I take that as a badge of honor, to be honest with you.
JBR, PR and UMI
- Thread starter BBB167893
- Start date
I take that as a badge of honor, to be honest with you.
Holdontoyourhat
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 5,299
- Reaction score
- 12
Hey I don't care if you have an opinion that varies from the news or the experts, heck I'm way ahead of you there!
But our opinions need to fully account for the existing, widely reported data in a complete, plausible, and realistic way. It doesn't help arguments to sidestep, avoid, provide vague wildcard explanations, or simply be in denial of said data.
I think your conclusion is based on faulty reasoning. To find the Ramsey's guilty because you are willing to engage the dark side of human nature, rather than run from it or hide from it, assumes several things incorrectly. Suffice to say for now that no one can dismis the contrary positions others' hold because we/they can't deal with evil is. Apparently you find that we strictly catergorize criminals as lowlife scum, never those who appear together on the outside. Simply not true.
Whenever Richard Cory went down town,
We people on the pavement looked at him:
He was a gentleman from sole to crown,
Clean-favoured and imperially slim.
And he was always quietly arrayed,
And he was always human when he talked;
But still he fluttered pulses when he said,
"Good Morning!" and he glittered when he walked.
And he was rich, yes, richer than a king,
And admirably schooled in every grace:
In fine -- we thought that he was everything
To make us wish that we were in his place.
So on we worked and waited for the light,
And went without the meat and cursed the bread,
And Richard Cory, one calm summer night,
Went home and put a bullet in his head.
Fair to say that our newspapers and history books overflow with examples of people who function on different levels of the moral spectrum simultaneously?
If Smit formed opinions differing from several other experts which must be off-base because he didn't speak to them, makes no sense.
Supe, that is what they do. They examine the entire corpse.
Whenever Richard Cory went down town,
We people on the pavement looked at him:
He was a gentleman from sole to crown,
Clean-favoured and imperially slim.
And he was always quietly arrayed,
And he was always human when he talked;
But still he fluttered pulses when he said,
"Good Morning!" and he glittered when he walked.
And he was rich, yes, richer than a king,
And admirably schooled in every grace:
In fine -- we thought that he was everything
To make us wish that we were in his place.
So on we worked and waited for the light,
And went without the meat and cursed the bread,
And Richard Cory, one calm summer night,
Went home and put a bullet in his head.
Fair to say that our newspapers and history books overflow with examples of people who function on different levels of the moral spectrum simultaneously?
If Smit formed opinions differing from several other experts which must be off-base because he didn't speak to them, makes no sense.
Supe, are you sure?
Supe, that is what they do. They examine the entire corpse.
Yes, this I can see! But to my way of thinking, it's the news that varies from the experts--as in, people who were actually there.
Agreed completely.
I couldn't have said it better myself! It helps to keep a clean house, you know what I mean?
That's where you've got me wrong, Fang. It's not like you make it out. It's not that I think they're guilty because I can engage the dark side of human nature; I'm saying that the unwillingness to face that darkness blinds people. I'm not claiming that I can probe a human soul. I'm just saying that I can't not see what I see.
I didn't say that, either.
I didn't say that. I just said that people will prefer a straight-up "good/evil" story to something that forces them to face their own wretchedness.
Quite right! Wendy Murphy said it best:
the public is uncomfortable accepting the idea that people who look so nice on the outside can be dastardly on the inside.
That's not what I'm saying. Perhaps I summed it up best in the book:
-Smit has always claimed that if evidence were to arise implicating the Ramseys, he'd go after them. But on several occasions, that has happened. and he was one of the first to pooh-pooh it. Why? If he's the man he says he is, he certainly wouldn't turn down a good lead, right? And if their conclusions are nothing but hooey, if Smit's evidence of innocence is so overwhelming, what could he possibly have to fear?
Bottom line: Talk is cheap. If it comes from Lou Smit, it's even cheaper.
Sure as I can be without having been there.
Sure. It may blind some people. But not everyone and not every serious student of this crime is blinded by evil. One could make the same argument against those who see the evil. "That's all you people can see is the evil behind every corner." Equally bogus. Plenty of people have examined the evidence/information objectively, thoroughly and willing to look evil in the eye, but not finding it everywhere. MO
"Smit has always claimed that if evidence were to arise implicating the Ramseys, he'd go after them. But on several occasions, that has happened. and he was one of the first to pooh-pooh it. Why? If he's the man he says he is, he certainly wouldn't turn down a good lead, right? And if their conclusions are nothing but hooey, if Smit's evidence of innocence is so overwhelming, what could he possibly have to fear?"
