My Two Cents

Discussion in 'JonBenet Ramsey' started by 2 percent, Jul 19, 2013.

  1. 2 percent

    2 percent New Member

    Messages:
    1,301
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I love debate and discussion.
    I love analyzing cold, active and even supposedly solved cases.
    I am going to state some things pretty forcefully because that is the person that I am. You don't know me but I have a hide like a rhino and it takes a lot to insult or even annoy me, so don't feel like you have to tiptoe around my feelings if you know or think I'm wrong about certain facts. However I do ask that the correction be based on actual, cited fact and not opinion masquerading as fact.

    I believe there was chronic molestation but I lean more toward weeks and days rather than months.

    I believe one of the family murdered JB, specifically one of the parents.
    I lean toward John, not Patsy. I lean that way because of the mood of this crime. Patsy seems to me to be less methodical, more panicky under stress. Although the coverup was sloppy in some ways, it was still methodical. So John gets his freak on and JB dies during the process. What does he do? He builds an entire kidnapping scenario and is able to persuade Patsy to help him. He limits forensics either by careful handling of things associated with the coverup or he wipes things down. I think if this were an angry or panicked murder (meaning Patsy), the house would look very different and the clean up be different. Another thing, and this is pure opinion...I think Pasty would help John cover up but I don't think John would help Patsy. And I don't think she's methodical enough to set up the whole kidnapping scene nor have the presence of mind to think up that ransom note.

    I don't think Burke had anything to do with it but I do think he saw or heard some things John and Patsy didn't want revealed. I don't believe for a moment that Burke was sexually curious to the extent he'd abuse his sister. 9 year old children just do not become that sexually aggressive with a family member in a vacuum. He wasn't an adult, he wouldn't know how to cover up his curiosity and most likely wouldn't be able to limit that curiosity to his sister. There would have been other signs with other girls either at school or in the neighborhood. But the most compelling evidence he had nothing to do with it was that his parents let him leave their sphere of influence so quickly after the murder. There is no way parents would let a child they suspected of murder, who they covered up for by the way, get out of their supervision where he could talk. No way.
    Further, on a practical note, Burke by reason of his age just does not fit. Pedophiles entice children into sexual acts with charm and favors. Once they get the children to perform/submit, they use threats, coercion, etc to keep them quiet and comply. JB did not fight. She would have fought her brother not only because he was a sibling but because he wouldn't bother wooing her into the acts. He just does not fit.

    I believe there was molestation that night and that there was at least one other instance. I don't believe it was months but perhaps weeks or days before. Not only does the forensics prove this to my satisfaction, but her behavior in some ways is classic molested child. However...it was Christmas and children are excited and happy during that time of year. I've seen claims that JB wasn't acting "different" enough to suggest molestation, but the time of year has to be considered.

    Speaking of...
    Right after hearing about this case I noted that December 25/26 is a very strange time for an intruder to commit a murder. Mainly because there is no routine during the holidays. Most people do not go to work or at least they don't work normal hours, so no predator could guarantee they could get a child alone without being observed by neighbors or other children out of school. Why take such an unnecessary risk? I don't believe a predator would.

    I've been around criminal cases enough to know that logic isn't always a part of the plan. However I'm not going to stretch the bounds of logic by believing JB was an exception to cold logic.

    The intruder did it theory....I'm supposed to believe that JB was molested probably days before the murder, that she exhibited behavioral signs and allude to a few things but never once said anything. Okay, so say I believe she hadn't gotten to the point where she could talk. The intruder would choose a day you can guarantee family will be together, sneaking into a house where the routine of the neighborhood could not be predicted (say it happened at midnight, how can you guarantee someone won't be coming home from their merriment at that time? You can't!). And beyond that you would be able to come into the house, grab the child, feed her pineapple or not, take her to the basement and configure a contraption for sexual gratification. All the while invading her comfort zone of her own house with her parents not far away and being confident she will be compliant and quiet. Then when the molestation went south you actually felt the need to cover it up and concoct a kidnapping scenario to explain it which would require that you remain in the house for several minutes/hours, increasing your likelihood of being discovered?!?!?! Not only that but the intruder was able to find all implements for the ransom note without leaving evidence behind.

