Tricia Thread

[sntemp]

I just wanted to say I usually don't post on threads like this. I am usually not one to fawn all over website owners so I shy away. But when I saw this today...................I had to post and say.........



TRICIA ROCKS!!!!:clap: :woohoo: :clap:

Linda, you're missing out!!! Fawning over website owners is the new fad. Everyone's doing it.

:clap: :dance: :clap: :dance: :clap: :dance: :clap:

 

[stonewall]

Tybee, some people who have post here could be confronted with an ugly reality check. For, in some posts, more than opinions are being expressed. Moreover, as has been noted in a separate thread, the Jon Benet case and this forum are operating under different standards than the rest of websleuth's forums. However, legal standards for libel remain unchanged.

People who post that one or more of the Ramseys killed or murdered JonBenet are exposed to a defamation lawsuit. Likewise, if people post that one or more of the Ramseys sexually assaulted Jon Benet prior to her death, they have that same exposure.

If people post that they "know" or otherwise state that one or more of Ramseys are responsible for Jon Benets murder, they are clearly exposed. The same holds if people post that they "know" or otherwise state that one or more of the Ramseys sexually assaulted Jon Benet.

Using the word "know" represents certitude, it does not represent opinion. Words such as feel, think and believe represent opinion. And if people say they "know" or otherwise use words that express certitude that one or more of the Ramseys committed a crime, they are exposed to a defamation suit even if they say all of their posts represent opinion.

Developing an ambiguity should not be thought of as protection from a libel lawsuit, for courts resolve ambiguities against the maker of the ambiguity.

Well said! It continues to amaze me to read these posts where the poster emphatically states they know who killed JonBenet and then go on to name the killer. None of us "knows" who did it and you are right, it's important to remember to write that it's just our individual opinon. I believe even if someone else is convicted in this case there are many who will never admit they could be wrong about the Ramsey's doing it. There is quite a bit of obsession going on with this case, some of which is going on in this forum.

 

[JDB]

Tybee, some people who have post here could be confronted with an ugly reality check. For, in some posts, more than opinions are being expressed. Moreover, as has been noted in a separate thread, the Jon Benet case and this forum are operating under different standards than the rest of websleuth's forums. However, legal standards for libel remain unchanged.

People who post that one or more of the Ramseys killed or murdered JonBenet are exposed to a defamation lawsuit. Likewise, if people post that one or more of the Ramseys sexually assaulted Jon Benet prior to her death, they have that same exposure.

If people post that they "know" or otherwise state that one or more of Ramseys are responsible for Jon Benets murder, they are clearly exposed. The same holds if people post that they "know" or otherwise state that one or more of the Ramseys sexually assaulted Jon Benet.

Using the word "know" represents certitude, it does not represent opinion. Words such as feel, think and believe represent opinion. And if people say they "know" or otherwise use words that express certitude that one or more of the Ramseys committed a crime, they are exposed to a defamation suit even if they say all of their posts represent opinion.

Developing an ambiguity should not be thought of as protection from a libel lawsuit, for courts resolve ambiguities against the maker of the ambiguity.

But Wudge the ones here that are sure Karr Murdered JBR they to could be held for Libel.

 

[southcitymom]

... There is quite a bit of obsession going on with this case, some of which is going on in this forum.

Ya think?

 

[panthera]

But Wudge the ones here that are sure Karr Murdered JBR they to could be held for Libel.

Isn't there a difference since JMK has been arrested on suspicion of murder, etc? Just asking ~ I don't know!

 

[JDB]

Isn't there a difference since JMK has been arrested on suspicion of murder, etc? Just asking ~ I don't know!

Not if he is then released with no proof he did it. I think.

 

[sandraladeda]

Here is your Hostest with the Mostest!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=KKe2_Sn95Go

wow, what a great job being interviewed. You could not have squeezed more information into that relatively short interview if you tried. All great information. Talk about taking control of the interview!

Way to go, Tricia! Your intelligence, courage and commitment are admirable.

 

[julianne]

But Wudge the ones here that are sure Karr Murdered JBR they to could be held for Libel.

I've never seen any post from an IDI theorist who has stated emphatically, that JMK is guilty, and that he did it. I always see "IMO", in my opinion, he "may" be the guy, he "could" have done it, I "think" he's the guy, etc. NEVER have I seen 1 post where he is being emphatically proclaimed the killer. I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

I have seen NUMEROUS posts by people emphatically stating the Ramsey's did it, the Ramseys are killers, Patsy killed JonBenet, etc. Numerous posts. I've always wondered about the libel issue after reading posts like that. Not too smart, in my opinion. Just might come back to bite certain people in the butt.:crazy:

 

[julianne]

Tybee, some people who have post here could be confronted with an ugly reality check. For, in some posts, more than opinions are being expressed. Moreover, as has been noted in a separate thread, the Jon Benet case and this forum are operating under different standards than the rest of websleuth's forums. However, legal standards for libel remain unchanged.

