Physics Never Lie II

No, when it was tied, the tie made it non slip ending ended any
garroting action.

“Could that knot (pure speculation based on no factual knowledge
on my part) have been tied using two ends of a cord (like a
shoelace)?â€

No, had it been a hand over hand tie, it would have been an
alignment similar to a shoelace tied. This situation is from one
end looped around the main cord, then looped around itself twice
to create the slip knot that slipped down, compressed the main
cord and prevented any further movement.

“Does garroting a person need any knot around that person's neck
at all?â€

It depends on what you use to do the garroting. For sure, when
the noose size is locked by the tying, there is no garroting. A
knot may be used to create a small fixed loop to run the main
cord through to create an adjustable noose, but that doesn’t
exist at the crime scene.

“I always thought that in a garrote, the stick on which the cord
is fastened is turned round and round until the person is
strangled.â€

You’re thinking of a tourniquet. Although a tourniquet may be
used for strangulation, its a poor choice for several reasons;
especially, if the cord is small. There was no tourniquet action
at the crime scene.


“Could that knot be another indicator of staging?â€

Definitely. This along with other knot evidence indicates the
person was totally lost in regard to proper materials and proper
construction; so lost, that only in desperation would someone
with so little knowledge try such staging. The RST can weave all
the fairy tales they want about the “garrote sceneâ€, but the fact
remains it still is an ad hoc amateurish construction with the
singular intent to divert attention from the head trauma as the
primary.

 

If you went into a scene with the intentions of making a garrote, you would bring your own materials, and use a set of Gigli saw handles, and bring a length of piano wire or 80 to 120 pound test fishing line. You would think before you moved...especially if you were trying to extract large sums of money out of small cojones.
It all reeks of stupidity, the scene at the basement and the Rimpeys' house.

 

Easywriter, I am sitting here trying to tie according to your instructions.
the type of knot which was around JB's neck:

This situation is from one end looped around the main cord, then looped around itself twiceto create the slip knot that slipped down, compressed the maincord and prevented any further movement.

I also used your very helpful description in 'Journey Beyond Reason', p. 80/81.

But when I'm trying to tie the knot, still the main cord (the longer end) can move freely through the noose created by the shorter end of the cord which I first looped around the main cord, then around itself and then put the short end back through the opening to create the knot; i. e. I can't get the knot so tight that it locks, however hard I pull at the ends of the cord. The main cord doesn't seem to compress in my experiment.
But that cord around JB's neck sems to be pulled really tight.
Where do you think the person tying the knot around JB's neck pulled so that the main cord compressed?

Journey Beyond, Reason, p. 80:

You start from the basic of straddling the face down victim for comfort of operastion. it is noticed that the arms are in the way. They are moved to an overhead position to get them out of the way.

I don't think the victim was straddled, meaning an adult sat down on JB's body with his/her full weight. I imagine the cord-tying around the neck could have been easily done by someone sitting beside the body.
And in terms of the arms - imo, they would actually have been more in the way in an overhead position for someone who wanted to tie a cord around her neck. JMPO though.

 

Yes, it is basically the same description although the words may vary a little. "under the cord again etc...." This is the second move of the double slip knot with the second stacked on the first and aiding in the locking situation.

 

Thanks Easywriter, for you explanation. I practised it and can now tie the type of knot which was around JB's neck blindly. This is really a totally simple knot (if even I could tie it, it must be simple, lol) - how dare Lou Smit and John Ramsey speak of 'sophisticated'? They have some nerve. And people obviously believed them. Incredible. Was any rope expert ever called in?

EW, I have another question re the garrote. I obviously was wrong because I thought a garrote is always a tourniquet.
Could you give a basic definition of 'garrote'. I understand that there is a handle involved in a garrote. What exactly is the function of the handle? Is a garrote a more effective instrument as opposed to strangling a victim with a cord and not using a handle?

 

In my readings I find a garrote to be thin and often because of this and the pressure which is exerted in order to tighten down the thing, it cuts into the neck. Partial decapitations have been attributed to garroting.

A tourniquet is, in my experience, a wider, softer thing that cuts off both the venous and arterial flow to a limb. It does not leave a permanent mark (if applied correctly), nor does it cut through the flesh beneath it. If it is not applied tightly enough, one gets a "venous tourniquet" which causes venous pooling of blood in the extremity because the outflow is restricted, while the (arterial) pressurized inflow is still intact.

Finally, a tourniquet is a therapeutic intervention, while a garrote is a destructive tool.

