IDI: Whats your problem?

[BBB167893]

Like what?

"like what?" You were talking about how the flashlight case would show signs of having been used to hit someone's head. I pointed out that it had a rubber coating. I thought you'd want to know that.

 

[WHITEFANG]

Oh dear another one!! Well, lets just look at what was said. The investigator asked her for a 'play by play' of what she did that morning, here's how it went down:

"TT: . . .and again as you (inaudible) on the 25th, kind of give us a, almost a play by play, minute by minute, what did you do when you got out of bed? Where was John at? That sort of thing. All the way through the morning to the afternoon. Let’s kind of take it, we’ll take it in little chunks.

PR: Okay. Um, we got up at about 5:30, I think. I think John got up first and I got up just right behind him and he went to his bathroom and shower. I went to my bathroom. I did not shower that morning and I just put my clothes on and uh, did my hair and makeup and uh and then I started down the stairs, John was still in the bathroom and went uh, I stopped kind of briefly there in the laundry room area um, and I remember the ironing board was up I think and I fussed around with this little red jumpsuit of JonBenet’s cause it had, had some spots on it and I was going to remember to do something with that when I got back and uh, so I had, I had the light on in there in the laundry room area and uh, um then I started down the spiral staircase there. I came, I had come back down, I’d come down the back bedroom stairs there. . .

TT: Okay."

So, I'm wondering what was she supposed to say? Do you think she should have just said "mind your own business, you sticky-beak!"??

Ok, she didn't shower that morning, as I said, perhaps she did before she went out the previous evening. Perhaps she showers once a week!! The 'fact' that she is "impeccably dressed" or vain as you are implying, and that this is also an indicator of guilt, is complete fantasy on your behalf. I think there is actually more evidence that she wasn't too tidy, again though, not an indicator of guilt or innocence, just a 'thing'.

You can lead a horse to water

 

[WHITEFANG]

I'm not saying it WAS, HOTYH. I just didn't want you to make any big assumptions without knowing it.



Finally, something we can agree on.

Oh, brother. Someone else do this, OK?

The Denverpost.com. October 14, 1999
ST's book, page 267
And just about every other account or discussion board of the crime.
I am sick of playing games. You know very well where its been posted. Next time try Google.

Talk about arrogance, intolerance and inability to play nice. Don't look it up, for Pete's sake. Why bother to type out what a bother it is for you? Have a gun to your head? Just ignore it if it is too much trouble for thou. Goodness gracious. Get off your high horse while you're at it, too.

 

[WHITEFANG]

Why do I even bother refuting your unsubstantiated claims because when you are found wanting you invariably plead "I not understandie" or even better "you misinterpret me". Sure, sure!!

"You are spokesperson for RDI when it suits."



She has a point, Super.

 

[OneLove]

Talk about arrogance, intolerance and inability to play nice. Don't look it up, for Pete's sake. Why bother to type out what a bother it is for you? Have a gun to your head? Just ignore it if it is too much trouble for thou. Goodness gracious. Get off your high horse while you're at it, too.

Uhmmmm, I tried that with you, Fang. You persisted in post after post to heckle and ridicule me for NOT answering you. If you want us to just ignore, then you would ignore the ignore. *snark*

As to the high horse, back 'atcha.

Be nice to us; we'll be nice to you.

 

[DeeDee249]

Talk about arrogance, intolerance and inability to play nice. Don't look it up, for Pete's sake. Why bother to type out what a bother it is for you? Have a gun to your head? Just ignore it if it is too much trouble for thou. Goodness gracious. Get off your high horse while you're at it, too.

Believe me, I do not have the monopoly on arrogance here. Kinda like the pot calling the kettle, y'know? I've even been criticized nastily for a spelling error.
I kinda like it up on my high horse. I can see better.

 

[WHITEFANG]

Uhmmmm, I tried that with you, Fang. You persisted in post after post to heckle and ridicule me for NOT answering you. If you want us to just ignore, then you would ignore the ignore. *snark*

As to the high horse, back 'atcha.

Be nice to us; we'll be nice to you.

PEACE, OUT BABE. Tell me, are you ever going to explain what I don't understand about my own questions? Or, will you define "splitting" as pertains to BPD? Start there. If not, don't address me in your posts.

Love/Peace. Sincerely, Babe, no spite really, really, sincerely, you know?

 

[WHITEFANG]

Believe me, I do not have the monopoly on arrogance here. Kinda like the pot calling the kettle, y'know? I've even been criticized nastily for a spelling error.
I kinda like it up on my high horse. I can see better.

Help me. What part of the word, "opinion" don't you understand? And still, you don't explain why it was such a bother, why you would say it unprovoked, and why you didn't ignore it.

