So Many Idiots - So Little Time

What never ceases to amaze ME are the forum members who are willing to not only pay her $50 just to post, but were willing to send their DNA in to be eliminated, are willing to actually purchase her play to keep in her good graces and we can only guess as to the other possible "fundraisers" for the "investigation" she may have solicited through private means to her members.

She is everything you say she is, so what becomes even more strange....AND SCARY are those who suck up to her every day and try to win her favor.

She may have STOOPID written across her forehead, but her minions have MORON written across theirs

As far as Smit, Wood, et al, who initially involved themselves with her and allowed her access to the investigation?....They must have INCOMPETENT AND CORRUPT written across theirs...

There are plenty of sickos like Bennett out there, but I am more appalled by those who would nurture the sickness, willingly, and even sicker, eagerly. :yow:

 

IMO, Smit and Wood and any of the Ramsey investigators who conspired with Susan Bennett were totally unprofessional and unethical, to put it mildly. Smit should have had his rear end kicked out of the investigation the minute he allowed her access to privileged information, but I'm not surprised by his duplicity, given as how he took case information, twisted it, and went on national TV with his own agenda of clearing the Ramseys while there was still an open investigation by authorized LE personnel going on.

I have never seen, and I hope to never again see, anything as corrupt as what happened in Boulder with Lou Smit, Tracey, the DAs, assistant DA's, various Ramsey attorneys, and Susan Bennett. If I didn't know it to be true, I would never, ever have believed it.

 

Don't be too hard on Mary "Poison" Sumac. The poor wench has fallen on hard times, and that's gotta mess with her feeble mind just a bit. My guess is that while dumpster diving near Jambo's Cesspool for lunch, she got hold of some tainted spinach. That, combined with the fact that she has no access to a washing machine ... can anyone be surprised that Suma's filthy tie-dyed bloomies might be talking to her?


...YumYum

 

She posted about the flesh under the fingernails at Justice Watch. The discussion is still online. Other posters thought that when Lou Smit said that when JonBenet got a bit of her killer, Mame translated this into flesh under the fingernails but as is her wont, she added that she had a reliable source for this piece of information. In my experience, mame comes second only to jameson for claiming unnamed, insider sources for some pretty dubious claims.

In my experience, only Mame has claimed a source who says that the fingernail DNA was a complete sample - everyone else, including people working on the case, agree that it was a very poor sample with few markers. In my experience, only Mame has claimed that Fleet White's DNA was inconclusive - courtesy of yet another unnamed "source". All other indications are that his DNA does NOT match. At Purgatory, Mame, posting as Maddie made snide posts to myself and others for our refusal to accept her anonymous, unnamed sources as gospel - that made me distrust her more than anything!

In light of the fact that Mame's "sources" tend to provide information which flies in the face of everything else that we know, one has to wonder if these "sources" are simply winding her up. Winding gullible people up is sport to some people - I've done it myself. One of my many student jobs was that of tour guide and if someone asked a really stupid question, I very frequently gave a really stupid answer. For example, some people really believe a haggis is an animal so we'd have fun describing a haggis to these people - one story was that it's legs on the left side are shorter than the legs on the right side, so it can only run round a mountain in one direction making it really easy to catch.

The bottom line is - a piece of information is only as good as its source. If a person makes a whole bundle of ludirous claims backed by an army of mysterious unnamed "sources", sooner or later, people will regard these claims with the pinch of salt they deserve.

 

I wish it were mine, but it belongs to Peter Boyles. I don't know if his parody calls Tracey a hoar but it was something close to that. Of course it was set to the music on his show. I'll see if I can find a link - I think they played it during the Alan Prendergast interview.

Edit: OK, thank goodness it's on it's own page. The writer/performer calls it "Michael Roll Your Load Some More," and I just added the "hoar" (is the real word OK here?" part.

Parody Songs for Peter Boyles

Glad it hit your funny bone. When I heard it I snorted too.