The closest thing to a garrote I have seen is the old-fashioned Gigli saw which is used to cut through the bone (by some Old Schoolers) on amputations. Look it up. You can see for yourself.

http://www.hemcindia.com/gifs/72-433.gif

 

No. There was an ALLEGED expert by the name of Van Tassel. He
came and went without rendering an opinion; meaning, he didn’t
have a clue about knot construction. “Experts†without expertise
is the hallmark of the “investigation.â€


“EW, I have another question re the garrote. I obviously was
wrong because I thought a garrote is always a tourniquet.â€

I was taught to make a tourniquet by first a single throw tie
with a cloth around the limb, finger, etc., then insert a stick
at the place and tying a again. The stick is then twisted to take
up space and tighten the tourniquet to cut off circulation. The
instruction were a certain length of time cut off, then release,
then back to cut off. It been so long, I don’t remember the
specific lengths of time.

“Could you give a basic definition of 'garrote'.â€

The apparatus used is execution by strangulation. In medieval
times, it was an iron collar adjusted by screws to crush the
throat. The modern usual is an implement (as a wire with a handle
at each end) for strangulation.

“I understand that there is a handle involved in a garrote. What
exactly is the function of the handle?.â€

There are two handles. A handle is attached to each end of a
proper length of a flexible wire. A pick up crossing the wrists
(handles) is the way to create a loop. The target is approached
from behind, the loop flipped over the head, then cross pulled.

“ Is a garrote a more effective instrument as opposed to
strangling a victim with a cord and not using a handle?â€

Yes. The victim can be strangled by garroting without handles,
but the handles protect the hands from being damaged by the cord
with more pressure allowed without discomfort.

The ever present principle of all garrotes is construction
allowing reduction of the loop size to effect strangulation. A
lasso, animal snare, etc. also use loop size reduction, but the
connotation of a garrote is a device for execution.

There was no garrote at the Ramsey crime scene. There was no
binding of JonBenet either. There was only ad hoc inept staging
that identifies a panic-drive perpetrator tying to hide the truth
of head trauma as primary by ties that didn’t bind and a
“garrote†that didn’t garrote. They can make up silly scenarios
in denial until doomsday, but the Ramsey-convicting facts will
never change.

 

Easywriter, you wrote in one of your prior posts (if I understood it correctly) that a garrotting would not have exerted circumference pressure on the neck and could not have caused the furrow around JB's neck.
What do you think caused the furrow? The rope around her neck tied by a knot which was locked so tightly that Dr. Meyer had to cut the cord?

We know that JB was still alive when the scene was staged (because her vaginal injuries bled) - do you think it was the tightly knotted rope around her neck which strangled her?

Is it possible that the knot was tied first and then the cord was looped many times around the piece of wood to make it appear as a bizarre crime, but there never was any garroting at all?

 

Yes, Van Tassel is a LE knot expert from Canada who was called in. He spent a week working as a consultant in Boulder, according to various reports.

As far as I know, the general public does not know what he ultimately concluded. I just googled and found some info where he said he hadn't come to a conclusion yet when he spoke to reporters about his work on the case. Here are some links:

http://www.sol-system.com/cgi-bin/censor/censor.cgi?2/US/9711/30/ramsey/

This article was written November, 1997. So whatever anyone wants to conclude, I guess they're free to interpret his statement however they choose.

I personally do not interpret his silence and lack of public information on his findings to mean he found nothing or knew nothing.

Most professionals who work on an open case do not disclose publicly what information they have about open cases, and they often guard what they know professionally even in closed cases, unless it comes out in trial testimony and/or transcripts. That's partly for legal and professional reasons--a case can be handicapped or damaged by such disclosures, as well as their career destroyed, and partly out of respect for the victim: they know there are family and friends who can be deeply hurt by careless disclosures. In this case, once the Rams locked up on LE and went on TV, the rules changed. Some investigators chose to speak out and tell some of what they know for their own reasons, as we know. But there are plenty of investigators and experts who worked the case who have never said word one about it to anyone outside of LE.

I do not know what Van Tassel concluded, but he is an expert in his field and he is a professional.

http://www.nsnews.com/issues05/w060605/062305/news/062305nn7.html

I doubt we ever will know Van Tassel's final conclusions, but I don't think it is that hard to look at the garrote, read the autopsy, and figure out how JonBenet died. It's right there in black and white.

 

Easy Writer, with all due respect, what happened to sticking to the facts?