 

[MurriFlower]

Oh, brother. Someone else do this, OK?

The Denverpost.com. October 14, 1999
ST's book, page 267
And just about every other account or discussion board of the crime.
I am sick of playing games. You know very well where its been posted. Next time try Google.

Well, I like to know just where you got the account so I can go read it myself. Lets just say I found something else about it that didn't agree with your version? I've found on this forum people seem to have very selective ability to read, even so far as to post two lines of a conversation or even stop at a comma, just to serve their own purposes. You think I'm playing games, nope - this is a 'fact finding mission' not an 'opinion finding mission'.

I think if people want to post something as a 'fact' they aught to be prepared to back it up with some evidence. Otherwise, just say "I think" or "I believe", or "I maybe read this somewhere". We have precious little 'evidence' to work with and I'm not prepared to accept someone's memory on what they once thought they read, which is presented over and again as a fact.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

"like what?" You were talking about how the flashlight case would show signs of having been used to hit someone's head. I pointed out that it had a rubber coating. I thought you'd want to know that.

Rubber on steel, aluminum, gold? Brass? What? Remember that old saying, "what you don't know..."

 

[WHITEFANG]

"Uhmmmm, I tried that with you, Fang. You persisted in post after post to heckle and ridicule me for NOT answering you. If you want us to just ignore, then you would ignore the ignore. *snark*"


Oh please. Get your act together, girlfriend. You did nothing of the kind and here's proof. Talk about personality disorders and other sick personality dynamics. Nothing passive-aggressive about you baby cakes. And do yourself a favor. Don't deny it to yourself and don't obsess over how i know.
Remember the Bard, "To thine own self be true and it must follow as the night the day thou canst not then be false to any man."


Genius at work.

"Your other questions, although I'm sure you have protective intent and much passionate feeling about them, will be much better answered by your own conscience after you've better educated yourself on the issues. Until then, your defensive blocking simply delays progress."

I surely did didn't I? I asked you to point out where I had been "defensive blocking" and you did not. I said my conscience was/is fine. Answer my questions with or without the use of your conscience, but before you make up more stupid things to say, back up what you've uttered already.

Oneser baby, you see, you lose all credibility with such preposterous, ridiculous comments. If you want us to take you seriously, support your absurd accusations/suggestions/insights/instructions and stop being a jerk.

 

[WHITEFANG]

Well, I like to know just where you got the account so I can go read it myself. Lets just say I found something else about it that didn't agree with your version? I've found on this forum people seem to have very selective ability to read, even so far as to post two lines of a conversation or even stop at a comma, just to serve their own purposes. You think I'm playing games, nope - this is a 'fact finding mission' not an 'opinion finding mission'.

I think if people want to post something as a 'fact' they aught to be prepared to back it up with some evidence. Otherwise, just say "I think" or "I believe", or "I maybe read this somewhere". We have precious little 'evidence' to work with and I'm not prepared to accept someone's memory on what they once thought they read, which is presented over and again as a fact.

you keep going girl! And lovin it. this rather snooty bunch dish it out all day, in volume after volume, but when it's time to be corrected, or taken to task on a whole host on fallacies, errant logic, improper deductions, hearsay bull, overemphasizing/under-emphasizing, well how dare you question me.

It is amusing. They take themselves so seriously, it is funny. The subject isn't funny. But, the way they go on and on and can't find anything but pithy little comebacks to continue down their "theorifactual" fantasy is wild stuff. Not you Super. You are a special student of this crime (you are not perfect, nobody is, but you are an accomplished researcher. You're wrong, but very knowledgeable.)

 

[OneLove]

Oneser baby, you see, you lose all credibility with such preposterous, ridiculous comments. If you want us to take you seriously, support your absurd accusations/suggestions/insights/instructions and stop being a jerk.

Uhmm....I believe you invited me to ignore you?

And I LOVE being a jerk, simply adore it. Besides, it seems to bring you out of your little shell. Kinda the virtual version of tricking one into dropping one's drawers, exposing their backside, KWIM? I love when I can do that.

You can pull 'em back up now. We've all seen enough. :biggrin:

 

[WHITEFANG]

Believe me, I do not have the monopoly on arrogance here. Kinda like the pot calling the kettle, y'know? I've even been criticized nastily for a spelling error.
I kinda like it up on my high horse. I can see better.

Fantastic. Like a five year old. Just toss back some vitriol. Nah nah nah na. You did too. No, you did. No, it was you and I'm tellin mom.


Have you tried addressing the issue instead of being an immature brat? No, really. Have you tried looking at your attitude as expressed in your statements? Ask Onsie babes. She knows the value of looking within for answers.

