Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 3456789 LastLast
Results 73 to 84 of 101
  1. #73

    Wink Working on it...

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase
    Well, a little review explains a lot about what's going on here, I think:

    http://www.forumsforjustice.org/foru...0&page=1&pp=12

    So several of us responded to your theory, JS. Details. Evidence. Reason. Sources. No response from you.
    Just got done with finals, and honestly, this week is the first time I have had a chance to read all of your responses. I will be posting and responding to your questions soon.

  2. #74

    Default

    Two things:

    First, why is your list of authors and articles any different than the numerous ones I posted, as well as others?

    No, upon rereading, I see you accused ME of being rude. LA's rudeness you have no problem with.

    Two: Another college student? Is this a trend? Or are you two classmates?

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  3. #75
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    8,381

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Little_Angel_1990
    Actually, I had to change a few things around. As the intruder perspective was too broad of a topic to cover, I had decided to focus my paper on how the media circus totally bungled the case and used samples to back up my claims. No doubt the media ruined the family, the case and JonBenet's innocence. FYI, Elle, I'm 22, not "a lot older than she is making herself out to be." Thanks for taking interest!

    LA
    I thought you sounded older than high school age LA. So you must be doing a university or college course on this? You received an A, so it's over!

    Sometimes we do get posters from Jameson's site pretending to be someone else. There are Patsy Ramsey clones, or Patsy herself. For sure, Susan Stine has been over here too. Just assumptions, of course, but definitely game players.
    elle: The RST can't handle the truth!
    Just my opinion.

  4. #76
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Texarkana, USA
    Posts
    4,301

    Default

    Darn, I wish I had all yall back when I had papers to write. If it's ok to ask, for what course did you write that paper, LLA?
    This post, unless it is a legal court document, may not be carried in part, or in its entirety to any other discussion forum or bulletin board without the express written consent of the party who wrote it. It is proprietary to the author and to www.forumsforjustice.org. Violators will be reported to their Internet Service Providers.

  5. #77

    Exclamation

    Quote Originally Posted by koldkase
    Two things:

    First, why is your list of authors and articles any different than the numerous ones I posted, as well as others?

    No, upon rereading, I see you accused ME of being rude. LA's rudeness you have no problem with.

    Two: Another college student? Is this a trend? Or are you two classmates?
    Am I a college student? Yes. Is Angel a college student? Why don't you ask her? Yes, we sent her some of the same links I see. You wanted to know what I sent her so I posted it, and surprise surprise you still aren't happy. I was beginning process of typing up responces to your quesitons surrounding my theory, but I'm beginning to think that I am just waisting my time. The people on this forum clearly have their eyes set in one direction and aren't going to change their views. So why waist my time? Am I saying that your views are wrong, no, in fact agree with some of them.

    I have always straddled the fense on this case... I don't believe that the answer to our questions is either extreme, but somewhere in between... I guess when the truth comes out we will see which slant holds the most truth.

  6. #78

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Little_Angel_1990
    Actually, I had to change a few things around. As the intruder perspective was too broad of a topic to cover, I had decided to focus my paper on how the media circus totally bungled the case and used samples to back up my claims. No doubt the media ruined the family, the case and JonBenet's innocence. FYI, Elle, I'm 22, not "a lot older than she is making herself out to be." Thanks for taking interest!

    LA
    Your paper was based on a false premise.

    1. The media did not ruin "the family." The Ramseys did that by their own choices including the courting of the media when they thought it was to their advantage.

    2. The media did not ruin "the case." That was done by a bungling Boulder Police Department and a dishonest district attorney named Hunter who hamstrung the investigation and gave the primary suspects vital case evidence.

    As for your most impossible and preposterous conclusion ...

    3. The media did not ruin "JonBenet's innocence." Her parents were responsible for that. JonBenet was already dead by the time the media was involved.

    I am not a fan of today's media. Real journalism has been lost in a sea of flashy spin and celebrity madness. But the media is not to blame for what happened to the Ramseys and certainly not to blame for what happened to JonBenet.

    It is a sad truth of our present society that no one wants to take responsibility for their own choices and actions. There is always someone else to blame. This is the height of self-centered immaturity and a rejection of moral adult responsibility. We have become a nation of whining babies who throw screaming fits when things don't go our way. It's easy to blame others in order to try to escape the consequences of our actions. It is difficult to admit our mistakes and try to do better.

    Whether they are guilty or innocent, the Ramseys have no one to blame for their present situation but themselves. In making the media their scapegoat, you are enabling their dishonest, immature and self-centered world view. They would love for the world to see them as persecuted individuals when the truth is - they are the ones who have persecuted others in a myriad of ways including frivolous lawsuits, the planting of false information during questioning, the attempted destruction of reputations, the badgering of innocent individuals and documented lies.