    Nope.
    Burke was not sexually interested in his sister.
    If the theory is that he just killed her out of rage, how was his mouth kept shut? And if the Ramseys did cover it up why in the name of God would one of them molest her, desecrating her in such an unnecessary way? Kidnapping cover up would be enough, the theory being she was accidentally killed while being abducted. Period.

    An intruder would not break into a house on the day after Christmas, molest a child in her own home and then, when things turned to murder, concoct a kidnapping scenario which would take several minutes or more to set up when getting the heck out would be just as easy and far safer (timewise and with the evidence you would leave behind).

    I believe it was the parents....don't know which.
     
  2. Loading...


  3. UKGuy

    UKGuy Active Member

    Messages:
    9,144
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    38
    2 percent,
    Interesting post, succinct and to the point. I agree with many of of your points and disagree with some.

    I myself think the case is either JDI or BDI. I also think many are fooled by the staging, it colors their perception of who might have done what.

    So for similar reasons to yourself, I arrive at a different conclusion, i.e. BDI, because its JR who is composed and rational enough to cover up for BR.

    The characteristics you attribute to JR might suggest to you he should never arrive at a position where he has killed his six-year old daughter due to extreme violence?

    Then again once he leaves this world we might be regailed with tales and anecdotes regarding his penchant for bondage and AEA?

    .
     
  4. 2 percent

    2 percent New Member

    Messages:
    1,301
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    BBM

    Actually it's been my experience that the most controlled onions have many, many more layers than than even the mildest drama queens (kings).

    Like everyone else I know the evolution of pedophiles. Most begin their behavioral patterns in their teens and they have usually honed their skills to an art by their 30s. Most often coercion, kindness and gifts are used to entice and grooming follows. They typically do not get compliance through violence, hence the necessity of enticements and grooming.

    Based on what we know neither John nor Burke fit the pedophile pattern. Like you said, it's possible that John may turn out to be a closet case. Although just because one of his three daughters said he didn't touch her, doesn't mean he didn't touch the other two, who are dead. There is documented evidence of fathers "preferring" a daughter over another so, while not common, it is possible for his oldest and youngest daughters to be his victims. What's unlikely is that he's never felt a further need. As you say, that we know of.

    Ditto Burke. He has not shown a tendency toward pedophilia and he, too, wouldn't have just stopped.

    Still...someone molested her. And she was murdered during that molestation, and probably before.
     
  5. UKGuy

    UKGuy Active Member

    Messages:
    9,144
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    38
    2 percent,
    The simple solution is that it is both. JR fits your profile, but on the night of the 25th it was someone else who abused and assaulted JonBenet, precisely because they were raised in a dysfunctional family. Prompting the staging etc because the chronic abuse would become public knowledge.

    Its the molestation that was being hidden from view not her death, the latter was self evident, no ligature was required!



    .
     
  6. azwriter

    azwriter Sister Mary Wanna

    Messages:
    4,217
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You're right UK, it would make the case simple to point the finger at both dad and her brother. But I don't think the physical evidence of prior molestation shows that. To me, it shows JonBenet had experienced an on-going probing with a finger or something close to that in her immediate past. There wasn't any penetration shown, just the wearing away of tissue and hymen.

    Would a grown man settle for that type of activity? Or would he want more even to the point of his daughter touching him. I even hate to write all this but it's been a question that has lingered with me for years. What does her body show when it comes to what was done to her when it comes to sexual activity?

    Also for 2Percent, yes I can see the parents allowing Burke to leave the home the morning of December 26. They had to. The cops were all over the house. The Ramsey parents did not want the cops near their son. And I do think Patsy and John knew Burke well enough to know he would not talk about what happened, especially where his actions were concerned. He'd been warned before.

    It's always been my belief that Burke played around with his sister and his parents knew because they caught the two together. And that Burke was strongly punished by his parents and warned not to do it again nor to talk about it outside the immediate family.

    I don't think JonBenet was in favor of her brother doing that to her, but it's all she knew and would only pick up the idea it was wrong by hearing her parents scold them and lecture Burke about it. No one is born with the sense of right and wrong for this type of behavior. It's something they learn from their parents' reaction.