Have you worked with Van Tassel? Do you know him? Is there some protocol of which I am not aware that mandates that professional LE who do not distribute their expert findings to the public are therefore not performing their duties? Sorry to repeat myself, but I believe the exact opposite is true.

I spoke with an expert with the GBI the other day, and I can tell you quite positively they do NOT just spill their guts about a case to press, strangers, and/or "outsiders." It's a rare occurance for that to happen, especially before a case is closed/tried. That it did happen with some LE in the JonBenet case is an anomaly. I can't conclude, however, that those who chose to continue their SOP of confidentiality are somehow then incompetent.

So how you can state Van Tassel is a fraud because you don't know what he concluded escapes me. One cannot prove a negative with a negative, as you have stated yourself, I believe: We don't know what findings he made, therefore Van Tassel knows nothing?

I have no issue with anyone believing what they believe, but I just want to know where you are coming from, EW, because you command a lot of respect and many are influenced by your thoughts on this case. If you have some other basis for labeling Van Tassel a ruse, it would be helpful if you documented it to support your argument, and for that I would thank you.

 

With all due respect, what happened to specifics when implicitly
accusing someone of error? I don’t mind disagreement, but unless
you let me know the what, when, where and why, to what am I
supposed to respond?

I am inclined to provide a short response citing the admitted and
obvious: Van Tassel came and went. He contributed nothing; yet,
to this day seeks self aggrandizement by tying his name to the
Ramsey case as being “called in†as an “expertâ€. There are many
of this ilk who mention “connectionâ€, but never elucidate about
implied contribution. It’s not surprising to find that a “fifteen
minute case†that has officially dragged on to nearly a decade
had been and still is saturated with phonies and incompetence.

Beyond the evasive “abstract factsâ€, which you imagine I am not
sticking to, the issue is that you take offense with my
declaration that Van Tassel is a phony; meaning, pretending
expertise that he does not have. I’m afraid your arguments
intended to convince me of the error of my ways fall woefully
short of the goal since there is a serious lack of facts and
practically no relevancy at all. Nevertheless, I will address
them lest I be accused of evasion. Bye the bye, I ask a lot of
questions. They are not rhetorical. They are purposeful. Please
answer them, or else show they are invalid.

“Have you worked with Van Tassel?†(Ibid)

No. So what? This is relevant to what and how? The logical
implication is that I needed to have worked with Van Tassel to be
able to offer a judgment of his words and actions. How so? I am
much interested in the underlying rationale as well as wondering
if you abide by this criteria. Do you? Am I to understand, you
limit yourself to criticism of only those you have worked with?
If not, why do you set this criteria for me in this circumstance?
In other words, where is the relevancy to the issue. For the
record, I have seen Van Tassel’s “work†in the Ramsey case. This
is what is relevant and what underlies my conclusion and
characterization of Van Tassel as a phony.

“Do you know him?†(Ibid)

Here we go again down the irrelevancy road. As a personal
acquaintance, no. Again, are you saying that I must be personally
acquainted with Van Tassel to be able to render conclusion and
judgments regarding his words and actions? By what rationale do
you set this requirement? If you don’t set such a requirement,
why the question at all? Indeed, it this is a requirement for
criticizing, I submit all the forums would have disappeared long
ago. Do you happen to notice you are criticizing my conclusions
although we are not personally acquainted? Why then would you
presume this a requirement for me to criticize Van Tassel? In
short, via contradiction and double standard, you apparently wish
to impeach my status to criticize rather than address my
criticisms per se.

Do I know Van Tassel? Indeed, by his “fruitsâ€, I do. By his
circumstance, comments and action (or lack thereof), I do know a
great deal about Mr. Van Tassel the same way I know about Smit,
JamNut, Keenan, Carnes, and many other incompetent con artists
involved in the case.

“Is there some protocol of which I am not aware that mandates
that professional LE who do not distribute their expert findings
to the public are therefore not performing their duties?†(Ibid)

Not that I know of, but what does this have to do with the price
of tea in China? In other words, this is relevant to what and
how? Haven’t you left out something? For Van Tassel’s alleged
“expert findings†to be relevant, must it not first be
established that said “expert finding†must exist? I find your
arguments about Van Tassel’s “expert findings†a bit incongruent
to say the least in view of the fact that Van Tassel himself has
denied any such findings:

“I have not formulated any opinion or conclusion as of yet," he
said.†( November 30, 1997)

Doesn’t this come across to you that Mr. Van Tassel is clearly
stating that he has no expert opinion in the matter? It seems to
me that to rebut my pronouncement of Van Tassel as a phony, you
must start with the conclusion that Van Tassel is a liar. How do
you propose to circumvent this sticky wicket?