Heymom

 

"Patsy, We'll miss you"

This is his last entry - set to "Honey" by Bobby Goldsboro

PATSY by Don Wrege

With apologies to Bobby Goldsboro's "Honey"

LYRICS:

JonBenet on Christmas day
Met her fate and went away
Like angels do

The Ramseys never cleared their name
Despite all of their lawyer's games
Threat'ning to sue

And Patsy we'll miss you
We won't learn the truth
Unless Burke or John talk
It's buried with you

It's always sad when someone dies
And no one wants to victimize
The family

But now with a prime suspect gone
It won't take Lin Wood long to
Re-write history

And Patsy we'll miss you
We won't learn the truth
Unless Burke or John talk
It's buried with you

The MP3 is on the page I linked above. The guy is talented.

 

YOU might hear jabber, jabber WY - that is because they are birds and you are a human, but someone else might hear "it was flesh under the fingernails" or "His DNA was inconclusive.." or "Aliens have landed in your backyeard" ....

My plants told me last week not to listen to anything the dogs say...

 

It would really help the case that intruder theorists make if they demonstrated at all some competence at, oh, say, observation of facts. As it is, how can their theories be supported when they clearly demonstrate that their eyes do not work?

I call attention this morning to Margoo and Evening2. Evening2 posts:

Oh, really? You do not recall seeing a suitcase that was right on the screen in front of your eyes? Specifically, this suitcase?



And poor Margoo. She demonstrates that she has not read DOI, or she would have known for the past six years at least that John Ramsey himself made a point of telling her something that she claims not to know:

 

I believe there are SOME rights that the photography subject has, but most photographers ask you to sign a release of your right to own your negatives. Most of the time, photographers do NOT use or sell the images they own, since ordinary people are not interesting in the least until they are in the public eye (i.e. have pimped their daughter in print and in pageants) and something ugly has occurred.

I used to be the go-fer for a photographer and everyone in the photo, if we were on location, had to sign a release of their rights so we could print the photo.

I think this is just more Ramsey alarmism. "Keep your babies close to you," "Be afraid of your photographer because he might sell you out!"

 

We tried to copy a photo taken by a studio of one of my daughters on one of those K-Mart machines. They wouldn't let us, because the studio had a copyright on the back of the photo.

I ended up copying it on the computer. My daughter signed nothing that gave ownership of her image to the studio. She paid big money for the photo and, IMO, should have been able to copy it herself if she wanted to. All she wanted to do was give a copy of the photo to me - big deal.

With today's technology, everyone is copying photos they were not able to copy previously.

 

It is true that the photographer owns the negatives and the copies. It is considered a work of art just like a piece of music or a painting. I had a hard time with this but then if the photographers didn't have ownership, they'd have no reason to keep taking photos - because you'd go for the sitting, get the photos and just copy them yourself. Just like file-sharing, people are indeed photo-sharing, but digital photos can be altered so they don't copy properly anyway.

Maybe the intent to use the print in public is what generates the signing of a release. I guess the photographers MUST have a right to sell the pictures but that I do not agree with, because the person hasn't signed a release for that use.

 

To me it's like anything else. You pay for something, you ought to own it. When artists sell their art work, they do not retain rights to those paintings or sculptures. Photographers charge to take the photos. Once that fee is paid, they have made their money. I don't believe they should be able to prevent anyone who has paid for their services from doing whatever they want with the finished product. I have always thought it was wrong that photographers kept the rights to our images.

 

Off-topic, but do you also support file-sharing with CDs of music? I think the photographer's position is like that of recording artists, and I should have used that as an example. But even artists have a right to control their work after sale if it is being used in some nefarious way, I *think.* But not being a copyright lawyer, I'm not sure.

Edit: With photos, and music, who is it that owns the music if the artist/musician/photographer sells 1,000,000 copies? Does everyone own it? Everyone has a right to sell it or share it with anyone else? Quite a conundrum, I think.

Speaking of lawyers, where is Deja Nu these days? I miss that Smoking Cat!

 

You're right. It is a conumdrum. I have mixed feelings about file sharing of CDs. The reason I feel a little differently about this issue is because music artists depend on mass buying of their records to make a living. It costs a lot of money to produce an album, and they depend on the volume selling.

I could see photographers copywriting their work if they depended on selling thousands of those pictures, but who but the person who sat for the photo and their family is really interested in those photos? They can't realistically go out and mass market photos of individuals. I know they want people to buy extra photos from them, but they are very expensive, and it's a human trait to try to find a less inexpensive way to get what they want.

