Lurker Steve
New Member
- Joined
- May 16, 2006
- Messages
- 213
- Reaction score
- 8
Oh, and after the kidnapping/murder - Lindbergh moved to Europe to escape the publicity and newshounds.
Sound familiar?
Sound familiar?
i agree in so far as whatever the ramseys did it was seen the way the see-er wanted to see it..if u think they did it-it was seen as evil..if u think they didnt, it was seen as gracious or whatever..Lurker Steve said:If JR (and PR when she was alive) were helping victims of crime, they'd be derided as hypocritical and as fakes by those who believe they are guilty.
IMHO.
Lurker Steve said:If JR (and PR when she was alive) were helping victims of crime, they'd be derided as hypocritical and as fakes by those who believe they are guilty.
IMHO.
Straitfan said:I do not mean that the parent of a murdered child has to advocate for the missing at all. Some people deal with loss different than others. But the reason I have had issues with the Ramseys from day one is because of their overall reaction.. (Not saying people HAVE to react a certain way.) but they have never, ever appeared to cooperate nor help.. You don't flood your house with other people when your child is missing... amoung other things.
Straitfan said:And how one reacts when their child is missing DOES matter... No one ever assumes Polly Klaas's father did something , nor Adam Walsh, nor many of the other many missing... Why??? Because they cooperate, why need a lawyer?? I would not even think of hiring an attorney if one of my kids were missing because I would have no need for an attorney to prove I was innocent...
i respectfully disagree-how would anyone react-they called their friends for support-or one friend called another and thats how these things can happen..they also did not know it was a murder at first..I just dont think there is a way to behave in a crisis..I think when u take a position that they are guilty or didnt act like u would then thats all u see..and when u take a positon that they are not guilty or just human-imperfect-etc, then u organize around that.Straitfan said:I do not mean that the parent of a murdered child has to advocate for the missing at all. Some people deal with loss different than others. But the reason I have had issues with the Ramseys from day one is because of their overall reaction.. (Not saying people HAVE to react a certain way.) but they have never, ever appeared to cooperate nor help.. You don't flood your house with other people when your child is missing... amoung other things.
here's the bottom line fellow ws friends, if we can't respect tricia the owner, then we don't have any business at ws. we can agree to disagree on certain items, but bashing is just unacceptable to tricia. if it wasn't for her, many of us would have some lonely days and nights.Tricia said:I posted this on another thread but I think it's important for all to read it.
Thank you.
Quote:
Here is the thing you all have to understand.
I got into the forum business because of the Ramsey case. I too believe it was an inside job.
I have seen first hand what the Ramsy's lies have done to innocent people.
The Ramseys make me sick. And yes, one or both killed JonBenet.
I usually don't come on the JBR forum at WS because I want to let all sides keep the discussion lively. That's why when I discuss the case I go to my other forum www.forumsforjustice.org/forums
Yes, I will allow anyone to call the Ramseys killers because one or both are. That's not just my opinion but the opinion of people much more knowledgable (sp?) than myself.
Is it unfair? Yes. I'll admit it is. But there are two things you have to remember.
1- Dear friends of mine have been almost ruined because of the Ramseys and their lies
2-I own the forum
I rarely bring out number 2 because I think it sounds like a power trip. That is not my intention. Really
Also give us credit. We allow fully and freely the discussion of an intruder even though I know this theory to be totally false.
Thank you for understanding.
So, you're saying that even if they're innocent, they're guilty??!! With all due respect, that statement above is ridiculous and even borders on nonsensical, IMO. :waitasec:Straitfan said:IF and that is a kinda big "IF" the Ramsey's or someone they know personally is not guilty of killing their daughter, it is their own fault for the situation they were/are in cause they created it themselves... So if someone else did possibly murder their sweet daughter, they can blame themselves for not helping the investigation because they caused their own situation by not reacting sooner, allowing individuals in their home..etc. The bottom line is a young child was murdered because, why??? She certainly did not deserve it..
Straitfan said:I see what you are saying in some ways Newtv, but if you look at the "overall people" who are guilty, (ie, Scott Peterson, Susan Smith) they all have a common demoninator..... Period.. act the same in same ways, etc... I am not saying the Ramsey's are guilty , on the fence from one day to the next with my opinion but I would most certainly have reacted different but they have much more money than I do as well as a different life perspective ....soo.. don't know but still even though they have wealth, dont think I would react the same but life is different for different people.
See, I wouldn't - the polygraph part, anyway. They're garbage. There are lots of false negatives and false positives.close_enough said:right again...it's all about investigating...you start with the close family (especially if the child is found dead in their own home, duh!)
i'd be screaming polygraph..hurry!!!...i'd want to get myself 'out of the way', as far as a suspect goes, ASAP.....the last thing in my mind would be to leave the state, where my dead child's body is too....
True. It's funny, JR has said not to judge JMK and that's somehow evidence that he knows he didn't do it. At the same time, JR supposedly is trying to get JMK to take the fall, in which case he'd want to scream "at least he's been found!"otto said:Having your 6 year old child murdered and being accused of the crime doesn't leave a lot of room to set things right because the more they fight to prevent people from being wrongly accused, the more guilty they appear to some people. This point is a double edged sword because I think the Ramsays have fought to address the issue of people being wrongly accused, but it has been used against them.
Lurker Steve said:See, I wouldn't - the polygraph part, anyway. They're garbage. There are lots of false negatives and false positives.
If I was advising a client or friend of mine, I'd ask him NOT to take one. If s/he failed, the police would consider them a suspect. If s/he passed, it wouldn't be evidence of innocence. Heads you lose, tails you lose.
And if they did have to take one, I'd tell them what the Soviets told Aldrich Ames - to just relax. He passed twice.
... or at least insist that the person giving it has more experience with the limitations of the polygraph and freely admits it.otto said:Polygraphs are meaningless and there's a good reason they are inadmissable in the courts, but the media likes to hold it out there as a controversial issue suggesting that we should debate someone's innocence based on the fact that they are informed enough to refuse the polygraph.