John Ramsey's New Book

JR and PR are so freaking guilty of at least a coverup. They think if they can keep propaganda out there of their suffering that people will give them a pass. I am shocked at some of the long time posters who still advocate their innocence.
They might not have killed her but they know who did and covered it up. All I would need as a juror is PR fibers entwined in the knots and JR israeli fibers in her crotch since every other piece of evidence is from within the house, i could deliberate very quickly.
They think that because they did not mean for this to happen they get a free pass while trying to destroy the lives of others to get this free pass. The DA of boulder is a scared SOB, there is enough evidence to put JR away for this coverup. He deserves to be punished for trying to protect his family at the expense of everyone else. IMHO
 
JR and PR are so freaking guilty of at least a coverup. They think if they can keep propaganda out there of their suffering that people will give them a pass. I am shocked at some of the long time posters who still advocate their innocence.
They might not have killed her but they know who did and covered it up. All I would need as a juror is PR fibers entwined in the knots and JR israeli fibers in her crotch since every other piece of evidence is from within the house, i could deliberate very quickly.
They think that because they did not mean for this to happen they get a free pass while trying to destroy the lives of others to get this free pass. The DA of boulder is a scared SOB, there is enough evidence to put JR away for this coverup. He deserves to be punished for trying to protect his family at the expense of everyone else. IMHO

RTC,
Well said. Money talks lowdly in this case. John Ramsey called in a few favors, and organized a get out of jail card.

At a minimum there should have been a trial. History will not judge the Ramsey's kindly. The internet will store and replay the JonBenet case long into the future, and unless the Ramsey's buy the evidence up, or setup a trust or foundation whose sole purpose is to litigate on sight. The truth will emerge one day.


.
 
JR and PR are so freaking guilty of at least a coverup. They think if they can keep propaganda out there of their suffering that people will give them a pass. I am shocked at some of the long time posters who still advocate their innocence.
They might not have killed her but they know who did and covered it up. All I would need as a juror is PR fibers entwined in the knots and JR israeli fibers in her crotch since every other piece of evidence is from within the house, i could deliberate very quickly.
They think that because they did not mean for this to happen they get a free pass while trying to destroy the lives of others to get this free pass. The DA of boulder is a scared SOB, there is enough evidence to put JR away for this coverup. He deserves to be punished for trying to protect his family at the expense of everyone else. IMHO

RTC,
Well said. Money talks loudly in this case. John Ramsey called in a few favors, and organized a get out of jail card.

At a minimum there should have been a trial. History will not judge the Ramsey's kindly. The internet will store and replay the JonBenet case long into the future, and unless the Ramsey's buy the evidence up, or setup a trust or foundation whose sole purpose is to litigate on sight. The truth will emerge one day.


.
 
I won't buy this book as the only so called books I buy are more like MAXIM and Sports Illustrated Bikini Edition . However If i come across it say in the garbage or in the salvation army I would read it for the simple fact that I would like to see what he has to say about the events that ocured on that night .I also think it will be pretty different with the fact that patsy is no longer around to keep everything in check . I just think it will be a good way to maybe use what he is gonna say in this book against what we allready know thay have stated as fact in other books or interviews .Now we can recheck some of the things hes gonna say now and lets not forget its been a long time since back when this happend im sure he has done some changing with age and hopefully guilt is taking its toll on the guy but mostly don't under estimate how big of a deal it is that Patsy Is not there anymore to make sure every word is backed up by fact from what they have said in the past and to make him not feel guilty saying it was just an accident . All that is gone she cant tell him it wasn't his fault no more she cant say dont write this or say that...If Nothing Else read it For the fact checking alone what it.at he will say in this book about the night of and what happened prior and right after could end up being a break in this whole thing...thats how iam looking
 
John said they have been asked every conceivable question.

BS

``There's no question we're uncomfortable answering,'' he said.

more BS

Let's look at some more:

``There's been no common sense applied to any of this,'' John said. ``People don't live full normal lives for 50 years, turn into a madman in the middle of the night, kill their child, and wake up the next morning like nothing happened. And they don't go on to live three years, under intense pressure, and not buckle.''

Firstly, his idea of common sense seems to be different from that of most people. Secondly, this is the CLASSIC IDI propaganda. I'm not aware of anyone who thinks that someone in the house just suddenly turned into a madman. But perhaps most importantly, his assertion that people under intense pressure would buckle is BS in a concentrated form. There are people who have been in prison 20 years and more who still swear they didn't do it!

``We've not ever faulted anybody for looking at us,'' Patsy said. ``Our child, our home, we're the parents. But don't stop there. That's the trouble.''

Well, we KNOW that's not true. For one thing, that's always been another staple of Ramsey propaganda: that LE didn't bother looking anywhere else. That's certainly not true. Everyone from Mark Beckner to Henry Lee has stated that every path was examined. Some, like Steve Thomas and Mike Kane have gone further than that. They've stated that the DA was not interested in pursuing any line of investigation that DID involve the Ramseys.
As for not faulting anyone for looking at them, what, do they think we're *advertiser censored**in' STUPID, or something? They've acted and SAID that they were offended that someone would suspect them.

Police are too quick to assume that a dead child means a killer parent, the Ramseys say. When parents do kill, they say, there's history: previous abuse or violence, drug use, other problems.

We know that's not true, either. At least, not the way they claim.

``Of parents who kill their kids, how many of those were normal families who loved their children and went to church on Sunday and had no history of any problem at all?'' John said. ``How many of those killed their children, percentage-wise?''

Probably a lot more than we'd like to believe.

``This is not just about the poor Ramseys and look what it's done to us. This has been done to a lot of people that we don't know about.''

Yeah, I'm sure. :rolleyes: Not only do I have trouble believing that, but the idea that the Ramseys actually CARE about those other people isn't just laughable, it's downright offensive. I'm sure I'm not the only person who felt like putting his fist through the monitor screen at that idiot book-reviewer's claim that John Ramsey wants to HELP people.

The police are not interested in justice,'' John said. ``They are interested in making an arrest. Prosecutors are interested in getting a conviction. The interest in justice only comes secondary.

Sounds like the usual drivel from professional defense attorneys. Am I the only one who is reminded of the "ventriloquist" bit from the movie Chicago?

``I was up in that bedroom, with my suitcase, going, `What does one take when one goes to the brig?' '' Patsy said.

You know, this really roasts my duck, folks. This isn't the first time Patsy made a joke about going to the slammer. One is reminded of her cracks about if she'd be allowed to take her red velvet pillow and if prison stripes would make her look fat.

I feel like a jerk for saying this, but I'm pretty sure if Patsy went to prison, she'd have a LOT worse to worry about! By now, I imagine we've all heard the stories about what other inmates do to prisoners who hurt children, right? Well, most of those stories come from MEN's prisons. Women's are WORSE. Add to that she was a pretty woman, weak from illness and apparently very genteel. She would NOT do well in prison. And that's as far as I feel like going with that line of thought.

``Anybody who's ever had a child, and thinks that, has to have rocks in their heads,'' Patsy said. ``I mean, I love my husband. But I adore, passionately, my children. And if he ever laid a hand on them, I'd knock his block off. People just don't use their common sense.''

Talk is cheap, folks. By now, most of us should be familiar with the cases where one spouse has stuck by another who had killed a child of theirs. I seem to recall that a few of us were talking about that just a few weeks ago. (Whatever happened to Sabot anyway? Things were getting interesting!)

``The police asked me that question,'' John said. ``I had to think about it, because I'd never even thought about it. The police said, `Just what if Patsy had done this? Would you turn her in? Would you turn on her?' Of course I would. I would have to.''

More BS.

The Ramseys dismiss the idea that they received kid-glove treatment from the police early on because they were wealthy and white

Well, he can dismiss it all he likes. In our system, money and whiteness talk. That's a simple, unpleasant fact of life.

``If we were treated any better than anybody else, then . . . '' John said.

``I'd hate to be treated any worse,'' Patsy said.


Boo-*advertiser censored**in'-hoo. Very funny. I could make a really nasty remark, but it's a Sunday, so I won't. So I'll just say this: the simple fact is that if they HADN'T had that money, if they HADN'T been coddled by those rum-dums in the DA's office, if they HADN'T had a law firm who controlled half the state and was connected with the Democratic Party, they would be in prison this very day.

And that's all I'm going to say for now. I promised myself I wasn't going to fly off the handle today, that I was going be a good Catholic boy today. Guess I made a mess of that. But I'm not ready to start breathing fire just yet.
 
SuperDave, Susan Grund turned her tiny stepson into a slobbering, brain-damaged vegetable, and she is doing very well in prison. Girlsfriends, smokes, makeup, the works. The treatment of prisoners by other prisoners really depends on the prison.
 
Don't worry, SD. Jesus got angry too.

As for Patsy, I truly doubt she would have gone to prison, even if found guilty. They'd play the cancer/chemo/Klonopin card (not that I necessarily disagree with that)- Patsy's prescription drug use, even though it was part of her treatment and follow-up care, may have played quite a big part in the events of that night. Had she had even a SMALL amount of alcohol that day at the White's, even one glass of wine, the effects could have been severe and unpredictable. ALL the antidepressants warn to avoid ALL alcohol.
Patsy's friends were said to have been alarmed by Patsy's over-the-top behavior as far as JB was concerned. If this was a new behavior pattern, certainly that could be a red flag for something else going on with her.

Heck, ever hear the commercials for some "over the counter" sleep aids or some antidepressants"? They warn about suicidal thoughts or aggression, uncharacteristic behavior, sleepwalking including driving a car, cooking or eating with no memory of the events. Wow.
Chantix, (to curb smoking) has the same side effects. Scary. You're better off smoking! A least you won't kill yourself or someone else.
 
Unfortunately as time goes on it becomes easier for people to disassociate themselves from crimes they committed. I suspect Patsy's mental state may have made it easier for this to happen.

Everyday there are instances of people taking on other people's stories as their own or retelling a story and omitting themselves from it. 15 years.....one wonders when John tells the story now if HE was even in the house!
 
Unfortunately as time goes on it becomes easier for people to disassociate themselves from crimes they committed. I suspect Patsy's mental state may have made it easier for this to happen.

Everyday there are instances of people taking on other people's stories as their own or retelling a story and omitting themselves from it. 15 years.....one wonders when John tells the story now if HE was even in the house!

I totally agree. One of the reasons the Rs stonewalled the interviews with LE was so that they could answer "I just don't remember" to pretty much all the pertinent questions. They stalled for YEARS, so that it would seem plausible to not remember.
With BR, you have the added factor of children remembering events in a family the way they are TOLD they happened and not necessarily the way they actually happened.
 
Unfortunately as time goes on it becomes easier for people to disassociate themselves from crimes they committed. I suspect Patsy's mental state may have made it easier for this to happen.

Everyday there are instances of people taking on other people's stories as their own or retelling a story and omitting themselves from it. 15 years.....one wonders when John tells the story now if HE was even in the house!

I know what you mean, wonderllama. At the time, I'm sure JR was already in MI waiting for PR to arrive for their Christmas in 96. LOL
 
talking about suffering....I never saw them CRY or being hurt because of what JB must have been through that night.they have always been so calm and arrogant on TV when talking about the case,no tears,no hate or anger (the intruder did some horrible things to her,right?!)
what about HER suffering?it has always been about THEM,
THEIR image (they sued everybody who damaged them but never the BPD who didn't solve the case,WHY??)
THEIR suffering (they seemed to have been suffering only cause they were considered suspects not because their child was brutally murdered)

instead of writing another book he should have had a brainstorming and make a list of people who could have been angry with him cause that's what his profiler told him,it was someone known and angry,that IF he's so innocent like he claims!

Excellent post madeleine. Well stated and my sentiments as well.

no matter how much some will disagree,their behavior is the key piece of evidence,to me at least...maybe you can't take it to court but the police could have worked with it,push something out of them.it's too late now but their behavior speaks volumes,more than any fibers or reports,DNA,whatever you wanna add....

it's like Jonbenet was always just COLLATERAL DAMAGE in the process,,,,,,,,,
That is what bothers me the most; is that LE could have pushed more, and they didn't.
 
I totally agree. One of the reasons the Rs stonewalled the interviews with LE was so that they could answer "I just don't remember" to pretty much all the pertinent questions. They stalled for YEARS, so that it would seem plausible to not remember.
With BR, you have the added factor of children remembering events in a family the way they are TOLD they happened and not necessarily the way they actually happened.

DeeDee249,
I agree. But they had enough evidence to level charges against both parents. Not bringing charges must have been a political decision, since just about anyone else would have been arrested first, and once the evidence rolled in they would have been charged. What made the Ramsey's different?



.
 
UKguy,
Money, connections, and lawyers with a bunch fingers in a whole lotta pies. Thats what made them different.
 
Don't worry, SD. Jesus got angry too.

I appreciate your attempt to cheer me up, DD. And for what it's worth, you're right about one important thing: every great pacifist, from Jesus to Martin Luther King, from Buddha to Gandhi, all agreed on one very basic idea: that no matter how great your committment to non-violence is, it is your duty to confront and conquer evil. My problem is I want to limit collateral damage. I learned that lesson when a poster here I respect felt he couldn't do business anymore.

As for Patsy, I truly doubt she would have gone to prison, even if found guilty. They'd play the cancer/chemo/Klonopin card (not that I necessarily disagree with that)- Patsy's prescription drug use, even though it was part of her treatment and follow-up care, may have played quite a big part in the events of that night. Had she had even a SMALL amount of alcohol that day at the White's, even one glass of wine, the effects could have been severe and unpredictable. ALL the antidepressants warn to avoid ALL alcohol.
Patsy's friends were said to have been alarmed by Patsy's over-the-top behavior as far as JB was concerned. If this was a new behavior pattern, certainly that could be a red flag for something else going on with her.

Heck, ever hear the commercials for some "over the counter" sleep aids or some antidepressants"? They warn about suicidal thoughts or aggression, uncharacteristic behavior, sleepwalking including driving a car, cooking or eating with no memory of the events. Wow.
Chantix, (to curb smoking) has the same side effects. Scary. You're better off smoking! A least you won't kill yourself or someone else.

You said a mouthful, my friend. Look, despite what some may think, I'm not unsympathetic either. Far as I go, there's a difference between a truly evil person and a normally good person who makes a terrible mistake. A while back, we were discussing the issue of, even if Alex Hunter believed Patsy to be guilty, the way he saw it, it would have done no good to punish her for it. Society would have been no safer with Patsy in prison and she'd already suffered the worst possible punishment: her beloved daughter was dead and she'd have to live with that for the rest of her life.

Just to get off subject for a moment, I've always tried to reconcile IDI's claims that Hunter was RDI with the way the DA's office ruthlessly stymied the police, and that's is the only answer I can come up with. Throw in Hunter's 1960's radical bonafides, including a strong distrust of cops, and the way he saw it was that these "overzealous" (in HIS opinion), right-wing police officers who were vocal in their desire to see someone go to the electric chair for this killing were more dangerous to society than Patsy was. That's my take on it, anyway.

Getting back to it, you're absolutely right about the whole "drug" issue. God knows, I'm not trying to paint Patsy as some kind of wacked-out junkie, no way. What you said is a fact, and it's one of my book's major themes: that these drugs, both alone and together with other substances like alcohol, are DANGEROUS, and the current mentality among doctors to prescribe medicine as a quick-fix without any real concern for side-effects or knowing how they will interact with each other is a real detriment to society.

So, yeah, DD, I can sympathize. I can forgive what I think Patsy did, and I honestly hope that God has done the same.
 
UKguy,
Money, connections, and lawyers with a bunch fingers in a whole lotta pies. Thats what made them different.

Yeah, that would be it, all right. Smurf, our mutual "Friend" Roy23 likes to say that talking to RDIs is like stepping into a time-warp. Well, believe it or not, I can sympathize with him. Every time I take a look at this case, I feel like I've gone back in time: namely, Italy, circa 1500, during the reign of Rodrigo Borgia and his two rotten kids, Cesare and Lucrezia! Macchiavellian doesn't quite do it justice.

There was something else, too, smurf. Remember how I referred to JMK as ML's Watergate? Well, I said that Nixon resigned to preserve what little dignity he had left and to prevent the office of US president from being dragged through the mud any further, and that ML should have done the same.

But what if it was something else? Some people, including my dear brother, believe that Nixon was terrified that the imminent investigation into the Watergate break-in would uncover something REALLY bad, something that would make the Watergate incident itself look like peanuts by comparison.

Well, every now and then, I can't help but wonder if that was the case in the Boulder DA's office. ST wasn't the first person to resign and blast the DA's office. Back in 1982, sheriff Kirk Long did the same. His letter sounds VERY similar to ST's. Then there's the whole deal with Thayne Smika.

I'm not trying to gin up any conspiracy theories, but it WOULD explain a LOT of things: Hunter's stonewalling the cops; his backroom deals with Haddon and his bunch; his refusal to call a Grand Jury and his doing so only because the governor was threatening to take the case away from him; the way he ran that GJ right into the ground; the way he kept Kane, Levin and Morrissey on tight leashes; the way Lou Smit was able to blackmail him into letting him--Smit--keep the copies of evidence he'd stolen; his Nixonian attempts to slander people who spoke against him; his hiding behind Grand Jury secrecy laws; ML taking the case away from the cops when Wood threatened a lawsuit against them (I could devote an entire thread to that!); ML's refusal to allow access to police files when it was clear that no actual investigation was taking place, right down the line.

And the cherry on this banana split came a few years ago when Larry Pozner, a radical-left lawyer from the Lin Wood school, said that he wanted Mary Lacy to call a Grand Jury to investigate the conduct of the BPD. Well, on another forum that's no longer in business, I got into an argument over that very idea with an IDI whose name I can't remember. This person steadfastly agreed with Pozner's idea. Do you know what my response was? "Great idea," I said. "But let's not stop there! Let's have them investigate the DA's office, the Haddon law firm, and Lou Smit while they're at it!"

The subject was VERY quickly dropped.

It's clear that there was SOMETHING that Hunter and, to an extent, ML didn't want people to know, and CERTAINLY didn't want anyone from the government to stumble upon.

Listen folks, I feel like a jerk for saying this, but if it were within my power--if I were in a position to call a grand jury investigation into the DA's office, I'd do it so damn fast they'd think a tornado had hit Boulder! I'd put 'em through the wringer! And, brother, the things that would squeeze out!
 
God has forgiven us before we even commit the sin. If you talked to the dead, you'd find that NO one judges us after we pass. We judge ourselves. AND we feel the emotions and pain we caused to others while we lived. We come to understand completely how our actions have impacted others. And it is hoped we learn from them, so we do not repeat them when we return to try again. Because we ALL come back again. Of our own free will.

So yes, Patsy has been forgiven. By God, and JB as well, but it takes longer to forgive ourselves for horrendous acts. That doesn't mean there is no atonement. There is forgiveness, yes. But you still have Karma to balance out.
 
Well DeeDee, while you're free to believe that, but for those of us who, at the risk of being offensive, rely on reality, I think that the only person who is entitled to forgive a crime is the victim themselves, and she ain't around.

Empathy isn't something bestowed upon the dead, it is something developed as a child, and if it isn't developed correctly or is influenced negatively from peers or parents and the like, then we're on the way to creating unpleasant members of society.

The local community isn't entitled to forgive as there is no guilt that has been proven and more to the point, the crime wasn't committed against them. The country isn't entitled to forgive as there has also not been any guilt proven. And even then, it is trust that a community or nation forgives, not the crime as they are not entitled to do so.

Community ownership of a crime would be more akin to forgiving someone for causing a financial crisis or for stealing from the Public Library...or indeed for the bungled investigation of a Police Force.

So back to your supposition that patsy has been forgiven.
Patsy hasn't been found guilty. She's been judged guilty by individuals (myself included) and that unfortunately is where it ends. No forgiveness, no atonement...she died almost 6 years ago and at that moment she either died knowing she was responsible for her daughter's death, or she died not knowing the truth of that evening...probably a terrible feeling to have close to death. Regrets.

So while we may share similar views as to who was involved in this shocking crime, I think God, speaking to the dead, divine empathy transferral and immortal atonement and forgiveness are all terms to comfort the living.

I judge based on facts, so do courts, except courts require proof or at least reasonable cause to take on a case.

For a crime which has amassed 2267 pages worth of topic discussion and a quite in depth analysis of just about every aspect of the crime and everything associated with it...I find it ironic that a total lack of facts is satisfactory in your conclusions for Patsy.



I apologise if this is offensive the God-fearing members of this board, but as an atheist I can't go along with non-evidence based faith, be it religious or criminal.
Love and kisses ;)
 
Yeah, that would be it, all right. Smurf, our mutual "Friend" Roy23 likes to say that talking to RDIs is like stepping into a time-warp. Well, believe it or not, I can sympathize with him. Every time I take a look at this case, I feel like I've gone back in time: namely, Italy, circa 1500, during the reign of Rodrigo Borgia and his two rotten kids, Cesare and Lucrezia! Macchiavellian doesn't quite do it justice.

There was something else, too, smurf. Remember how I referred to JMK as ML's Watergate? Well, I said that Nixon resigned to preserve what little dignity he had left and to prevent the office of US president from being dragged through the mud any further, and that ML should have done the same.

But what if it was something else? Some people, including my dear brother, believe that Nixon was terrified that the imminent investigation into the Watergate break-in would uncover something REALLY bad, something that would make the Watergate incident itself look like peanuts by comparison.

Well, every now and then, I can't help but wonder if that was the case in the Boulder DA's office. ST wasn't the first person to resign and blast the DA's office. Back in 1982, sheriff Kirk Long did the same. His letter sounds VERY similar to ST's. Then there's the whole deal with Thayne Smika.

I'm not trying to gin up any conspiracy theories, but it WOULD explain a LOT of things: Hunter's stonewalling the cops; his backroom deals with Haddon and his bunch; his refusal to call a Grand Jury and his doing so only because the governor was threatening to take the case away from him; the way he ran that GJ right into the ground; the way he kept Kane, Levin and Morrissey on tight leashes; the way Lou Smit was able to blackmail him into letting him--Smit--keep the copies of evidence he'd stolen; his Nixonian attempts to slander people who spoke against him; his hiding behind Grand Jury secrecy laws; ML taking the case away from the cops when Wood threatened a lawsuit against them (I could devote an entire thread to that!); ML's refusal to allow access to police files when it was clear that no actual investigation was taking place, right down the line.

And the cherry on this banana split came a few years ago when Larry Pozner, a radical-left lawyer from the Lin Wood school, said that he wanted Mary Lacy to call a Grand Jury to investigate the conduct of the BPD. Well, on another forum that's no longer in business, I got into an argument over that very idea with an IDI whose name I can't remember. This person steadfastly agreed with Pozner's idea. Do you know what my response was? "Great idea," I said. "But let's not stop there! Let's have them investigate the DA's office, the Haddon law firm, and Lou Smit while they're at it!"

The subject was VERY quickly dropped.

It's clear that there was SOMETHING that Hunter and, to an extent, ML didn't want people to know, and CERTAINLY didn't want anyone from the government to stumble upon.

Listen folks, I feel like a jerk for saying this, but if it were within my power--if I were in a position to call a grand jury investigation into the DA's office, I'd do it so damn fast they'd think a tornado had hit Boulder! I'd put 'em through the wringer! And, brother, the things that would squeeze out!

SuperDave,
Interesting post, its so obvious a conspiracy took place, they even had to shut ST up along with Holly Smith and everyone else. How does that work when there is to be no trial?

Some inside BPD , the DA's office, the legal eagles along with Team Ramsey were all cooperating to bury evidence, prevent due process from being undertaken, litigating the honest BPD officers involved, in short closing the case down.

Its not new it happens where ever it can be done. Elites have direct access to lawyers, expert witnesses, PI's etc etc. Consider News International over here in the UK. It is alleged they paid the police for stories direct, it is also alleged that they parachuted ex-News-International employees into the Police Force e.g. Scotland Yard as Press Officers etc, either as salaried employees or at arms length as consultants. They allegedlly acted as direct messengers for News International or their papers! The same police managed to overlook critical evidence in previous investigations into phone hacking and other sundry crimes including a homicide involving an axe. Similar tactics were employed wrt the political class, NI had their chosen messengers injected into the all the political parties. This allowed direct access to breaking political news and influence over policy that was NI negative.

Now to cover all this up, all that will happen is that a few police officers will be charged and kicked out of the police, an editor along with some journalists will be jailed and the press complaints procedures will be revised and signed off as job done, then the media will trumpet that the stables have all been cleaned out.

The net effect will be all the real corruption and nasty stories linked to the police, political class and the media will be hidden and eventually excised.

So I expect something similar took place in Boulder, except on a smaller scale.

Just draw up a list of all those people linked to the Ramsey's who suddenly decided they were talking no more, or were appointed to new positions, moved town, or were told by the DA to shut up. I reckon you will find the list is so long, that there can only be one explanation e.g. conspiracy.

Well, every now and then, I can't help but wonder if that was the case in the Boulder DA's office. ST wasn't the first person to resign and blast the DA's office. Back in 1982, sheriff Kirk Long did the same. His letter sounds VERY similar to ST's. Then there's the whole deal with Thayne Smika.
So I think you have this one right. A one off favor can easily be covered up, but if it is a long running practise, there will be many skeletons burried along with their associated evidence, just awaiting discovery.
 
For a very interesting read, written by former atheist Dr. Michael Newton " Journey of Souls" and "Destiny of Souls". Believing or not is, of course, what each person feels is right. It has to ring true. But that doesn't mean it isn't "reality" just because someone else doesn't believe it. I speak only from my own experiences, which are MY reality.
 
For a very interesting read, written by former atheist Dr. Michael Newton " Journey of Souls" and "Destiny of Souls". Believing or not is, of course, what each person feels is right. It has to ring true. But that doesn't mean it isn't "reality" just because someone else doesn't believe it. I speak only from my own experiences, which are MY reality.

ok....point taken for us atheists... but then are we debating everyone's personal reality and religious or philosophical beliefs, or are we going to get back on track and try to deduce the truth from the evidence and an investigative point of view? for if we all are working from our own personal reality then we can say patsy's and john's story of events is the only right and accurate one because that was their personal reality.

i respect your right to believe in what you want, but I agree with wonderllama in looking at the facts and approaching the criminal case from a scientific perspective, and reasoning based on human nature (that definition of reality, in this case), what we know about human behavior, and criminal and forensic science, and stuff like that.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
161
Guests online
4,356
Total visitors
4,517

Forum statistics

Threads
591,850
Messages
17,960,014
Members
228,623
Latest member
Robbi708
Back
Top