerfield into innocence made me sick to my stomach, but it also fixed in my mind that if she would do that for Westerfield, she would do it for the Ramseys.

    It has paid off very nicely for her to keep protesting long and loud the Ramsey's innocence. Everything Jameson does is about the money and she will say or do whatever it takes to make as much off this case as she can.
     
  12. Paradox

    Paradox Banned for Stupidity by RiverRat

    Only those I'd like to see naked.
     
  13. DeeDee

    DeeDee Member

    Better skip me, then. I'm terrifying.
     
  14. Paradox

    Paradox Banned for Stupidity by RiverRat

    Psychologically?
     
  15. DeeDee

    DeeDee Member

    I agree with you, Ames, that a great number of IDIs are not very well informed on this case. I think all the reasons mentioned are part of it. Many people see the Rs and they think of them as being just like people they may know, or just like themselves. They cannot fathom anyone like that doing this to a child because THEY couldn't do it. Wasn't it Trip DeMuth who made that assumption?
    It makes people uncomfortable to think that the family next door, their cousin, sister-in-law, co-worker, etc (people like themselves) can do this horrible crime.
    THEN there are IDIs who deep down inside worry that they, too, could imagine themselves doing exactly as the Rs did: to accidentally cause a fatal injury and then cover it up, especially if you had friends like the Rs. For IDIs like this, it hits too close to home for comfort. They don't like to admit, even to themselves, that average people, those with no PRIOR history, can and do commit horrible acts sometimes, especially as far as self-preservation is concerned.
     
  16. rashomon

    rashomon Member

    I always do the litmus test on forums by asking those IDIs: "If you are so sure that an intruder dit it, what do you think happened - do you have a theory and time line of events? Remember any theory has to include the totality of the forensic and other circumstantial evidence."
    Presenting a consistent and plausible theory is quite a challenge for RDIs, but for IDIs it is is impossible since it can't be constructed without including completely absurd scenarios. Which is why not one IDI whom I have asked has presented their complete theory in writing on the net (I'll leave out poster Aussiesheila here since she thinks Patsy covered up for a pedophile gang having had an orgy in the basement on that night - a totally crazy idea imo).
    Repeating ad nauseam that e. g. people like Santa Bill did it is just not enough. Why on earth did he leave behind a ransom note with which he would only have revealed his handwriting? How on earth could he know Patsy 's routine was to come down the spiral staircase? They can't answer such questions of course. They always refuse to look at the whole picture, which is why on close examination, all those IDI theories will go up in smoke.
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2008
  17. Barbara

    Barbara FFJ Senior Member

    I agree rash,

    One of my favorites is the FWDI scenario where Fleet just covered things up the following morning.

    When asked how he knew he would be in the house the following morning to clean up his evil doings, there has NEVER been an answer. Somehow he just knew that he would be called in and of course, before the police, and of course, would have access to all the evidence without any interference

    It's just infuriating at times to listen to some of the IDI arguments
     
  18. rashomon

    rashomon Member

    Why Nut, very interesting psychological analysis of the possible motive ("hope") lying behind Jameson's staunch defense of the Ramseys.

    Although I have also seen the contrary among forum posters: it is often those who have been the victim of abuse as children who do not doubt for a second that people like the Ramseys could have done this to their child also; maybe these these people are suspicious of the Ramseys because their experience as children was that one can't trust caregivers.
     
  19. RiverRat

    RiverRat FFJ Sr. Member Extraordinaire (Pictured at Lef

    Ohhellnoooooooooo, he is NOT going to get stuck with just me! :bateye:
     
  20. rashomon

    rashomon Member

    I can imagine that the Ramseys were indeed Jameson's "domestic gods" at the beginning, for the reasons you mentioned.
    But what is so disturbing about Jameson: in the course of the years, she has collected and studied a tremendous amount of case info, which separates her from those IDIs who simply believe the Ramseys are innocent and who have not really studied the case. But Jameson has studied it inside out and imo she MUST know that this IS an RDI case, which btw also shows in her consciously concealing and distorting evidentiary info which incriminates the Ramseys.
    Do you think it is possible that Jameson even goes as a far as resorting to lying and deceit because her own soul can't bear having her 'domestic gods' thrown from the pedestal on which she has put them?
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice