& for those who think Patsy is innocent, why would God have spared her from the cancer? just so she could suffer through the death of her child, & then die from the cancer anyway? & if I believed that God did intervene, I'd think he was cruel beyond comprehension. It would've been better to take her then. also, if God was willing to spare Patsy from cancer, why wasn't he willing to spare JonBenet from a horrible murder? It doesn't sound like God had much to do with this. Actually, if I was going to buy into this story, I'd think it sounded more like a seance & a pact with the devil. kind of like the 3 wishes story-where the man got a lot of money, but his son died ,in exchange.
Would you pull a cord
- Thread starter WHITEFANG
- Start date
Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
There ARE miracles, but our lives play out exactly the way they are meant to, good and bad.
God didn't "spare" or "not spare" Patsy. Her life played out its natural end regardless. Her death was not a punishment for whatever may have happened with JB. Free will, as always, drives our lives.
I am a big believer in karma. But while our lives strive for balance, it doesn't always happen in the life we are presently living.
God didn't "spare" or "not spare" Patsy. Her life played out its natural end regardless. Her death was not a punishment for whatever may have happened with JB. Free will, as always, drives our lives.
I am a big believer in karma. But while our lives strive for balance, it doesn't always happen in the life we are presently living.
If it was your test and you were innocent, would you release the results to other polys?
madeleine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 4,972
- Reaction score
- 90
madeleine
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Messages
- 4,972
- Reaction score
- 90
It's more the fact that SHE thought he did ,maybe.What was she ready to give back?
H*LL YES, I'd release the results. I wouldn't want even one person thinking I had done such a thing. & the public knowing that I was innocent, would be invaluable in getting LE off my back & on the track of the killer. IF the Ramseys are innocent, all they've accomplished , with their actions, is protect the real killer.
MurriFlower
Inactive
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2010
- Messages
- 1,980
- Reaction score
- 15
Even if they were PROVED INNOCENT, I'm sure there would still be those who were ABSOLUTELY SURE THEY WERE GUILTY OF SOMETHING!!
If you were innocent, you wouldn't want anyone thinking you had done such a thing. The public, knowing you were innocent, would be invaluable to get the cops off your back.
IOW, it would be your responsibility to prove your innocence to the public to get the cops to back off?
If the paragons of virtue, a.k.a. our beloved media, paid "experts" gobs of money to reinterpret the poly results and to depict them as ridiculous, fraudulent, bogus, preposterous, etc., what then?
Also, she was spared and children still suffered and died. What does this mean, God doesn't exist?
I'm with you, brother.
The reverse is also true: even if they were PROVED GUILTY, I'm sure there are people who would be convinced they were innocent.
Neither point proves anything.
Someone made the point that by proving their innocence to the public, the R's would do themselves a favor. The cops wouldn't focus on them as the perps, as a result.
The argument objecting to that POV was offered. Very legitimate and important point, IMO. Why? The R's were cooked, no matter what they did or didn't do. This story, the whole shebang, was a money-making dream come true for the vultures who cared not a bit about truth, accuracy, confirming stories, authentic journalism. It was a cauldron of conjecture, cannibalism and conspiracy; a mad dash for filthy lucre.
That's all it was to them. A poor, homely, inner-city six year old found tortured and bound wouldn't buy a last page mention.
What you say is true. But that applies to what I said as well, in terms of lawyers.
No argument!
For examples?
They asked to testify before the Grand Jury, but were refused.
Be specific, Fang. What exactly are you asking for here?
I don't know how true that is, but whether it is or not, they were only two of many who were not called. Like I've always said, the GJ was nothing but a political dog-and-pony show...and the doberman never made it.
You'd better believe it!
californiared
New Member
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2008
- Messages
- 110
- Reaction score
- 0
Sorry for not being as smart as youSo it's funny trying to see both sides of the story?What makes you so superior anyway.
lol, 1) you don't have to apoligize
2) I said it WOULD be funny...meaning I said it WASN'T funny. 3) I never said I was superior 4) We're done here, I learned long ago that the type of people that are IDI are the type of people that could have a Ramsey confession in thier face and still wouldn't believe it; honestly if the evidence out there isn't enough to convince you then nothing will. End of story.sooo...why would they care about that? If they can prove their innocence, they need to. & being 'guilty of something', is a lot better than being guilty of torturing & murdering their child. I would think it would be John's life mission, to find JonBenet's killer & he should be relentless in his pursuit-but he seems pretty content with his life. I couldn't rest at night, knowing that a psycho killer, who had targeted my family, was on the loose.