What’s your alternative? Are you saying that Van Tassel was
deliberately lying when he made the statement about no
conclusion? If so, why? If he simply did not want to divulge
certain information, why not simply state he was not at liberty
to discuss? Why the total cut and run that prohibited further
inquiry?

After many years with Van Tassel with that much time, have you
ever come across any conclusion offered by Mr. Van Tassel? Could
it be that he had and has nothing to offer; that he told the
truth when he said “I have not formulated any opinion or
conclusion as of yet?†Do you have ANY evidence
that he was lying? Do you have any evidence that Mr. Van Tassel
ever changed his position of no conclusion? Unless you have
evidence to the contrary, on what grounds do you dismiss Van
Tassel’s own declaration that he didn’t know, i.e. that he had
not formulated any opinion?

“Have you worked with Van Tassel? Do you know him? Is there some
protocol of which I am not aware that mandates that professional
LE who do not distribute their expert findings to the public are
therefore not performing their duties? Sorry to repeat myself,
but I believe the exact opposite is true.†(Ibid)

As near as I can tell, your entire argument depends on Mr. Van
Tassel being a liar and silently knowledgeable for no other
reason that he is labeled “professional?†Do you really want to
go down this road and bring in a long list of professionals who
have mucked up the case from the beginning?

Why I call Van Tassel a phony is very elementary. To understand
the materials and physics of the “garrote†scene and “bindingsâ€
is to quickly conclude an amateurish mess flawed in every
respect. I know it . “Hobey 86" knows it; and so does anyone else
who knows what’s what in the cords and knots. When Van Tassel
hangs around for a week and says “I have not formulated any
opinion or conclusion as of yet," that pretty much says if all
about Mr. Van Tassel’s “expertise.â€

“I spoke with an expert with the GBI the other day, and I can
tell you quite positively they do NOT just spill their guts about
a case to press, strangers, and/or "outsiders." It's a rare
occurance for that to happen, especially before a case is
closed/tried. That it did happen with some LE in the JonBenet
case is an anomaly. I can't conclude, however, that those who
chose to continue their SOP of confidentiality are somehow then
incompetent.†(Ibid)

Relevant to what? How does your speaking to whomever have
anything to do with my reasons for labeling Van Tassel a phony?
Same question: By what evidence do you conclude that Van Tassel
held any knowledge to keep confidential? The twist assumes your
unsupported conclusion as proof of itself. First, establish Van
Tassel’s alleged knowledge, THEN talk about confidentiality. Make
sense? After all, doesn’t knowledge necessarily precede
confidentiality? So, tell me about Van Tassels’s knowledge before
confidentiality. How did you come to know about it, especially,
in the face of Van Tassel’s denial?

“So how you can state Van Tassel is a fraud because you don't
know what he concluded escapes me.â€

He concluded that he had no conclusion. He said so. How does this
escape you? Not only did he announce he had no conclusion, his
subsequent words and actions (or inaction) coincide with his
admitted ignorance.

“One cannot prove a negative with a negative, as you have stated
yourself, I believe: We don't know what findings he made,
therefore Van Tassel knows nothing?†(Ibid)

Good grief, he admitted he didn’t know. Why oh why do you insist
he was lying when he admitted no conclusion? What escapes me is
the rationale by which you conclude that Van Tassel understood
the knot thing when he stated quite clearly that he had no
conclusion. You not only propose the “unknown†as evidence, but
have to call Van Tassel a liar to do it. So, you label him as a
phony to claim he is not a phony ????

“I have no issue with anyone believing what they believe, but I
just want to know where you are coming from, EW, because you
command a lot of respect and many are influenced by your thoughts
on this case. If you have some other basis for labeling Van
Tassel a ruse, it would be helpful if you documented it to
support your argument, and for that I would thank you.†(Ibid)

I’m don’t know how I can make it any clearer, but will have
another go at it. How about starting with my analysis of the
“garrote†and “bindingsâ€. Now provide some evidence that these
analysis are in error, or that Van Tassel understood the facts
and physics of the situation as I describe in said analysis. Can
you do that?

It is all quite elementary. To know rope and knots is to know
truth about the fatally flawed staging. Van Tassel admits to no
conclusion; meaning he did not know the truth about the physics
of the construction and evident amateurish staging. Since he
didn’t, as a “rope\knot expertâ€, he is an admitted phony;
inadvertently, of course, but an admitted phony no less.