    You will find NO OTHER innocent family in the history of true crime who has behaved in the same fashion.

    Now THERE is a topic for a great research paper.

  7. #79
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Middle of no where.
    Posts
    54

    Default

    Wow, a lot of replies. Impressive.

    Yes I am a college student and I just finished school last week. Good to have it finished and over with.

    I wrote the paper as an argumentative essay for my composition class along with a power point presentation.

    I just want to say: You can think what you guys want, but I am not from Jameson's site and I am not taking anyone's side. I have my own beliefs on what I think happened in the case, as well as everyone else, and no one can change that. However, I did not come here with any stupid "hidden agenda" or to "abuse" anyone, how can you think such BS?

    WHO did I write my paper for? Read above. Again, you can come to any conclusion you want, but I will always know the truth myself, no matter what anyone says. And I did not come here to "find" anyone. It just happened that Cookie revealed herself and I asked a few things, that doesn't mean I came look for her. Gosh didn't realize this would turn into such a big spectacle. One simple question into something big. Geez...

    -LA 90

  8. #80

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SeekingJustice
    Am I a college student? Yes. Is Angel a college student? Why don't you ask her? Yes, we sent her some of the same links I see. You wanted to know what I sent her so I posted it, and surprise surprise you still aren't happy. I was beginning process of typing up responces to your quesitons surrounding my theory, but I'm beginning to think that I am just waisting my time. The people on this forum clearly have their eyes set in one direction and aren't going to change their views. So why waist my time? Am I saying that your views are wrong, no, in fact agree with some of them.

    I have always straddled the fense on this case... I don't believe that the answer to our questions is either extreme, but somewhere in between... I guess when the truth comes out we will see which slant holds the most truth.
    You know, SJ, you worked a lot on your theory and your post of it. I know how much time and energy that takes. That's the only reason I spent so much time responding. When I first came to the forums, there was much I didn't know about this case, in spite of the books. It's so much to fathom. So I was simply trying to help you out with some holes in your theory and maybe some things you didn't know because I thought you were sincerely interested in the case.

    As for you choosing not to respond to the discussion of your theory: you started it. It was a hell of a lot of work to get through your theory and then break down for you where you got off track. You'd have to do quite a bit of reading and thinking, then writing, to get back on track. Maybe once you realized the time involved, you weren't inclined to follow through with what you started.

    It's exactly as EW said, exactly why Moab laughed at the first request on this thread, and exactly as experience has taught us: once the facts of evidence are laid out, which takes lots of time, considering this case has a 40 thousand page case file, not many step back up to the plate. So it ends up being we who get our time wasted, because we took the time.

    It's really not that hard of a case to understand, but it takes a great deal of effort and intelligence to sift through the powerful efforts by skilled people to obstruct justice for JonBenet. The evidence is clear. All it takes is finding out what the factual evidence is and following that to the truth--not what you want the truth to be. You can't pick and choose and misinterpret and then throw out the evidence you don't like, and then grab onto disinformation fed to you by those who have an agenda far from the journey to the truth.

    Most posters here have spent many years researching, studying, and debating this case, as well as theorizing, testing, changing our theories as we learned, trying to hone in on the fine details of evidence that put the truth or the lie to what we theorize happened that night. We didn't just wake up one day and think, oh, we don't like the rich Ramseys, let's lynch them, even though they're innocent! That myth came from the swamp and from people like Tracey who couldn't find the truth with God as their guide. We're not barking mad. I'd call a professor of journalism barking mad who broadcasts out and out lies, who serially labels clearly innocent people as child killers from documentary to documentary, solely because that's where his bread is buttered.

    So you're going to find out in discussing the case here that people will tell you the facts of the case where you go wrong, will question what you theorize, as we question each other and ourselves--and yes, we do find from time to time we've mucked up some long held belief. That's what we're here for...to learn and to share info on the journey to the truth of who killed JonBenet.

    And we take all this serious enough to get miffed occasionally when we're baited by those who think it's some media game, or who come here with clear disdain for us to waste our time. A child died. Horribly. We never forget that.

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  9. #81

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cherokee
    Your paper was based on a false premise.

    1. The media did not ruin "the family." The Ramseys did that by their own choices including the courting of the media when they thought it was to their advantage.

    2. The media did not ruin "the case." That was done by a bungling Boulder Police Department and a dishonest district attorney named Hunter who hamstrung the investigation and gave the primary suspects vital case evidence.

    As for your most impossible and preposterous conclusion ...

