Video Links with Discussion

Dang, I wish my computer had sound. Although I'm getting better at reading lips. :)
 
Heck, I need sound just to watch "Assy McGee" and "Squidbillies" on YouTube!
 
Dang, I wish my computer had sound. Although I'm getting better at reading lips. :)

I have a new laptop, and something is all screwy with the sound. I plug in the earphones from my daughter's MP3 player though, and I could hear it, though.
 
Okay! Don't do this to me. For whatever reason the video keeps turning on an off after each word is spoken.
Can someone please summerize the content of this video?
How can I get through the weekend without knowing what they are saying.
I'm on my knees now begging!
Help
 
Okay! Don't do this to me. For whatever reason the video keeps turning on an off after each word is spoken.
Can someone please summerize the content of this video?
How can I get through the weekend without knowing what they are saying.
I'm on my knees now begging!
Help

I will try to find the transcript for you....if there is one available online.

FOUND IT!! Here is the interview in its entirety....the part that BOESP posted, from the link from YOUTUBE...is on page 2.

http://www.cbn.com/700club/scottross/interviews/jonbenet1.aspx

Here is the part that we were all talking about on this thread...

SCOTT: The bottom line, below the bottom line, people will ask me, "O.K., you've come out of this, confidentially, what do you think? There is also a side not only as a journalist, but being an ordained minister in the church, to say to other pastors, if they ask me, "Would you recommend to let these people come to my church?"
JOHN: Let me ask you this? What if we were murderers? Would we be denied access to a church? I hope not.
PATSY: That's the people who need to be there. Aren't we "preaching to the choir" as they say.
SCOTT: Well, they still say that.
JOHN: That is a problem we Christians have in our churches.
PATSY: We need to welcome everyone.
 
This is for everyone that cannot get sound on their computer....here is the transcript for the interview that BOESP posted a link to. The part that BOESP posted, was just part of it, that was on YOUTUBE...this is the interview in its entirety. The part that BOESP posted is on page 2 (PART 2).

http://www.cbn.com/700club/scottross/interviews/jonbenet1.aspx
 
This is another portion of the same interview...OH, goody...another interview to pick apart...LOL

SCOTT: Sometimes don't you want to grab someone and say, "What I am telling you it's true. I am not lying. I didn't kill anybody!"
PATSY: You can't do that, but that's what you want to do. You want to stand up and say, "Listen to me." But we found out a long time ago that you can't. It doesn't do any good.


Kind of like...."Listen Carefully".....(the first two words in the RN...after Mr. Ramsey.)
 
SCOTT: Is it still being investigated or is everything so much ...
JOHN: We don’t know. We have ongoing investigation that we put together.
SCOTT: You’re paying for that?
JOHN: We’re paying for that. We don’t know what the police have done. They never told us anything from the very beginning.
SCOTT: If I could remember correctly John, you have your own theory that there was a psychopath possibly involved, a man ...
JOHN: These are not based on my opinions, they’re based on talking to world class experts, people who investigated hundreds and hundreds of homicides. We believe this was a pedophile, a male, that had access to a stun gun or owned a stun gun. We firmly believe that this was used in this crime. They were in Boulder, Colorado in December, 1996, and since this crime they have been fascinated with it and obsessed with it -- they followed all the media all the papers. SBTC -- that was on the ransom note -- the letters SBTC means something to this person and the number 118,000.00, which was the ransom amount.
SCOTT: Why that amount? It comes back to the bonus check.
JOHN: It means something to the killer, this wasn’t just a random number. So you take that set, that finite set of six characteristics and we’re not looking for a needle in a haystack.


NO, not a needle in a haystack, just someone that works at Access Graphics..that would have "KNOWN" the amount of that bonus check. Or at least...that was what John would have us believe..that's why he used that particular amount.
 
SCOTT: The way it’s been reported from the outset, did you see things that were coming, did you see this momentum building towards Jon and Patsy Ramsey being the killers?
PATSY: Not initially. Initially we were devastated. We were incoherent. We were so distraught and devastated at the loss of our child. So it was few days before we really began to understand what was happening.
JOHN: There are a couple of things that I think caused this. A couple of flaws in logic. One is that a child murdered – it’s the parents. That is not true.
If you look at children who have been abused or murdered and it’s the parents involved -- in virtually every one of those cases there is a long history of prior abuse. The teachers know about it, the social services know about it, the police have had calls on this family before. There is not one thing in our background to demonstrate that. So you can’t categorically say a child is murdered -- therefore it’s the parents. If there is a long history of abuse or trouble in that family then perhaps the parents need to be looked at seriously.

This is not true....look at Susan Smith...just for example..and there are MANY, MANY more...that just snapped that one time, and that is ALL it took.
 
SCOTT: Has anyone from the press who ever published any false information at any time ever come back to you, called you, written you a letter, sent you an e-mail and said, "We were wrong, we were sorry, we misspoke", etc.?
JOHN: No.
PATSY: None
JOHN: Well, perhaps, yeah. Yeah, I did get a call from a tabloid reporter who said, "I’m sorry for what has been done to you by us." I’ve gotten several letters from people that were in the media profession. I got a letter from an editor who wrote, "I’m ashamed of what my business has done to you.


Funny how they both reply...NO and NONE...to the question...but then, a light bulb goes off in John's head..and he sees this as an opportunity to show that the press was "wrong"...and if he changes his answer to yeah, yeah....it will make people that think that they are guilty, because of what the press had said....rethink their opinion of them.
 
JOHN: I tell you what, that probably came from the police. The police theory was that we had a wonderful Christmas dinner, came home, went to bed, sometime during the night JonBenet wet her bed, Patsy flew into a rage, bashed her in the head and said, "uh-oh, should not have done that." She went on to stage a kidnapping, strangled her to stage it, and wrote a three-page ransom note, woke me up the next morning, woke me up and say "Honey, I killed one of the children but you have to keep that quiet." That’s the police theory.
PATSY: There were no wet sheets, there is no evidence in that at all.
JOHN: It doesn’t pass the test of logic, of common sense, it’s foolish.
SCOTT: If you had done this then you went back to bed?
JOHN: Yeah, went back to bed.
PATSY: That’s their theory, I guess.


No, that's NOT their theory. Their theory is that she NEVER went to bed that night.....therefore...she is wearing the same clothes as the night before.
 
If you look at children who have been abused or murdered and it’s the parents involved -- in virtually every one of those cases there is a long history of prior abuse. The teachers know about it, the social services know about it, the police have had calls on this family before.

Nice to know John's memorized the talking points.

No, that's NOT their theory. Their theory is that she NEVER went to bed that night.....therefore...she is wearing the same clothes as the night before.

He knows that. He's just doing the Ramsey twist.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
181
Guests online
2,167
Total visitors
2,348

Forum statistics

Threads
590,066
Messages
17,929,656
Members
228,054
Latest member
AcerPacer
Back
Top