Patsy Ramsey

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
whitewash Slang Dictionary

whitewash definition



1. To make something look better than it really is; to conceal something bad,
an act or campaign of covering up something bad.
 
Definition of copycat (n)
Bing Dictionary
cop·y·cat[ kóppee kàt ]1.somebody who imitates others: somebody, especially a child, who slavishly imitates another
 
Full Definition of EVIDENCE
1a : an outward sign : indication b : something that furnishes proof : testimony; specifically : something legally submitted to a tribunal to ascertain the truth of a matter.
 
I have a problem with the exercise of the power motive by reducing people to the level of things and animals and using them to the point of slaughter.
 
Back on topic.

Here's an interesting piece about six former pageant girls and their impressions of it.

The writer was a pageant girl herself. She had this to say


I should be honest: I couldn't watch Here Comes Honey Boo Boo. After fifteen minutes of Go Go Juice and pageant tantrums, I had to turn it off — not because I disapproved of the Thompson-Shannon family, but because I resented that the show wanted me to disapprove of them. It's the same way I feel when I watch Toddlers and Tiaras, where hyperprojecting mothers b****-slap sequins onto eager-to-please daughters, inviting the viewer to wonder, What train wreck of adulthood lies ahead for America's Honey Boo Boos?

I arrive at this question a little defensively because I am myself the alumna of one child pageant: I placed second runner-up in Miss Preteen Minneapolis 1996. And no feminist is more agog than I am to report that my pageant experience was generally positive. (Of course, this may be informed by the fact that I placed.) But was I the norm or the anomaly? To find out, I interviewed adult alumnae of child pageants about how they feel about it in retrospect — and reconsidered my own experience.


and then later she writes this

Before setting out to find and interview subjects for this article, probably ten people in my life knew about Miss Preteen Minneapolis. My most salient memory from the experience — other than the forest-green Dyeable pumps that matched my forest-green velvet-and-taffeta dress — is the pageant director teaching me how to give a firm handshake.

Recently, I visited a college class my friend teaches on critical thinking. “What assumptions would you make about me if I told you I was Miss Preteen Minneapolis 1996?” I asked. (I often abbreviate the story this way, which is, of course, telling. A Google search reveals that the actual Miss Preteen Minneapolis 1996 grew up to be a model. She appears on the covers of romance novels and in at least one Fruit of the Loom underwear campaign.) After being reassured that I wouldn’t be offended by anything they said, the all-female class told me I was vain, conceited, stuck up, full of myself — they couldn’t possibly have found more derisive ways to say, “You know you’re pretty” — stupid, trashy, and probably a b***.

“Okay,” I said, struggling to make good on my promise not to be offended. “What assumptions would you make about me if I told you I had two degrees from Columbia University?” All of a sudden I was smart, ambitious, successful, high-achieving, and rich. The only common descriptor to the two prompts was “stuck up.”

We can opt out of pageants, but we're still stuck with the double blind in which America entraps all competitive, consciously sexual women: female competitions are a loser's game because you're ugly if you lose, and shameless if you win. Between the women who told their stories here and the pageants, judges, and titleholders I spoke to in the process of finding them, two narratives emerged: We competed in pageants because we (and our mothers) wanted to win. But we resist talking about it with outsiders, lest they mistake us for something we're not. We share the pride and humiliation at competitive femininity—or perhaps just competitiveness itself.

http://nymag.com/thecut/2012/11/child-pageant-star.html


Unless you are someone who understands pageants first hand, chances are you have a bias about it based on prejudice.
 
I have a problem with the exercise of the power motive by reducing people to the level of things and animals and using them to the point of slaughter.

I would have a problem with that too. But that is not what we have here. Not even close. There is no evidence of abuse or mistreatment. There is only people that say that JBR loved performing and enjoyed the attention. There is nothing that describes this child as anything but normal and having a fun childhood.
 
Objectification of people is not normal, it is pathological.

Then the entire world is pathological. This could be a course of discussion but since Patsy Ramsey was part of a social group that embraced pageants, I'll ask you this, "Do you feel the same way about ALL pageant moms and pageant participants or is it just Patsy?"
 
I would have a problem with that too. But that is not what we have here. Not even close. There is no evidence of abuse or mistreatment. There is only people that say that JBR loved performing and enjoyed the attention. There is nothing that describes this child as anything but normal and having a fun childhood.

Read the definition of whitewash. She peed and pooped her pants. And I'd say the thing in the small room was a pretty good indication of abuse and mistreatment.
 
Then the entire world is pathological. This could be a course of discussion but since Patsy Ramsey was part of a social group that embraced pageants, I'll ask you this, "Do you feel the same way about ALL pageant moms and pageant participants or is it just Patsy?"

Read the definition of objectification.
 
Read the definition of whitewash. She peed and pooped her pants. And I'd say the thing in the small room was a pretty good indication of abuse and mistreatment.

The little room has to do with murder. And that has DNA attached that points to someone else.

The rest of it has nothing to do with the crime. Only people's ideas of what they think. A lot of which has not fact in it. JMO
 
The DNA "evidence" was manipulated by Mary Lacy, there is no match of a full profile in any of the samples collected. Ergo, no conclusion such as yours is scientifically valid.

The thing in the little room had to do with USE OF SOMEONE AS OBJECT to the point of death. That was the end of a process that had a long prehistory, the evidence of which is the toileting development delay.
 
The DNA "evidence" was manipulated by Mary Lacy, there is no match of a full profile in any of the samples collected. Ergo, no conclusion such as yours is scientifically valid.

The thing in the little room had to do with USE OF SOMEONE AS OBJECT to the point of death. That was the end of a process that had a long prehistory, the evidence of which is the toileting development delay.

No it was not. That is a fallacy. It is true DNA and it is in CODIS. There is also touch DNA That matches the sample from her underwear.

That is the same DNA two different places on the body.
 
as per kolar's book, there is the possibility that the DNA found in JB's undies belongs to an unknown factory worker sneezing, coughing while sewing those underpants, it does not clear the R's neither supports the IDI theory...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
as per kolar's book, there is the possibility that the DNA found in JB's undies belongs to an unknown factory worker sneezing, coughing while sewing those underpants, it does not clear the R's neither supports the IDI theory...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

No. That is not possible, since the Touch DNA that was found on her bottoms matches that same DNA.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
99
Guests online
3,053
Total visitors
3,152

Forum statistics

Threads
603,245
Messages
18,153,883
Members
231,682
Latest member
Sleutherine
Back
Top