There is quite a HUGE difference between other 'facts' in this case and this .....um....stuff.Just a quick question, is this for all threads on Haleigh or just this one? If people state something as fact, they need to have proof to back it up? TIA!
OK, here is the deal.
I need one clear cut example of where RS was used to apprehend and convict a criminal. Used by Law Enforcement. Not by a private detective.
This needs to be a case where LE stated they used RS to help them.
If you can't provide one simple paragraph (not a whole page) then I will shut this thread down.
However, I am more the willing to keep the discussion going if anyone can provide the info I requested.
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"This new frontier can be used as an exciting and new investigative tool ... the police department in Australia did verify that [Reverse Speech] located a murder weapon in the basement."
The National Private Investigators Journal. April, 1991.[/FONT]
You did emphasize ONE case, right?
Karen I certainly can understand. I'm proud of him, and of you for helping him keep his oath. I know I wouldn't be that supportive in secret, behind closed doors. :angel: I would at least be beggin for clues, since I'm such a real crime buff. But your response still helped me out in having an overall understanding. Guess you like real true crime too? That's good being the type of work he does, you guys are very compatible.
Ok, I was not trying to be "snitty", I asked the question because I was not clear if it was required on all the threads. There has been some question as to people having to qualify their statements w/ links and proof. That is not being done on some threads here and I was wondering if it was required. Believe me, I will NOT ask anything else. Thanks.OK. I am not going to get into the obvious.
Karen stated this as fact. Like she knows LE has this tool at their desposal and they can use it. This is just not true. You will never EVER see LE say they use RS. Again, they have voodoo at their desposal too. Just because it is out there doesn't mean they use it.
As far as your question I will assume you didn't mean to come across as a bit snitty because you know the rules apply to everywhere on the forum unless otherwise stated or understood.
In case there is any question on how it works on WS; If you state something as fact like "LE uses RS" you have to be ready to back it up. If you say, "I bet LE uses RS" that is an opinion.
Don't not nitpick please and create more work for our moderators.
Karen, you need to provide some sort of legitimate back up for this statement.
You can't assume that because it is available law enforcement uses it. Voodoo is available and I bet you won't find cops sacraficing chickens to help with a case.
Karen, please provide something solid to back it up. If this is an opinion then please say so. Please do not state an opinion as fact.
Ok, I was not trying to be "snitty", I asked the question because I was not clear if it was required on all the threads. There has been some question as to people having to qualify their statements w/ links and proof. That is not being done on some threads here and I was wondering if it was required. Believe me, I will NOT ask anything else. Thanks.
I am following the case of Tara Grinstead who was one of the women he claimed to have killed. He sent me a message challenging me to find through his RS he was not the killer. I obliged. His RS from one of the videos clearly indicated he was not a killer. 4 months later he was indicted by a grand jury, and arrested for making false claims.
Thank you Tricia. I appreciate your response. You are a classy moderator! :blowkiss:Dear Curvecuti,
My apologies. I assumed you were being flippant. I should not have assumed that because all questions are welcomed if asked nicely. You did ask very politely and I answered rudely. Again, I apologize. My only excuse is my guard is up.
You have to look at each statement individually and decide. When someone says, "Police Departments have RS at their disposal" that indicates that LE gives some creedence to Reverse Speech. That is why I asked for a link to this statement. One can't be provided so therefore it is an opinion. Like I said LE also has Voodoo at their disposal too.
If someone says, "Ron is a liar" you can pretty much take that as an opinion but you can also ask for proof.
Again, it all depends on the comment.
The one thing I am trying to avoid is any type of nitpicking that can grow in a high profile case like this.
Again, My Apologies.
Tricia
Thank you for your kind words.
:blowkiss:
Hi ya Kool Look! I understand why Tricia HAS TO protect 'Her Baby' and our favorite place to be. :blowkiss:
btw Kool~ Just want you to know that while we may disagree on this case, you are one of the most SPECIAL peeps here. You have such a good heart..a very rare quality indeed!
I don't know about Tricia, after reading Pondering Mind's post, I like to have never gotten my "Big Head" through the back door to run errands and get back to thank her and Karen. The lady at Burger King wanted to know why I had such a big "Sunny Smile" on my face. Two people stopped me in Bi-Lo Grocers and smiled too, guess smiles are contagious. Thank you, I worship you, heheheThank you Tricia. I appreciate your response. You are a classy moderator! :blowkiss:
I don't know about Tricia, after reading Pondering Mind's post, I like to have never gotten my "Big Head" through the back door to run errands and get back to thank her and Karen. The lady at Burger King wanted to know why I had such a big "Sunny Smile" on my face. Two people stopped me in Bi-Lo Grocers and smiled too, guess smiles are contagious. Thank you, I worship you, hehehe
Tricia since you are trying to determine what you will do concerning this thread, I would like to offer something I do when I feel in a place that I'm thinking you may be feeling like.
I set boundaries and limits. :dance: Reminds me of dealing with my own children. When they want something, and I'm not in agreements, I set some rules to follow with making clear my view point on the subject.
Perhaps, making a post at the beginning of this thread that Websleuths doesn't endorse "Reverse speech Analysis", with any disclaimers you feel appropriate to apply. Laying out any rules you want followed, such as making sure posters define whether their giving opinion versus facts. Links that are allowed specifically to this thread, like the one rule already mentioned about the "Selling of stuff" links. Clearly stating your opinion and view of how you feel about the subject.
And as you have already said, if someone can produce such LE involvement with this tool, then you will look further into any possibilities about these boundaries and limits. Often I even leave myself with an "out" option that if I begin to see it harming or disrupting the very concerns I had to start with, I reserve my right without "pouty, whining faces" to change my mind and put a stop to the conditional trial/test period as you are the one ultimately that gets the credit for all things good about websleuths/ all things bad about websleuths whether you actually had any involvement or not. People still look upon you as the ultimate owner and leader. :twocents: So I'll support your decision either way.
I want to add to this that Tricia has the additional pressure of having to consider what other windows it would open in terms of beliefs/opinions-would we need to have a "Using Voodoo to determine Guilt" thread? Or a "Throw a Dart At A Board and pick the suspect?" Thread??
:laugh:Man, I was just gonna see what I could do with voodoo, too........ooo ooo.