    3. The media did not ruin "JonBenet's innocence." Her parents were responsible for that. JonBenet was already dead by the time the media was involved.

    I am not a fan of today's media. Real journalism has been lost in a sea of flashy spin and celebrity madness. But the media is not to blame for what happened to the Ramseys and certainly not to blame for what happened to JonBenet.

    It is a sad truth of our present society that no one wants to take responsibility for their own choices and actions. There is always someone else to blame. This is the height of self-centered immaturity and a rejection of moral adult responsibility. We have become a nation of whining babies who throw screaming fits when things don't go our way. It's easy to blame others in order to try to escape the consequences of our actions. It is difficult to admit our mistakes and try to do better.

    Whether they are guilty or innocent, the Ramseys have no one to blame for their present situation but themselves. In making the media their scapegoat, you are enabling their dishonest, immature and self-centered world view. They would love for the world to see them as persecuted individuals when the truth is - they are the ones who have persecuted others in a myriad of ways including frivolous lawsuits, the planting of false information during questioning, the attempted destruction of reputations, the badgering of innocent individuals and documented lies.

    You will find NO OTHER innocent family in the history of true crime who has behaved in the same fashion.

    Now THERE is a topic for a great research paper.
    Bam! Well said, Chero, well said. And every word true.

    "University of Colorado Law Professor Paul Campos declared the letter a 'reckless exoneration.' He went on to state, 'Everyone knows that relative immunity from criminal conviction is something money can buy.
    Apparently another thing it can buy is an apology for even being suspected of a crime you probably already would have been convicted of committing if you happened to be poor.'"
    FF: WRKJB?

    ~~~~~~~
    Bloomies underwear model:
    3 Dimensional

    ~~~~~~
    My opinions, nothing more.

  10. #82

    Default

    KoldKase,

    I have read all of your responses. I finally read all the way through that forum today. I have done a mountain of research on this case... What I posted was a very short version. I realize that there are a plenty of holes in it, and that is what I am currently working on. I will spend all summer preparing a research paper that I will present at a conference in the fall. There is no point of me posting anything else that this point simply because I have a lot more digging to do. If I didn't value your input and everyone else's input on this forum I would have never posted it here. I have taken all of your posts seriously, and I'm not just saying that. You have good points. But I am just not prepared at this moment to post everything I have dug up. Once I conclude the research I will post it.

    -JS

  11. #83

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SeekingJustice
    KoldKase,

    I have read all of your responses. I finally read all the way through that forum today. I have done a mountain of research on this case... What I posted was a very short version. I realize that there are a plenty of holes in it, and that is what I am currently working on. I will spend all summer preparing a research paper that I will present at a conference in the fall. There is no point of me posting anything else that this point simply because I have a lot more digging to do. If I didn't value your input and everyone else's input on this forum I would have never posted it here. I have taken all of your posts seriously, and I'm not just saying that. You have good points. But I am just not prepared at this moment to post everything I have dug up. Once I conclude the research I will post it.

    -JS
    You're SeekingJustice, yet you signed off as "JS" and not "SJ". Hmmm...

    -Tea

  12. #84

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by icedtea4me
    You're SeekingJustice, yet you signed off as "JS" and not "SJ". Hmmm...

    -Tea
    Good catch, Tea. I noticed the same discrepancy.

    Interestingly, there is a poster at Susan Bennett's Webbsleuths (aka the Swamp") named "Justice_Seeker" who signs off her posts with the initials "JS" in exactly the same way.

    Here is just one example of many -

    ************

    Justice_Seeker
    Member since 5-8-02
    05-21-06, 05:20 PM (EST)

    4. "RE: Time keeps tick tockin' away..."
    In response to message #3

    Thanks Margoo,
    That is what I thought. Wasn't there at least one unidentified shoe print found outside, as well as the Hi-Tec print in the cellar room with the body of JonBenet? I don't believe anyone, with the exception
    of the killer, will ever know the TOD of JonBenet.

    JS


    ************



Similar Threads

  1. Evidence of....... Evidence suggestive of.....
    By sue in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 217
    Last Post: February 3, 2009, 6:13 pm, Tue Feb 3 18:13:06 UTC 2009
  2. First Boulder Reunion Memories & Evidence Against the Ramseys
    By BobC in forum Justice for JonBenet Discussion - Public Forum
    Replies: 111
    Last Post: March 19, 2008, 5:09 am, Wed Mar 19 5:09:11 UTC 2008
  3. New evidence??????
    By Tez in forum Laci Denise Rocha Peterson
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: July 24, 2003, 7:46 pm, Thu Jul 24 19:46:25 UTC 2003

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •