935 users online (106 members and 829 guests)  


Websleuths News


Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389

    Situations Vacant - WANTED!

    WANTED
    Top Notch Investigative Journalist

    Must be able to research FACTS and to distinguish between FACTS and spin.

    Must be able to present FACTS accurately and without bias or spin.

    Must care about finding justice for a sweet and innocent six year old who suffered a terrifying ordeal before being brutally murdered in her own home on Christmas Night.

    Must not have a personal agenda.

    Must possess integrity and compassion.

    Must be able to resist pressure from persons with a personal agenda.

    Must not be easily duped by persons with a personal agenda.

    Must not be driven by $$$$$s

    Must be able to distinguish between a short blonde 20+ year old and a tall dark 50+ year old.


    Applicants with enormous egos and a desire for 15 minutes of fame need not apply.
    This is only my opinion

    Let the focus be on Madeleine




    Together we can make a difference





    Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Member of Websleuths since April 2000

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    116
    Great post. Of course, with the exception possibly of the $$$$$$$ criterion, your criteria would rule out 75% of the posters here who believe, contrary to the weight of the evidence, any one of an assortment of RDI theories--some quite fanciful!

    Many posters would benefit from a course in Logic 101 or even reading a simple book such as: Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...96137?v=glance

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by DocWatson
    your criteria would rule out 75% of the posters here who believe, contrary to the weight of the evidence, any one of an assortment of RDI theories--some quite fanciful!
    I assume you are refering to the posters who know for a fact that no law enforcement agency has ever cleared the Ramseys of being involved in their daughter's death--and none ever will.

    So much for your "weight of the evidence"....

    But I am willing to bet that 75% of the people who believe the Ramseys are innocent also believe Darlie Routier and O.J. Simpson are also innocent. (I base my statistics on the scientific analysis of P.T. Barnum and his case study of suckers and their rate of birth.)

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by aRnd2it
    I assume you are refering to the posters who know for a fact that no law enforcement agency has ever cleared the Ramseys of being involved in their daughter's death--and none ever will.

    So much for your "weight of the evidence"....

    But I am willing to bet that 75% of the people who believe the Ramseys are innocent also believe Darlie Routier and O.J. Simpson are also innocent. (I base my statistics on the scientific analysis of P.T. Barnum and his case study of suckers and their rate of birth.)
    Well, has LE cleared YOU aRnd2it? If not, then your logic suggests we ought to give serious consideration to figuring out why you might have done such an awful thing.

    "none ever will" is a very long time. The Ramseys will be cleared once they find the intruder who did it and until then, you're right that police will not ABSOLUTELY rule them out since they were in the house that night. But all the HARD evidence points away from them, including RN and DNA evidence. BPD had their best shot at framing the Ramseys during the GJ investigation and the GJ didn't hand down an indictment! I guess that evidence must not have been quite so weighty as you think.

    I've very certain of OJ's guilt, because unlike the jury, which was trying inappropriately to settle a perceived social injustice, I followed the evidence. But please note that in the OJ case, at least there was an indictment, whereas none occurred in Ramseys' case. I guess you must just be way smarter than the Boulder GJ.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    3,642
    Quote Originally Posted by DocWatson
    Many posters would benefit from a course in Logic 101 or even reading a simple book such as: Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...96137?v=glance
    Hey, Doc! I just looked up this book, Why People Believe Weird Things, on Amazon.com and, while reading the first chapter which is featured in the "Search Inside" feature on Amazon, I realized that the author is one of my former college teachers from WAAAYYYY back. At that time (early 80s) he was just starting out teaching at a junior college and I was trying out a variety of subjects before settling on a major in anthropology/archaeology. His course on evolution had a huge influence on me. I had no idea what had happened to him and am pleased to see that he is editing Skeptics Magazine. I think I just might send him an email.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by DocWatson
    Well, has LE cleared YOU aRnd2it?
    Good logic Doc, compare someone who wasn't within 3000 miles of Boulder to 3 people who were in the house while the murder was committed... I can see why you have a problem with the evidence.

    Also sounds like you don't understand the Grand Jury process. A GJ does not stand three people up in a courtroom and say "take your pick". There will never be any way to know which of the three Ramseys actually killed JonBenet and which just helped in the coverup. The GJ was smart enough to know that. My guess is they told Hunter and Kane, "Come back when you can prove which one actually did it"...

    As far as the Ramseys being cleared when they find the "intruder"--plan on taking that dream to your grave. Hey! maybe you can constructively incorporate your disappointment into your epitaph. How about, "This is the last hole I'll be chasing intruders and white rabbits down!"

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    226

    Talking

    Quote Originally Posted by aRnd2it
    I assume you are refering to the posters who know for a fact that no law enforcement agency has ever cleared the Ramseys of being involved in their daughter's death--and none ever will.

    So much for your "weight of the evidence"....

    But I am willing to bet that 75% of the people who believe the Ramseys are innocent also believe Darlie Routier and O.J. Simpson are also innocent. (I base my statistics on the scientific analysis of P.T. Barnum and his case study of suckers and their rate of birth.)


    Someone other than Pasty,John or,Burke Ramsey-- killed JonBenet Ramsey. No statistics needed. We sure don't need P.T.Barnum. This murder case is Circus enough.
    I enjoy the suckers I use to recieve from the Doctor as a child.


    I do rather think Darlie's hubby is a tad bit guilty. I do ride the fence on this case.

    OJ really this is not a fair subject----- Does this mean you believe Simpson is not a double murderer?

    Tressa

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    6,932
    Quote Originally Posted by aRnd2it
    Good logic Doc, compare someone who wasn't within 3000 miles of Boulder to 3 people who were in the house while the murder was committed... I can see why you have a problem with the evidence. [/i]

    And they do, for some reason. I've always said I have no reason to want John or Patsy to be guilty of this crime. In fact, I would love to think that JonBenet's last moments weren't spent with her mom or dad snuffing the life out of her, but there are just a lot of unanswered questions, IMO.

    But the same people defend OJ, Darlie, and Molesterfield. Go figure. I also believe that many of these posters don't give a rip about the victim, but rather, they only want to stir the pot. When the case is over, they move on and defend some other murderer or rapist. It's like a sick, perverted game for them.

    This post isn't directed at any specifc poster, but rather the posters who just refuse to look at the evidence (any of it) in a rational manner.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    9,061

    Wellllll

    EAch night I kneel and pray thusly:

    Now I lay me down to sleep, I pray dear Lord that someone somewhere is getting a patent on a NEW TYPE of Lie Detector that can 'ACTUALLY' give totally accurate results on the innocense or guilt of the person taking the test.

    Lord then I pray that 'we the people' are smart enough to have a law passed to assure that 'real' suspects have no right to refuse to take 'the' new test, in the interest and honest intent of finding the real perpetrators of any given crime. This I pray so that Law Enforcement does not have to spend endless hours investigating the wrong people in any given crime.

    Thank you Lord for helping us all find truth and honesty in all matters.

    Please God bless ALL investigative journalists, may they all have rich relatives who love them and furnish all creature needs and wants for them. So that they do not sell their souls for a dollar amount.

    Amen




    .
    Opinions expressed by me, are mine, based on life experience, and known facts of any given case.





    """I am just a pixel in the universal plan."""

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,389
    LOL Camper. On the button!
    This is only my opinion

    Let the focus be on Madeleine




    Together we can make a difference





    Alert Viewer in Scotland

    Member of Websleuths since April 2000