    The probing between Burke and his little sister was a dirty secret in the Ramsey household. One that the family would keep hidden at all cost.

    jmo
     
  7. Chelly

    Chelly Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,809
    Likes Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    63
    2 percent: I believe there is a very strong possibility that BR did the head bash, but not necessarily out of rage; perhaps more out of panic. I think BR may have been progressively abusing JB for some time. Christmas night he may have probed further and hurt her. She may have screamed out and tried to run from him, saying "I'M TELLING". To stop her, he grabbed what was at hand and whacked her on the head. I think the ligature would have been added by JR as staging and to help JB along to her death.

    Why does anyone keep his/her mouth shut? By knowing the likely consequences of his/her actions if the truth was revealed.

    As far as JR and PR doing the unimaginable to their dead/nearly dead child to cover up.........they did what was necessary in their minds.
     
  8. DeeDee249

    DeeDee249 New Member

    Messages:
    8,022
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    To me, BR and/or JAR are the most likely possible molesters and not true pedophiles. With BR, a child himself, sexual activity between siblings is not unheard of. The type of activity may escalate as they get older. As for JAR- he could be what is known as a "situational molester". This is a case where the victim is molested because the opportunity is there. She was a very sexualized little girl and her own mother admitted she was "flirtatious". Other people noticed it too. Tarted up in her make-up and big hair with her sexual dance moves and showgirl costumes-she was an available target for the males in the house who were unable to control their attraction to her. JR could also have fit the profile of a "situational molester". This type of molester only targets a specific victim (or victims) that they have private access to, and do not target other victims at large. They are not truly sexually attracted to ALL children- just the victim they have access to. Sometimes it is not a matter of sexual attraction as it is sexual availability.
     
  9. 2 percent

    2 percent New Member

    Messages:
    1,301
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Where is the evidence that Burke was sexually interested in his sister?
    I've seen the claim by "sources" they played doctor and that she had begun sleeping with Burke sometimes but that is a very, very long way from sexual interest!

    Playing doctor is not inherently sexual. I can't take that step without more than "sources".
    And recently sleeping with Burke, to me, is a slight twist on a classic molestation symptom - sudden sleeping with parents. It's a comfort thing and this twist is interesting. More indicative of avoiding the parental bed and seeking to either hide from the molester or passive-aggressively seeking Burke 's protection. If anything it strengthens my belief of John's complicity in the molestation.
     
  10. txsvicki

    txsvicki New Member

    Messages:
    14,189
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't post often, but the problem I see with JonBenet being killed during that night's molestation doesn't fit with Kolar saying that she had the head injury about about 90 minutes before dying of strangulation and that the genital jab happened right at death.
     
  11. UKGuy

    UKGuy Active Member

    Messages:
    9,144
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    38
    txsvicki,
    Do you think she was not molested that particular night?

    .
     
  12. UKGuy

    UKGuy Active Member

    Messages:
    9,144
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    38
    azwriter,
    Other forms of activity might not leave much physical evidence behind. So who knows what was going on, maybe it had just started in the recent months?

    Still your doubts suggest that BDI is a stronger theory than both JDI and BDI. We know that the parents knew BR was molesting JonBenet, we also know other parents in the parents immediate social circle knew that innapropriate behaviour was taking place between JonBenet and their sons. The Mega-JonBenet thing was intended as a means to open the subject up by very concerned parents.

    It could also be there was no molestation on that fateful night, but BR had been playing doctors with JonBenet and no more. That JR has never molested JonBenet either.

    I have a theory to explain the latter, which is a variant of ST's take on it.


    .
     
  13. Chrishope

    Chrishope New Member

    Messages:
    1,878
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There aren't really that many facts in the case. So continuing discussion almost always ends up with opinion.

    Why?

    Me too.

    OK, so we are already outside the realm of actual fact and into opinion. But you've stated it as opinion, so fair enough.

    I also think it was JR because if PR was helping him, I do not believe the body would have been in the house at the time of the 911 call. Or perhaps it's better to say the 911 call would not have been placed until the body had been removed. So, I think it's more likely JR acted alone.

    On the matter of one parent helping the other - Unless both were in on the molestation and killing, her death to be a surprise to one or the other parent. The surprised parent would be likely to call 911 for an ambulance. So joint operation theories need to explain why one parent would help the other cover the crime.

    In a scenario in which PR kills (per ST's bed wetting/rage theory let's say) then JR would be surprised by the death. If he was the long term abuser, he'd have a reason to "help" PR cover up. PR is facing prison for killing JB and JR is facing prison if anyone finds out that he had been molesting JB. So they both have something to gain.

