I don't get you. How were the Ramsey's cooked, regardless of what they did or didn't do? Do you really think they believed this? Do you think they kept proof of their innocence, a secret? lol, no. I'm not buying that. If they had proof that they had each passed lie detector tests, LE & everybody else, would've moved on. That's the way these things work. No, they didn't have to release results, but if they had passed, they would have. No decent lawyer, would represent or defend a client, (who had that much suspicion, placed on him), without administering a poly. & if he passed, it would be breaking news. I agree that this case got way out of hand, & the focus on JonBenet was lost, but I believe, without a doubt, that the Ramsey's wanted it that way. & the comparrison to a poor, homely, inner city kid, is pointless. It was a dressed up, bejeweled, made up, Patsy, who made sure that we all saw those pageant pictures & video. She wanted the whole world to witness their lifestyle.
Would you pull a cord
- Thread starter WHITEFANG
- Start date
& one more thing...I, & a lot of other people would care about that poor, inner city child. I've been keeping up with the Haleigh Cummings, (who suffered from Turners Syndrome), case for over a year. & if ever a child, was raised in non opulent surroundings, it was Haleigh.
MurriFlower
Inactive
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2010
- Messages
- 1,980
- Reaction score
- 15
lol, 1) you don't have to apoligize2) I said it WOULD be funny...meaning I said it WASN'T funny. 3) I never said I was superior 4) We're done here, I learned long ago that the type of people that are IDI are the type of people that could have a Ramsey confession in thier face and still wouldn't believe it; honestly if the evidence out there isn't enough to convince you then nothing will. End of story.
Ha Ha, I just said the exact same thing about the RDIs. I guess this is how war's start?
Ok, at the risk of starting WWIII, what is the "evidence out there" that has convinced you of their guilt?
Examples...?
They asked to testify before the GJ. They were "under an umbrella of suspicion" by authorities for the brutal murder of their child. They were refused permission.
How many of the "many" lost their six year old child in a horrible killing, were themselves the focus of the GJ, and were denied their request for permission to testify?
madeleine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 4,972
- Reaction score
- 88
LOL you obviously don't know me.And I like your hit&run posts.
We know.
Quite so. Flame wars, at least. Accusations such as these are worthless, because they accompish nothing.
FWIW, as tempting as it MAY be to agree with californiared's assertions, I can't. In fact, a while back, I asked specifically: "if a Ramsey confessed, would you believe it?" Just about every IDI who answered said that they would.
Well, in terms of criminals who have been convicted, yet still had lawyers who would go to the mat for them afterwards, we can count Mumia Abu-Jamal, Leonard Peltier, Dennis Dechaine, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, Sacco and Vanzetti, Jeffrey MacDonald...do I have to keep going?
I know that, Fang. I'm saying that I find it odd that they weren't called either way.
None, that I know of. I get your point, but I don't think you get mine.
Damn skippy! If YOU were really interested in using a GJ's power to the fullest, wouldn't you call the people with the most pertinent information?
That's what I want to know! You keep asking for examples, but you never say OF WHAT.
And when the criminals ask for a chance to tell what they know, particularly criminals who always refused to cooperate with authorities, it is more than odd that they were refused. It is a tragedy, just like the "cooking" they received from the media. They never had a chance. They just couldn't do right, no matter what they did.
Every action, reaction, every word, every lack of a word, grunt, moan, every nod, lack of a nod or shake, an eyebrow not raised, a raised eyebrow, golf bag, golf tee, teabag, flashlight, fly swatter, inverted e, all of it was part of a master scheme to pull off this killing and staging.
Let's face it. Let's not be naive. These birdbrains who couldn't shoot straight, had incredible accuracy for novices in the crime game. Plus, they were incredible lucky, except when they weren't.
Nothing was left to chance, unless it would be to their long term advantage, considering how advanced computer projections were forecasting the likelihood of tendencies of a certain segment of the BPD minus several DAs, with a new governor, who was susceptible to certain types of bribes and free flying lessons. Don't forget, this explains why J was the president of a computer company; he anticipated this day would come and he wanted to be prepared.
It was a brilliant, 3D, complex chess match generated by supercomputers with everything falling into place as proof the R's did the deed.
Could somebody translate this, please?
Sure. They couldn't win.
Holdontoyourhat
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 5,299
- Reaction score
- 12
A prime example of circular logic. No matter what the R's did, it will be construed best-fit into whatever theory, so long as they did it. Complete with motives, ulterior motives, and everything.
It helps to understand what the facts are, what the fictions are, and how to tell them apart.
A prime example of circular logic. No matter what the R's did, it will be construed best-fit into whatever theory, so long as they did it. Complete with motives, ulterior motives, and everything.
It helps to understand what the facts are, what the fictions are, and how to tell them apart.
YGB
It helps to understand what the facts are, what the fictions are, and how to tell them apart.
YGB
Holdontoyourhat
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 5,299
- Reaction score
- 12
A good example is the spelling of advise in the ransom note, and 'advize' in both PR left and right exemplars. Nobody noticed for years. Then after it was brought up, 'oh she did that on purpose, wouldn't you if your arse depended on it? She did that to mislead investigators.'
Mislead what investigators with this? Who was misled by this? Who got fooled by this?
This is fiction pure and simple, created in a heartbeat (15 minutes, I think) to account for what is prima facie IDI evidence.
IOW they tested PR for similarities and differences, found differences, insisted the differences belonged to PR anyway, and created a fictional backdrop to account for it. It was a no-win scenario. Fortunately things are different now.
Mislead what investigators with this? Who was misled by this? Who got fooled by this?
This is fiction pure and simple, created in a heartbeat (15 minutes, I think) to account for what is prima facie IDI evidence.
IOW they tested PR for similarities and differences, found differences, insisted the differences belonged to PR anyway, and created a fictional backdrop to account for it. It was a no-win scenario. Fortunately things are different now.
The RCDNR team will never come out and say the Rs are the worst people of all time directly. Just the opposite. They will insist snarling all the way they never said that and they don't believe it.
Review your comments and review them again. Let's get honest.
The kid with his hand in the cookie jar comes to mind.
Review your comments and review them again. Let's get honest.
The kid with his hand in the cookie jar comes to mind.