I don't download music off the Internet, but my daughter downloads to her Ipod. She pays for each song. I suppose I would say if she wanted to share those songs with her sisters or something like that, that's her business, but if she wanted to sell them online, that's something I wouldn't approve of.

 

Oh yes they do retain the right to their paintings and sculptures unless they have sold the rights to the purchaser. The person who buys a piece of art is literally buying the piece of art, the physical object, but all rights that attach to it are not being bought. The same is with photographs. You are buying a service that creates a physical object, the photos the photographer provides to you, but you are not buying his creative acts of lighting choices and props and furniture. You buy a service that creates an artifact of that service. When you go to McDonald's and buy a chicken nugget, you do not suddenly acquire the legal right to make and sell the McDonalds recipe for chicken nuggets, not even if you raised the chickens that they use to make the nuggets. When you buy a Lexus, you do not buy the right to make your own Lexuses. And when you buy a photo of yourself as made by another photographer, you do not buy the right to reproduce that photo. The photographer brings something to the creative table that you hired him for and that is financially of value to him: if that was not true, then why did you not make your own professional family photo yourself and truly retain your own image rights?

Edited to add: Evidence of this truth can be seen on the dust jacket of the original printing of PMPT. Schiller notes that the picture of JonBenet in the bathing suit piloting a boat is copyright John Ramsey. That is because John Ramsey took the picture and owns the copyright. Schiller had to pay John for the use of the picture, but just because Schiller paid for it, it does not mean that Schiller should then own it. John Ramsey still owns the copyright. (This little moment in time also proves the lie that Ramsey supporters like to spew that John and Patsy offered no cooperation at all to Schiller in making PMPT. Obviously, Schiller had to negotiate with John for permission to put a picture John took on thousands and thousands of copies of PMPT, and that involved lawyers and paperwork, not a one-second phone call or e-mail.)

 

The artist/song writer retains the rights unless he/she sells them or signs them away. A good example is Michael Jackson bought the rights to all the songs by The Beatles. So now, every time Paul McCartney plays one of his old songs from his days as a Beatle, he has to pay Jackson a royalty fee. (Needless to say, that doesn't make Paul very happy.)

 

I feel there ought to be some type of agreement, WY, to at least include royalties for the person whose photograph is being used; however I don't know how this would work in a case where the person in the photograph is killed (?), as in the JonBenét case, where Judith Philips (cookie) had her photographs. I really don't know how this would be handled (?). It's a pretty tricky situation.

Tom and Judy went through a very bad time with the RST and the Ramseys themselves. I'm pleased Tom Miller rose above it, and sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.

Long before our digital cameras, we used to see photographs in the newspapers, and we now know these photographs could have been doctored, because we ourselves can play around with them, but the experts can really make them look as if it was the "actor" or person really involved in an embarassing situation.

Not one of us is safe from today's technical world.

 

It used to be much more difficult to "doctor" a photograph than it is now, what with Photoshop and all that sort of software. You had to really work in the darkroom and work with the printing, etc. Much harder to pull off.

Nowdays it's easy to do anything to a photo you want, and I never believe anything I see in a print source, like an advertisement for a product, or even news photos.

 

Thank you very much. That explanation makes it very clear. I couldn't articulate what I meant. I used to think it was wrong that the photographer owned the negs and the pictures, but then I worked in an art department and realized it's right to do it that way. I wish photogs wouldn't sell pictures to tabloids but everyone has his price.

Heymom

 

Quote:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by Jameson

The rumors are true. I have written a play about John Mark Karr and he will play himself in it.

.0000000245 percent of the net profits from ticket sales will go to Lou Smit to help him pay for a Post-It note to write down the credible lead I provided to him recently. The rest will go towards David Winter figurines which I need to surround myself with to inspire my search for justice for JonBenet. Can the BORG say they have done as much to find the killer?

If people have a problem with this, please agree to disagree nicely with my choices, you bitches and bastards.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Oh, Why_Nut, are you sure you should leave this posted here? I would feel so much better if you deleted it. I would hate to see a legal suit stem from this (?). Please tell me your safe. Seriously.