“ Van Tassel said in evaluating such evidence, he looks at
whether the knots might be linked to a job or hobby, such as
fishing or knitting; whether there are similar knots among a
suspect's possessions; and whether a witness has seen a suspect
tying the kind of knots found.†(From article)

Gee, I wonder what Mr. Van Tassel does when he comes across
bungling uniqueness, a one of a kind mess, and doesn’t gras the
physics involved. He has already told us: “I have not formulated
any opinion or conclusion as of yet," he said.†I repeat: Van
Tassel is nothing but a bureaucratic phony of the same cut as Lou
Smit, Mary Keenan, Judge Carnes and a long list of others.

 

Van Tassel said, "“I have not formulated
any opinion or conclusion as of yet."

First, you complain I didn't provide you with a quote to follow my argument. I don't always use the same quote and respond format you do, and it seems to irritate you quite a bit, as this is the second time you've mentioned it when we've disagreed. But then you pick up the argument without any trouble, so obviously you knew exactly what you wrote that I was addressing, as you answered it, didn't you? That's why I didn't feel the need to quote your point I was addressing: it was obvious. Wasting time and words on the obvious simply seemed superflous to me.

Then, you grab a quote by Van Tassel to again attack him, argued with a negative--"he said he had formulated no conclusion, therefore, he's incomcompetent." I provided you with that very quote, so how did you form your opinion about his incompetence before that? He was consulted and there was no arrest, so he is incompetent? Same argumentative fallacy.

I asked you if you worked with Van Tassel, knew him, etc., looking for some reason as to why you concluded he was incompetent. No other reason. I didn't know why you had that opinion. My opinions about Smit, Hunter, Keenan, etc., are supported by 9 years of their public statements on TV in interviews and in articles, books, etc. I think there's ample documentation to formulate an opinion about their work in this case, whatever it may be. So no, I don't have to know or work with them, because I have other sources I use, mostly from their own appearances.

But you have none, apparently, but the quote which I recently provided, yet you do not hesitate to call the man a scoundrel without any supporting evidence.

Your argument won't hold water. To impeach Van Tassel because he told the press he hadn't formed an opinion or conclusion is absurd. You conveniently ignore two things: he was talking to the press about an open case in NOV 1997, so to expect him to say "YEAH, I KNOW BLAHBLAHBLAH" is not reasonable. This is why I provided some information about professional LE and case confidentiality for you. I guess you can't comprehend this concept. Nonetheless, even in 1997, though we know Hunter was leaking to the press, and others, nobody was doing so in the open, were they? So to expect Van Tassel to give up what he knew about the JonBenet case because a reporter asked, and to judge him therefore incompetent because he didn't--I don't think even you believe that's logical; you're just trying to win an argument here. You failed.

And you failed as much as anything because you threw a qualifier away from Van Tassel's statement as if it didn't exist: AS OF YET. Perhaps he was lying to the press. Perhaps he wanted to do more research, remembering that 1997 was 9 years ago, and technology and even the internet were not the database then they are today. Maybe he wanted to consult with someone else in LE before he handed in his report. Or maybe he just said "no opinion or conclusion" instead of "no comment." What difference does that make? It neither means he is too incompetent to formulate any opinion or conclusion or that he would tell the press if he had.

But it's also absurd to argue this elementary logic when you know this. You're just bluffing, EW, aren't you? The truth behind all your bluster is quite clear: you have no reason to call the man incompetent other than to promote your own argument about the garrote and wrist ties.

Which is somewhat obtuse, because you have no idea if he in fact found something different that what you have concluded or not. Again, you're arguing against a void.

Then to argue he's some kind of bad person because you perceive he used his work on the JonBenet case to promote himself is also not a sound conclusion. I don't think it was Van Tassel who told the press, I'm working the JonBenet case! I could hunt it down, but I'm finding this quite boorish, so I'm going to simply state that the press was all over this case and press conferences were being held often by the BPD and Hunter, so it's as likely as not that Van Tassel being detected by the press as working the case was not his doing. Unless you can provide a source that he is the one who announced his professional consultation publicly, then there is at least a 50-50 chance he had nothing to do with it. If you don't know which side of those odds he falls on, then to condemn him for "using" this case to pump up his resume is a bit harsh, don't you think? He might be a quite decent and brilliant man for all any of us knows. I'd say the award he received which I posted might be a better clue to his professional abilities, at least, compared with total condemnation based on one sentence he spoke to the press.