What does Poo Poo it mean? What didn't he pursue that was a good lead?
What does Poo Poo it mean? What didn't he pursue that was a good lead?
Granted. But it's a hard lesson nonetheless, and one that many are loathe to learn.
It means he dismisses it or--less frequently--tries to put a better spin on it. (Only one of MANY ethical breaches I can attribute to him.)
Actually, I wrote that as a reinforcing illustration of how he dismisses any evidence that points to the Rs, even though he claims he'd pursue it if it did come along. As I state in the book:
Ironically, Smit's mantra is "the obvious is usually the right answer." I don't regret taking his advice. I just wish he had.
But if you want something more specific:
In 2002, Gideon Epstein, one of the country's leading handwriting experts, studied the ransom letter, then offered to have Smit go over his findings with him. Smit flat-out refused. Why? If he's the man he says he is, he certainly wouldn't turn down a good lead, right? And if Epstein's conclusions are nothing but hooey, if Smit's evidence of innocence is so overwhelming, what could he possibly have to fear?
MurriFlower
Inactive
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2010
- Messages
- 1,980
- Reaction score
- 15
Now you're getting it SD! What is obvious is: Kidnap for ransom gone wrong. Walk like a duck, quack like a duck, look like a duck - don't tell me it was a goose!
Trust me, MurriFlower, I've "gotten it" since the summer of 2002 when reality smacked me in the face. I've never looked back.
Are you kidding? My whole point is that when a kid is found dead in their own home, 99 times out of 100, the killer is someone who lived there. Thus, the obvious suspects are the family members. The obvious is usually right.
I was about to say the exact same thing! Isn't that odd?
Holdontoyourhat
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 5,299
- Reaction score
- 12
RDI calls a duck a goose, and then has the audacity to use the 'walks like a duck' line. Go figure.
Holdontoyourhat
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 5,299
- Reaction score
- 12
Ad hominem.
Trust me, HOTYH: anyone who reads that line in context is not going to CARE whether or not it's ad hominem. They will understand it perfectly.
:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:
This pretty much sums up my social service work with victims of incest. When the victims were children of civic leaders, clergy, business owners, or otherwise "good looking, well-off folks", the general public just did not want to believe it. Even when the perps plead guilty, people would generate some BS story explaining why they "must have plead guilty even though they really didn't do it".
None of these people, of course, were ever in the home when these incestuous incidents took place, they just thought these otherwise "loving nice people" couldn't possibly do what they themselves admitted in court with heavy penalty to having done.
Your last sentence pretty much sums up why their minds were like bricks baked too long in the hot sun. [/QUOTE]
Deep bruises may not be visible externally and may be discovered only on incising the soft tissue. In other instances, deep bruises may not become visible externally until hours after death. Scalp bruises are frequently not visible externally unless there is swelling.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cacheKuMy6-RXJoJ:www.scribd.com/doc/186588/chapter22+%22skull+fracture%22+bruise+not+visible&cd=52&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca
Skull fractures may occur with head injuries. Although the skull is tough, resilient, and provides excellent protection for the brain, a severe impact or blow can result in fracture of the skull. It may be accompanied by injury to the brain.
Note: The only symptom may be a bump on the head. A bump or bruise may take up to 24 hours to develop.
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000060.htm
Except for a possible bruise or contusion, there is no obvious external damage in closed wounds. Injury may be to the brain itself or to the pia or arachnoid meninges. Rupture of blood vessels in the pia is particularly important in closed injury. Blood spilled onto brain cells is a highly irritating foreign substance that disturbs the functioning of these tissues. Blood collecting under the skull exerts pressure against the brain. If there is no skull fracture or if skull fracture is such that the integrity of the dura is not disturbed, the cranium is unyielding. If the skull is depressed or displaced inwardly, it may exert direct pressure on brain tissues even without the formation of a hematoma. A fall on the back of the head will often cause more internal damage than a strong blow to the anterior head with a fist.
http://www.chiro.org/rc_schafer/Monograph_12.shtml
Autopsy consultor Tom Henry substantiates this hypothesis. He believes JonBenet may have survived unconscious for 15 minutes after an initial blow to the head before being strangled.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,25606,00.html
"Dr. Spitz was joined (in Boulder for an investigation) by Tom Faure, the coroner's chief investigator, and Weinheimer (Dr. Carey Weinheimer). The group studied the cellulose substance that was found in victim's vagina and determined that it was consistent with the wood from the broken shard of the paintbrush handle used in the garroting. They also found that JonBenet had sustained a very powerful blow to the head, which, though it did not cause external bleeding, caused intracerebral bleeding that would quickly prove fatal. They could not determine if the head blow preceded that garroting with scientifc certainty , though the head blow, in all probability, had come first. Since the head wound was fully developed, this meant that the victim had survived for a period of time."