People who post that one or more of the Ramseys killed or murdered JonBenet are exposed to a defamation lawsuit. Likewise, if people post that one or more of the Ramseys sexually assaulted Jon Benet prior to her death, they have that same exposure.

If people post that they "know" or otherwise state that one or more of Ramseys are responsible for Jon Benets murder, they are clearly exposed. The same holds if people post that they "know" or otherwise state that one or more of the Ramseys sexually assaulted Jon Benet.

Using the word "know" represents certitude, it does not represent opinion. Words such as feel, think and believe represent opinion. And if people say they "know" or otherwise use words that express certitude that one or more of the Ramseys committed a crime, they are exposed to a defamation suit even if they say all of their posts represent opinion.

Developing an ambiguity should not be thought of as protection from a libel lawsuit, for courts resolve ambiguities against the maker of the ambiguity.

BTW, Wudge....that was a MOST EXCELLENT post! Very, very insightful and I do believe you have schooled those that need to be schooled, lol. I've often thought about the slander/libel/defamation issues when I see all those posts proclaiming that the "Ramseys killed their daughter, Period." quote unquote.

 

[Details]

I don't know, but my suspicion is that were it ever to go to court (unlikely IMHO), the fact that this is an opinion forum pretty much states that any post is your opinion, your belief, not a known fact that you have personal knowledge of. Just seems to me that unless you said something like, "I was there and I saw her do it", it wouldn't come up to the libel bar in this medium. There's also differences between the news and opinion shows, etc.

 

[aussiesheila]

No matter who killed JBR, I guarantee you that it had something to do with the pagents. Either the killer saw her in one or saw an article written about her winning one.

Cal

You can guarantee this can you calus? That's a pretty strong statement. Just how can you be so sure?

 

[aussiesheila]

I'm asking because I TRULY wonder of a pedophile is attarcted to little kids that dress like adults. *advertiser censored* or otherwise.

Hey everyone, TB does have a point you know.

 

[aussiesheila]

Well Dave, I asked about pedophiles and what exactly attracts them to certain children - and "Cappie" gives me an entire dissertation on why the Ramsey's did it - that isn't strange?!

No it's not. Not strange at all. There is a mainstream belief and you must be bludgeoned into falling into line with it by any means available. I expect this post will be deleted even though it doesn't come within a bull's roar of be as being as offensive as some of the replies I have had to endure, but that is the price one pays for being a non-RDI.

 

[aussiesheila]

T Broodwater, I have a big problem with the people who pull that "persecution: bit.

But you're right. If you ask a question, you should get a straight answer.

To be honest, I don't know what makes a pedophile, much less why different ones are attracted to different victims.

But you should know: many of us have been at this a while and feel like we're talking to brick walls.

Ah SuperDave, pouring oil on troubled waters - we need people like you. You RDIs think you have it bad! It's so much worse being an IDI - we have 10x the number of brick walls we feel like we are talking to.

 

[narlacat]

Thanks SuperDave.
And thanks Why Nutt

Tricia, you were great!!
Good on ya mate, you kicked arse.

It doesn't matter if you were wrong about fruit loop going to Co.
You won't be wrong about much else, we all know karr didn't do it.

 

[aussiesheila]

What attracts a pedophile is dependant on the pedophile. Some pedophiles victimize little boys and others little girls. Age range, race, eye color, hair color etc can be factors in who they choose as victims. Some get off on detroying innocense, others in their sick minds believe the cild is actually seducing them. Young girls acting in a provacative manner would arouse some pedophiles and discourage others. Their is no clear line or pattern on it.

I heard someone on radio yesterday discussing one instance of what one particular pedophile thought was provacative behaviour by a six year old and an indication that she was signalling him that she really desired him - she did a cartwheel in front of him causing her panties to be exposed!

 

[Eagle1]

I only have 2 stored messages showing, but at the top of the PM's page it says 38. How do you find them, folks, or is it an equipment problem?

Sent someone a PM this morning re #136.

 

[aussiesheila]

I only have 2 stored messages showing, but at the top of the PM's page it says 38. How do you find them, folks, or is it an equipment problem?

Sent someone a PM this morning re #136.

Eagle, maybe your 'messages sent' box has the other 36.

 

[Eagle1]

Thanks for the reply, AussieSheila.

I cleaned out my sent messages although there may be no limit for them, but just can't find more than 2 stored inbox ones.

You don't have the same problem? I thought maybe others would.

 

[calus_3]

You can guarantee this can you calus? That's a pretty strong statement. Just how can you be so sure?

Go have a veggimite sandwich!

In the end, if someone is caught, or if Karr is the man.....I guarantee that he first came to know JBR through the beauty pageant circuit.

Time will tell, but practice typing "Calus is brilliant, callus is brilliant".

Cal