Peace, y'all. Peace and no spitting or spiting 't all.

We have 50, 60, 70 year old grandmothers acting like children around here!

 

[my_tee_mouse]

Well, I like to know just where you got the account so I can go read it myself. Lets just say I found something else about it that didn't agree with your version? I've found on this forum people seem to have very selective ability to read, even so far as to post two lines of a conversation or even stop at a comma, just to serve their own purposes. You think I'm playing games, nope - this is a 'fact finding mission' not an 'opinion finding mission'.

I think if people want to post something as a 'fact' they aught to be prepared to back it up with some evidence. Otherwise, just say "I think" or "I believe", or "I maybe read this somewhere". We have precious little 'evidence' to work with and I'm not prepared to accept someone's memory on what they once thought they read, which is presented over and again as a fact.

There are a number of instances in this case where you are going to find something that doesn't agree with someone's else's version...because there were several versions of the "story" told by key players. I've seriously considered putting together a notebook of the various and sundry explanations given over the course of the years.

Naturally some details may change over the course of time due to memory loss (although I would think being a party to the events surrounding this death would be emblazoned on a person's mind forever). Some details may change to better fit the scenario (and some obviously did because people did not realize that people would have a handy dandy thing called the internet with which to easily pull up and compare past and present statements).

A word about the snarking and sniping: It gets us nowhere. I don't think the object of the game here is to "win." I think the object of the game is to maybe find something that would help solve this crime...to come up with some detail that has been overlooked time and again that would make for a true break in this case. Snarking does little to impress. It's like yelling at someone: you don't hear the message, you just hear the yelling. So can we get back to discussion mode? As in read what someone has to say, digest it and respectfully agree or disagree?

 

[OneLove]

So can we get back to discussion mode? As in read what someone has to say, digest it and respectfully agree or disagree?

thanks for the bridge back to sanity

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

So can we get back to discussion mode? As in read what someone has to say, digest it and respectfully agree or disagree?

Sure. What I want to know is what idiot believes a foreign faction would actually write such a stupid ridiculous note and come all this way just to bother a little girl?

 

[MurriFlower]

There are a number of instances in this case where you are going to find something that doesn't agree with someone's else's version...because there were several versions of the "story" told by key players. I've seriously considered putting together a notebook of the various and sundry explanations given over the course of the years.

Naturally some details may change over the course of time due to memory loss (although I would think being a party to the events surrounding this death would be emblazoned on a person's mind forever). Some details may change to better fit the scenario (and some obviously did because people did not realize that people would have a handy dandy thing called the internet with which to easily pull up and compare past and present statements).

A word about the snarking and sniping: It gets us nowhere. I don't think the object of the game here is to "win." I think the object of the game is to maybe find something that would help solve this crime...to come up with some detail that has been overlooked time and again that would make for a true break in this case. Snarking does little to impress. It's like yelling at someone: you don't hear the message, you just hear the yelling. So can we get back to discussion mode? As in read what someone has to say, digest it and respectfully agree or disagree?

Snarking and sniping is caused by several things, amongst them is when heresay is presented as fact. Yes there may be several versions of the one incident, this is quite normal, but I am finding that on occasion it is obvious that there is a real attempt to misrepresent.

When often repeated 'facts' are questioned and the person becomes defensive, I begin to believe that they do not have a source for this 'evidence' or that it is an unreliable source.

For example we have constantly heard how PR's fibers from her jacket are tied into the garotte. The only source of this I can find is a question raised with the R's during an interview by an investigator. No-one appears to have actually seen this evidence (even investigators at BDP!). At the trial Wolf -v- Ramsey, the judge only mentions 'brown cotton fibers' presented as evidence. This is just one instance where there is no substantiation of the 'evidence', but despite this, the fibers of PR's jacket are continually brought up as evidence she murdered her daughter.

So, if I were making the rules, I suggest that such 'critical' pieces of 'evidence' that is then relied upon as the basis of one's theory, be sourced and posted as part of the theory. That way, there is no doubt and it doesn't need to be produced constantly when new people come to the forum.

 

[BBB167893]

Why do I even bother refuting your unsubstantiated claims because when you are found wanting you invariably plead "I not understandie" or even better "you misinterpret me". Sure, sure!!

"You are spokesperson for RDI when it suits."



She has a point, Super.

Are your kidding?

 

[BBB167893]

Rubber on steel, aluminum, gold? Brass? What? Remember that old saying, "what you don't know..."

"...can't hurt you?" I learned the hard way that's not true.

According to Wikipedia (take that for what it's worth), a maglite is constructed from anodized 6061 aluminum. More interestingly, apparently it's fairly common to use them as clubs.