    From here we can go into case details asking whether or not such and such actions facilitate JR/PR's aims in staying out of jail. I'll skip all that for the time being.

    In a scenario in which JR kills her (maybe because she's going to tell all, maybe an EA game that went wrong) PR would be the surprised parent, and she'd want to call an ambulance. She'd be shocked at the death. She may or may not know about the abuse in this scenario. I have a hard time believing she'd help JR cover the crime. You never know about people, but I don't see a lot of gain for PR here. She's implicating herself in a murder which she knows she didn't do (Assuming this scenario). Doesn't seem likely to me.

    As to presence of mind: I'm constantly amazed at all the different levels of intelligence/stupidity that the Rs must be capable of. OTOH they are criminal masterminds who have tripped up the police with a diabolically clever staged scene, OTOH one doesn't have the presence of mind to stage a kidnapping. They go around the house destroying or messing up forensics, knowing as they do, all about forensics, but use their own pen/paper to write a RN in their own handwriting etc. etc. PR was not a stupid woman, and though it's contrary to my theory of the case, I see no reason to think she was not capable of thinking up the RN. (Though I do not believe she did think it up, nor do I think she wrote it)


    Me either.

    Unless he talks, we'll never know. And if he talks, but says he doesn't know anything, half the RDI world will be sure it's a lie.

    I don't think he was molesting his sister either. He played doctor. What was done to JB was to cover up something more sinister than kids playing doctor.

    But he may not have had access to anyone but his sister.

    I agree. The didn't have any concern at all that he might blab about what he had "done" or "seen".

    Well, I don't know enough about pedophile profiling to argue with much here. I'll just say that I agree there is little evidence of a fight, so why all the violence inflicted on JB.

    So you think there was both sexual molestation and then the more brutal vaginal injuries to cover that? I'm just trying to be clear on your stance here.

    No argument there. It was not a predatory boogeyman intruder.

    Murder is often an irrational act. To me, that he (or they) had presence of mind to stage a phoney kidnapping shows me they were at least attempting to be rational - within the context of covering up a murder.

    If you are looking for debate on IDI you'll find few takers here. IDIs are welcome, but this is an overwhelmingly RDI group here.

    We don't really know that there was no evidence left behind by an intruder. It's an assumption we make, and it's a reasonable assumption. But there is Touch DNA and there were unexplained tan fibers in the basement. These don't have to be left from an intruder, but that's very different than saying they couldn't be left by an intruder. I mention this not to support an IDI theory but to point out that in BDI there isn't even fiber evidence against BR, and the only touch DNA is on JB's nightie, and since BR lives in the house, has a room on the same floor, and had an opportunity to touch her intentionally and unintentionally his tdna means nothing at all. Yet RDIs are consistent in rejecting the evidence of an intruder as insufficient, yet the BDI branch of RDI believes their theory with less evidence than the IDI theory has going for it.


    I think he may have had the normal anatomical interest that a boy that age has, but I don't think he's the molester, either chronic or acute. It's possible for a 9 year old to be a molester, but he's not the most likely to be the molester.

    The kidnapping would be enough by itself if he (they) could be sure the body would never be found, or only found after the passage of considerable time - IOWs, no evidence of chronic molestation would still be evident.

    But no one could be sure of that. If the plan was to have the body discovered in the house (Which I regard as completely absurd) then the injuries inflicted would have been nearly mandatory - at least if the perp knew there was prior molestation, thought it might be evident at autopsy, and thought the injuries inflicted would obscure the evidence.

    If the body was to be dumped, the perp would have to anticipate it being found, and there would be no telling when, so the injuries might still be necessary.

    There are some who think that there was only one acute molestation - the injuries done. IOWs there wasn't a "fun" molestation, and a "staged" molestation. Just one. I can't discount that entirely, but as you say, why such brutality ? Covering up past deeds is all I can come up with. Or we are dealing with a really sick puppy here.

    An intruder wouldn't leave a RN and a body. He'd leave one, or the other.

    This is almost like being hit in the head with a big stick - what else does one need to start putting the pieces together?

    A child has been murdered. The murderer can either fess up and go to prison or try to cover up. A staged kidnapping explains the absence of a body. It does not explain the movement of a body from one area of the house to another. A kidnapping also may explain her death - the kidnappers did it, but it's not very likely they did it En route from her bedroom to the basement. It's not likely the kidnappers took her to the basement at all, since we know there was no entry/exit from that broken window.

