Coincidences

[SunnieRN]

Wow!!

 

[MurriFlower]

Wow!!

Quite a new concept for RDI, I expect.

 

[Ames]

Really?? So, I'm not the only one that noticed some similarities then? Perhaps it's just a coincidence that you seem to have similar theories on who did it and likeminded distain for the DA, whilst defending the BPD.

I meant it neither as a compliment nor an insult, I just commented on how it makes you wonder about the real identity of some posters becaise of their dedication to their point of view (RDI) over so many years. You can't help but think there must be some motivation or that they have some personal stake in the outcome, other than the noble cause of justice for JBR.

Quote by AMES..."The exact same thing can be said for some IDI posters!! Relatives of the Ramseys, JR himself....etc. "

And MY response about IDI's was to YOUR quote about RDI's!!! You are the pot calling the kettle black....if you know what I mean. So, I get it...it's okay for YOU as an IDI to say it...but, not for ME as an RDI to say it. I get it now...the old double standard.

 

[SunnieRN]

Quite a new concept for RDI, I expect.

MF, my wow, had nothing to do with concepts new or old. I knew that was all I could post at that moment. If I had gone any further, without taking the time to digest your insult, I would have gone far enough to get banned. Sorry, in my humble opinion, your views are not worth my being banned.

You admit you know nothing about the US constitution, yet you bring judgment upon it's citizens. You state that anything spoken OR written, in your opinion is libel. I seem to remember many posts where you accused the BPD of blundering the investigation. That isn't libel? According to you it is. You have also libeled experts in many fields from this country. So, does that mean that it is ok to libel Americans if you are NOT from America, but our freedom of speech is incorrect in OUR country?

MF, you may be from a different country, you may have no ties to America, as you stated. If you don't agree with our countries constitution and the rights of it's citizens, that is one thing. Insulting Americans, who post on a forum that originates in their country, is something else altogether. Especially when you have done the same thing.


Do I think that what I have said will have any effect on how you feel or how you approach posters at this forum? No, of course not. But once again, you chose to insult and put words in my mouth. Maybe if you formulated conversations and not insults, you wouldn't be bored. Your words, not mine.

 

[SunnieRN]

Have no idea why my post, posted twice. MF here is a link you may like!!

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

 

[joeskidbeck]

Murri, we are not here to play chess. We are here to discuss a horrible crime and try what little we can to figure out what may have happened. If we all just came here and said, ok, there is dna, an intruder did it. We could all just go home, right?
I don't live in Australia, so I don't know how things are done there, but I have to ask, how in the world do you ever come up with suspects if you are so afraid of accusing an innocent person? Everyone will say they are innocent and it's up to LE or you or whoever to determine whether or not they are, but here, in this country, if you had been in that house that night, you would be a suspect and we would be discussing you. That's just how it is and you already knew that, you just needed an argument and here I am to hand you one. Well, I won't bite, not anymore. Believe whatever you want. However you respond to this post is the end of it for me.

 

[BBB167893]

Not THAT hard. I wouldn't have done it at all.



Murri, if I had a nickel for every time someone thought I was ST, I'd be a rich man. And quite frankly, you probably meant it as an insult, but I take it as a compliment.

Just to elaborate on this, I take it as a sort of half-compliment. No matter how much admiration I have for the man's dedication and understanding for his frustration, HOTYH is right about one thing: he gave up. That's hard to forgive. So, instead of three cheers, it's more like one and a half cheers.

 

[joeskidbeck]

Just to elaborate on this, I take it as a sort of half-compliment. No matter how much admiration I have for the man's dedication and understanding for his frustration, HOTYH is right about one thing: he gave up. That's hard to forgive. So, instead of three cheers, it's more like one and a half cheers.

You're right, Dave, but look at it this way. Think of the IDIs on this board who will not believe one piece of evidence that points to the R's and then think about being ST for one minute. I don't know how he lasted as long as he did and I applaud him for the time he spent on a cause that was shattered before it began.

 

[BBB167893]

Really?? So, I'm not the only one that noticed some similarities then?

Not at all. People from all sides have done it.

Perhaps it's just a coincidence that you seem to have similar theories on who did it and likeminded distain for the DA, whilst defending the BPD.

A coincidence? I'm not sure that's the right word. He has certainly influenced my thinking, to a degree. When it comes to my disdain for the DA and defense of the police, that's as much due to me as it is to him. I can't ignore it when it's right in front of me.

I meant it neither as a compliment nor an insult, I just commented on how it makes you wonder about the real identity of some posters because of their dedication to their point of view (RDI) over so many years.

Believe me, Murri, that sword cuts both ways!

You can't help but think there must be some motivation or that they have some personal stake in the outcome, other than the noble cause of justice for JBR.

Well, I can only speak for myself in that regard. And you phrased it perfectly: the noble cause of justice for JBR That's all the motivation I NEED.

 

[BBB167893]

Compared to G.Amaral (M.Mccann),ST IS a very competent,bright LE officer.
Let's take just ST's book and GA's documentary.At least ST's had some interesting info in it and shed some light re what LE found at the crime scene and expalined WHY the cops THOUGHT the R's are guilty.I watched GA's doc,it made me LAUGH,it was ridiculous,I was happy that his book got banned.
Re the parents behaviour,first of all,the Mc's were in a foreign country and the cops spoke a different language,so I kinda get why they had to be careful,not to mention how incompetent those cops were as well.
there are so much more differences ,am not going over them right now,but it's sad that a lot of people compare the two sets of parents just because they "all were rich and therefor guilty".....(seen it on other forums)
apples and oranges IMO.

You make a lot of good points, maddy. But you have to admit one thing: if it turns out that the Mc's did cause little madeline's death accidentally and have kept up their joint deception for this long, it blows a hole in a lot of IDI claims, doesn't it?

 

[BBB167893]

One would hope when they came back with their new "hat" it would also be with a new theory that involved some common sense.

That's hitting below the belt, beck.

 

[BBB167893]

different name same propaganda!

But now we have two: a papa-ganda and a mama-ganda! They can get together and raise a bunch of little gosselings!

(Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk!)

 

[madeleine]

You make a lot of good points, maddy. But you have to admit one thing: if it turns out that the Mc's did cause little madeline's death accidentally and have kept up their joint deception for this long, it blows a hole in a lot of IDI claims, doesn't it?

they kept looking for Maddie loooong after they were cleared,no reason to if you're guilty.
and these cases are so different.I always felt though that Amaral wanted to be the new ST but he just didn't have anything on the parents.nada.it's not like in the R case, that's why I always hate the comparison.

 

[BBB167893]

So isn't libel defined as

"defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures.
b.
the act or crime of publishing it.
c.
a formal written declaration or statement, as one containing the allegations of a plaintiff or the grounds of a charge.
2.
anything that is defamatory or that maliciously or damagingly misrepresents. "

and isn't this a public forum??

It's a little more involved than that, Murri. In the US, it has to be PROVEN that the writer KNEW what he/she was saying was false to deliberately harm the target.

Now, here's something you might be able to help me with. Here in the US, the burden of proof is on the person bringing the complaint to prove that the defendant committed the offense. The assumption is that the defendant is being truthful. But in the United Kingdom, it's the exact opposite: the plaintiff is assumed to have been wronged and the defendant must prove that they did not knowingly defame anyone. Is it the same way in Australia?

 

[BBB167893]

Speech and writing are two separate things.

I'm not of the opinion that anyone should be able to wrongly accuse another of a crime. Written or spoken.

I'm not either. But again, aside from having to prove that you KNEW it was false and said/wrote it anyway, there are different categories.

The top is political speech. This is completely protected, which is how the Founders wanted it. A good example would be the people who accused former President GW Bush of masterminding the 9/11 attacks. That's an outright accusation of murder (and damned foolish to boot). But they are free and clear to do it. As long as they don't call for assassination, they can accuse politicians of ANYTHING.

Moving down the ladder, we have public figures. These would be celebrities, like movie stars or top athletes, etc. This is a little more tricky. They CAN and have sued for slander and libel, but it's very hard for them to win. The legal assumption is that if a person willingly enters the public eye, they have to expect a certain amount of hostility. There will always be someone who doesn't like you.

Private people is where the law comes in. If my neighbor is spreading rumors that I'm a child molester, and he has no good reason to believe it, that's slander. At that point, I'm within my rights to sue him. (In my case, though, it wouldn't come to that. I'd save a lot of court time and tax money by just showing up at his door with a shotgun! But that's just me!)

So, where do the Ramseys fit into this? Well, they and their attack-dog lawyer Lin Wood (I shouldn't have said that; comparing him to a dog is an insult to loyal dogs everywhere!) have claimed for years that they are not public figures. This is something of a tenous claim, considering how often they throw themselves in front of the cameras, but when John decided to run for Congress a few years ago, it's likely he entered the top tier, and has no grounds for lawsuits anymore. PLUS, a dead person cannot be defamed, so there's no grounds to sue on Patsy's behalf, either. Some people may consider it morally repugnant to speak ill of the dead, but there's no legal onus on it.

 

[BBB167893]

You're right, Dave, but look at it this way. Think of the IDIs on this board who will not believe one piece of evidence that points to the R's and then think about being ST for one minute.

I know, Beck. it's the old "walk a mile in my boots" bit, and they won't do it.

I don't know how he lasted as long as he did and I applaud him for the time he spent on a cause that was shattered before it began.

I don't either. Like I said, I understand it. You can only bang your head against the wall so long. But at the same time, I'm not the giving-up type. But I guess everyone here knew that already.

 

[MurriFlower]

MF, my wow, had nothing to do with concepts new or old. I knew that was all I could post at that moment. If I had gone any further, without taking the time to digest your insult, I would have gone far enough to get banned. Sorry, in my humble opinion, your views are not worth my being banned.

You admit you know nothing about the US constitution, yet you bring judgment upon it's citizens. You state that anything spoken OR written, in your opinion is libel. I seem to remember many posts where you accused the BPD of blundering the investigation. That isn't libel? According to you it is. You have also libeled experts in many fields from this country. So, does that mean that it is ok to libel Americans if you are NOT from America, but our freedom of speech is incorrect in OUR country?

MF, you may be from a different country, you may have no ties to America, as you stated. If you don't agree with our countries constitution and the rights of it's citizens, that is one thing. Insulting Americans, who post on a forum that originates in their country, is something else altogether. Especially when you have done the same thing.


Do I think that what I have said will have any effect on how you feel or how you approach posters at this forum? No, of course not. But once again, you chose to insult and put words in my mouth. Maybe if you formulated conversations and not insults, you wouldn't be bored. Your words, not mine.

Now again, you have gone off without reading what I wrote. It doesn't seem to matter if it is a long post or just a sentence, you still don't read it.

What I said was "Im not of the opinion that anyone should be able to wrongly accuse another of a crime. Written or spoken." I'm talking about people on this forum (and elsewhere) accusing the Rs of murdering their daughter and then hiding behind their 'freedom of speech'.

I think questioning so called 'experts' and their opinions is an entirely different matter.

Don't start getting up your soapbox accusing me of "insulting Americans" (not that that's against the law here or anywhere else as far as I know LOL) because that's your own opinion. This interpretation of your constitution was gained from Americans posting on this very forum, responding when I asked how they could get away with some of the things they say about the Rs.

I think it is morally wrong to accuse someone of a crime simply on the basis of your opinion. Actually, ST found that the law takes a similar view, I believe.

 

[SunnieRN]

MF, here are several quotes you made, just one page back accusing myself as well as other posters of libel.

That is much different than your last post which changes the wording to: "I'm not of the opinion that anyone should be able to wrongly accuse another of a crime. Written or spoken".

Maybe this is actually what you intended to write. But you didn't.

Your line about questioning 'So called experts', could be considered libel per your definition mf. Careful!

As for soap boxes, I shall stand on them any time I like or feel it is needed. You seem to think it is ok when you voice your opinions.

No, it means nothing to me, but I've been told often enough here about how in the US you can all write whatever you like about someone, true or false, and then just say it's your 'constitutionally protected opinion'. If this is not true, you might like to enlighten me. Not that it matters really, as you can get away with this in my country without being accused of libel if what you write is false.

So isn't libel defined as

"defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures.
b.
the act or crime of publishing it.
c.
a formal written declaration or statement, as one containing the allegations of a plaintiff or the grounds of a charge.
2.
anything that is defamatory or that maliciously or damagingly misrepresents. "

and isn't this a public forum??

Speech and writing are two separate things.

I'm not of the opinion that anyone should be able to wrongly accuse another of a crime. Written or spoken.

 

[Agatha_C]

Oh oh,

Looks like MF needs to go and read HOTYH, slander post, before she brings dishonor to her cow!

If you don't like our constitutional rights, than stop using them and more importantly stop perverting them to suit you and your own agenda. How about we just don't get that personal as to offend other peoples rights and laws.

Funny thing... I remember a murder in OZ, of a 9 week old baby, the dingo baby. She went missing and later determined to be dead. There was a media circus, and the public was forming opinions and many of them biased. She was found guilty by popular demand and the courts. Only, she wasn't, Ive included a link at the bottom. Maybe someones guilty conscience is getting in the way. With that said, I don't see OZ as the moral compass for the world.

n.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azaria_Chamberlain_disappearance

 

[Agatha_C]

wikipedia.org/wiki/Azaria_Chamberlain_disappearance

Lets see if this works