The bottom line is you don't know what Van Tassel concluded, nor do I. Since you haven't given me one thing to back up your conclusion Van Tassel is incompetent and a sycophant, I conclude you are simply over-reaching to support your own conclusions about the garrote and wrist ties.

 

In the article KoldKase posted, Von Tassel is noted to be a corporal with the Royal Candian Mounted Police. He states that although he had consulted with the BPD earlier in the month, he had not yet formed an opinion.

This is the response of an acitve duty law enforcement officer. He is not revealing what he thinks, or if he thinks anything at all, during an ongoing investigation. This is how it's supposed to go, as opposed to, say, Alex Hunter chatting with tabloid reporters in his office.

 

Not only can I do this, I have done so and written clearly about it right here, as you should know, as we discussed it at length. Of course, you disagree. But that does not alter reality vs what you "think" you know about the garrote knot on the neck. I don't have to describe any imaginary knotting and how it functions: anyone who looks at the clear picture of the knot on the wrist loop still on the body in the autopsy photo can construct it. It's a simple task. It's a common knot I'm sure anyone who has ever sailed or macramed is familiar with. I provided an online link with a diagram of the same knot, and your response was to criticize the knot as inferior to another knot you use. Not the point, at all, but you seem to get lost in diversionary arguments when a direct one won't do for you.

The knot on the wrist tie is simple and effective for enlarging or reducing the size of the loop it creates. It moves, it expands or reduces the loop when manipulated, and it holds fast under the pressure of compressed tissue when tightened to enclose the noose around a limb like a thigh or lower leg...or a neck.

You can deny this all you want, but I made it with similar cord and it works. Period.

Therefore, if the person who tied the knot on the garrote at the neck used the same one as was tied on the cord still looped around the wrist, then it also worked. Perfectly. That would make your conclusions...wrong.

But if one cannot construct and test this simple knot, then the evidence is simply irrefutable from the autopsy and the pictures of the neck after the cord was removed: the BRUISING. It happened BEFORE DEATH. Probably perimortem. A body may swell after death, it may even bruise after death, but that bruising is not the same. The coloration is very different, for one thing, because post mortem bruising comes not from a pumped, oxygen rich blood supply.

It's also quite hard to believe that not one forensics/medical professional in the country who has spoken publicly about this case and the strangulation by garrote would have noticed the bruising was post mortem. That would be rather critical, and it's a common and easily timed injury, like liver mortis.

I know you have already dismissed my argument on the simple and effective construction of the knot on the wrist tie. Perhaps you couldn't construct it for some reason. Perhaps you didn't want it to work. But you will never convince me it doesn't, because I made it from the picture and it works perfectly. Like I said before--who am I going to believe, you or my lying eyes?

At any rate, this is the second time I've had this debate with you, and I don't expect a different result from the first, as your challenge implies you dismissed the first round out of hand already. So thank you for your time and effort. I'm done.

 

hehehe Well, now we're getting somewhere!

At the swamp, gutter candy has addressed the matter of our debate about Van Tassel with her usual TACT, aimed at making her FIRSTFIRSTFIRST...even if she's not. She has declared that we "clueless" guttah scum had no idea who Van Tassel was, so she cleared it up for us, and she also apparently thinks she OWNS the man, as well!

Uh...hold on there, gutter candy....

Note the date of EW's post here on this thread about Van Tassel, then my first post date on the topic, and then hers:

[I inserted the bold typeface here]

Then gutter candy's opening post on her thread where she sets us straight:

And in case anyone missed that she was FIRSTFIRSTFIRST...even if she wasn't...she then got out her horn and blew away, toot toot tooting how dumb we are, while she's so smart...except that she was wrong....

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

And then, just for fun, she claimed ownership of poor Van Tassel.

HEHEHE She's so funny, isn't she? Now she doesn't actually have to be first, she simply imagines it and THE WORLD IS HERS...including the people in it, it seems. Wait a minute...I thought ownership of another human being was abolished a few years ago.... Guess gutter candy didn't get the memo....

Anyhow, she did quote some useful stuff which may answer your questions, EW, about what Van Tassel found, compliments of BDA's Grand Jury prosecutor Michael Kane's disclosure on the Abrams' show. I daresay gutter candy really only wanted to point out this source and info for us, and in her own twisted way...she's been a help.

Thanks, gutter candy! :takeabow:

 

How McAwful!!!

I thought that she was still ranting about smoking a little weed..........which really did surprise me considering how supportive she is of Crackaholic Killers.

RR