    So, we have a kidnapping, staged for the purpose of covering up a murder. A kidnapping scenario is far more plausible w/o the body in the house, therefore the plan was to dump the body. Since the plan was to dump the body, the 911 call would not have been placed when the body was still in the house if PR was in on the plan. Therefore PR was not in on the plan. Therefore JR acted alone.

    http://solvingjonbenet.blogspot.com/2012/07/just-facts-maam.html


    As an aside, I'm not going to have the time to spend here like I have been doing. So if we are having a discussion, I might take a week or more to reply. Just didn't want you to think I'm not interested in talking about the case with you.
     
  14. Chelly

    Chelly Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,809
    Likes Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    63
    DeeDee, A thanks wasn't enough. I must say that I agree with you 100%. The sexual attraction began and ended with JB and he "went on with his life".
     
  15. Chelly

    Chelly Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,809
    Likes Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    63
    BBM Whoops, sorry, I forgot how we know that. Could you refresh my memory? I don't disagree that BR was molesting JB. I've just forgotten the evidence.
     
  16. questfortrue

    questfortrue Member

    Messages:
    966
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Be tolerant of my too-long post. I’m not up on sibling vs. adult molestation statistics.

    I have read Kolar as well as the book by SA (Sharon Araji researched book on which Kolar bases his SBP theory) . If one endorses BDI as most likely, then it must be with the concomitant violence – the head strike. This is actually, mho, why one would select BDI. It’s the violence, the marks on JB and the head bash. (JAR was excused as a suspect by BPD, but that doesn’t mean he wasn’t involved in something with JB before.) SA indicates that SBP happens as a result of home dynamics – rage, loneliness, being molested, being neglected, witnessing abuse. Using some behavioral analysis which drifts into opinion here: BR was a more withdrawn boy, some claim not given much affection by JR or as much attention by PR and he developed big issues. But he did well in school and seemed to have friends.

    Here’s what doesn’t fit for me. First the query Chrishope put forth, which was if the parents knew about it (one reason for the paintbrush jab, to cover-up previous instances), why didn’t they stop it before it escalated. My initial response is PR didn’t think it was something serious. (No counselor reported a BR/JB abuse situation to the authorities.) Another thing, since JB showed chronic molestation (interior signs), one would not assume this was a positive situation for JB, i.e., when the molestation became invasive. If it was something she could only manifest distress of by toilet regression and actual encopresis in her bed, then why would JB continue to go into BR’s room to sleep in the other twin bed in his room?

    Lastly, JB was shown to have changed in her behavior between Thanksgiving and Christmas. She had according to one of their friends, a more “haunted” look. She apparently visited the school nurse on a couple of Mondays. And the school teacher told BPD that JB was clingier to PR. We don’t know why PR called the good Dr. B on the 17th. We also don’t know what happened at the R’s Christmas party on the 23rd and caused someone to dial 911. Pure opinions and speculation are JB was being molested (I’m thinking really at a Christmas party?!), or she had a toilet accident and PR had to rescue her at their fancy social event, and was pretty rough on JB. For some reason, SS answered the door to the police through the intercom and the police did not try to enter the home. PR and JR were apparently indisposed.

    This all makes me wonder whether there weren’t 2 or more molestation perps. And it also is really sad for a little girl whose cries for help for her situation – pageant training, toilette regression, AND molestation – were basically overlooked. All mho.
     
  17. UKGuy

    UKGuy Active Member

    Messages:
    9,144
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Chelly,
    I guess we do not really know in the provable sense, only in the inferential and probable sense.

    The list of items is too long to cite, but the christmas party event is one, other parents saying they intended talking with PR regarding JonBenet and her Mega-JonBenet Thing. LHP walking in on BR and JonBenet allegedly playing doctors with JonBenet screaming at her to get out of the room, like its all normal behaviour? Then there are the sleepovers with DS and BR along with others at different times, did JonBenet make a pest of herself as PR claims or was she the star of the show? Note how PR always deflects you away from the obvious. Remember PR recounting how JonBenet had a crush on some local boy.

    Again for completeness, in a behavioural sense, can I ask you to consider why Susan Stine might want to actively inject herself into the case of the century, with the risk it might take her and her family down?
     
  18. Chrishope

    Chrishope New Member

    Messages:
    1,878
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0

    I confess I do not see how we know this even in the inferential/probable sense.

    What we are talking about is BR being the molester and JR/PR knowing that fact. I don't see how this is inferred from the Christmas party event (I'm assuming this is the 911 call that SS handled)

    From the other parents wanting to talk to PR about the mega-JB thing we can infer that they thought something was wrong that needed to be brought to PR's attention. How do we infer this was BR molesting JB?

    OK, I'll agree that one might infer, from JB's reaction, it was more serious than playing doctor.

    One might also explain it as an embarrassed JB having an outburst to cover the fact she was playing a game she knew was considered wrong.

    A question that amounts to inuendo is the basis for an inference that BR was molesting JB, and that their parents knew it?
     
  19. Chelly

    Chelly Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,809
    Likes Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    63


    BBM
    Ahhh. Indeed! Patsy's Pit Bull. How sweet if the Stine's could sing.
     
  20. 2 percent

    2 percent New Member

    Messages:
    1,301
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Interesting point. And it aligns quite well with my assessment of both Ramsey's characters.

    I have to say I don't understand why the body wasn't moved outside the house - intruder or Ramsey. But I just assumed it was my personal experience getting in the way. I would never let the body be found in the house if I were in that position.

    This happened in the Routier case too - mother killed two of her three boys - and one of the biggest points of contention was how involved the father was.

    The best reason anyone has ever come up with for an innocent parent helping a murdering one is fear. Fear of being killed by the murderer Fear of losing what they have (status, money, etc) when the child "can't be brought back if we turn on each other".

    On a practical note, I've never met a person who was consistently intelligent or stupid in their thoughts or actions. So the combination of mastermind and stupidity isn't surprising to me. Also, I think they had a lot of luck...not luck they were expecting, just lucky.

    My point was the timeframe.
    I don't think she was being molested for months. I think there was probably one or two previous molestations and they were at most weeks before (4-5 tops) but more likely days before. Molestation victims show both immediate and long term symptoms of the abuse. The bedwetting, sleeping with Burke was early stage stuff. More long term stuff would be a general fear of men, especially of men touching her. Even casually. They make themselves unattractive with hygiene changes and dressing differently. I know PR mostly controlled the pageant stuff but that doesn't mean JB would have begun to balk at being made pretty.

    Of course there is much, much more to this subject I just don't have the time to continue. Let's just say I've known a few molestation victims, family members and friends, and I've seen up close and first hand the changes wrought by this. JB just doesn't ping for the long term stuff in my opinion. But definitely the short term.

    If I've learned anything studying these cases it's that there is no perfect crime scene.

    Again, in the Routier case a sock with blood stains was found down the alleyway behind their house. A police dog was brought in the track the supposed intruder in that case. The dog never "hit" on the sock although he passed right by it, a cop found the sock. Now how did this trained police dog miss the scent of blood? Who knows. But the people that believe in her innocence point to it and say "cops planted it because the dog didn't smell it". To me, that's a huge stretch. I don't expect perfection or everything to be explained. I expect common sense.

    I see what you are getting at but I don't agree.
    I just don't think PR would never have questioned JR's involvement either in private or public. I also don't think she's so stupid as to ignore clear evidence that points to JR.
    I think her silence and their continued marriage until she died had to do with sharing dangerous secrets.

    Thanks for the warning. But don't worry, I'm busy too. I'm peeling wallpaper, painting icky rooms and tearing up bathroom linoleum. I drop in here when I'm in too much pain, too tired or too contrary to work :floorlaugh:
     
  21. UKGuy

    UKGuy Active Member

    Messages:
    9,144
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Chrishope,
    Your confession is accepted: Let that be two hail mary's, twice to evening mass, and a deposit in the collection tray on the way out.

    I note your ability to generate inferences whilst upholding DocG's theory appears unimpaired, this should allow you to demonstrate why any of my inferences are invalid, otherwise ignoratio elenchi!


    Theoria is essentially the act of seeing, ad fontes Aristotle. From which we derive our modern concept of theory.

    You must improve your ability to envisage another's theory, even if its invalid, advertising your blindness discredits your evident intellectual attributes.

    .
     

Share This Page

  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