Kerry Brega, chief neurologist at Denver Health Medical Center:
"We see a lot of people with skull fractures without bleeds in the brain, and they didn't all get strangled on the way in," she said. "So it is actually possible to get a skull fracture without getting an underlying bleed in the brain."
Daily Camera, March, 2001
Dr. Robert Kirschner, a retired deputy chief medical examiner of Cook County, Ill., and a clinical associate in the Departments of Pathology and Pediatrics at the University of Chicago:
"You very often find head injuries with very little bleeding, even if some people just die of head injury without strangulation,"
Daily Camera, July 15, 1997.
JonBenet Ramsey was sexually assaulted, suffered a tremendous blow to the head and was strangled as much as an hour later, a respected forensic pathologist said Tuesday.
Dr. Ronald Wright, director of the forensic pathology department at the University of Miami School of Medicine, reviewed JonBenet's autopsy report Tuesday at the request of the Rocky Mountain News.
The blow to her head -- which Wright is convinced was not from a golf club but more likely a blunt object such as a baseball bat or heavy flashlight -- came first, Wright said.
"She was whopped on the head a long time before she was strangled,'' said Wright. "That might or might not have rendered her unconscious. But this is not anything that kills her right away.''
He said 20 to 60 minutes elapsed between the skull fracture and the strangulation.
The reason he's so sure, said Wright, is that details revealed about the brain injury, "the swelling, the bleeding here and there, they take a while to happen.''
And that wouldn't have happened, he said, if she was already dead.
"I think, probably, the head injury came first, because the strangulation resulted in petechial (pinpoint) hemorrhages'' in areas such as the eyelids, Kirschner said.
"I think she died when she was strangled. The cerebral hemorrhaging and bruising of the brain did occur first. But she was still alive when strangled.''
July 16, 1997
Charlie Brennan
Rocky Mountain News
Deep bruises may not be visible externally and may be discovered only on incising the soft tissue. In other instances, deep bruises may not become visible externally until hours after death. Scalp bruises are frequently not visible externally unless there is swelling.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cacheKuMy6-RXJoJ:www.scribd.com/doc/186588/chapter22+%22skull+fracture%22+bruise+not+visible&cd=52&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca
Skull fractures may occur with head injuries. Although the skull is tough, resilient, and provides excellent protection for the brain, a severe impact or blow can result in fracture of the skull. It may be accompanied by injury to the brain.
Note: The only symptom may be a bump on the head. A bump or bruise may take up to 24 hours to develop.
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000060.htm
Except for a possible bruise or contusion, there is no obvious external damage in closed wounds. Injury may be to the brain itself or to the pia or arachnoid meninges. Rupture of blood vessels in the pia is particularly important in closed injury. Blood spilled onto brain cells is a highly irritating foreign substance that disturbs the functioning of these tissues. Blood collecting under the skull exerts pressure against the brain. If there is no skull fracture or if skull fracture is such that the integrity of the dura is not disturbed, the cranium is unyielding. If the skull is depressed or displaced inwardly, it may exert direct pressure on brain tissues even without the formation of a hematoma. A fall on the back of the head will often cause more internal damage than a strong blow to the anterior head with a fist.
http://www.chiro.org/rc_schafer/Monograph_12.shtml
Autopsy consultor Tom Henry substantiates this hypothesis. He believes JonBenet may have survived unconscious for 15 minutes after an initial blow to the head before being strangled.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,25606,00.html
"Dr. Spitz was joined (in Boulder for an investigation) by Tom Faure, the coroner's chief investigator, and Weinheimer (Dr. Carey Weinheimer). The group studied the cellulose substance that was found in victim's vagina and determined that it was consistent with the wood from the broken shard of the paintbrush handle used in the garroting. They also found that JonBenet had sustained a very powerful blow to the head, which, though it did not cause external bleeding, caused intracerebral bleeding that would quickly prove fatal. They could not determine if the head blow preceded that garroting with scientifc certainty , though the head blow, in all probability, had come first. Since the head wound was fully developed, this meant that the victim had survived for a period of time."
Kerry Brega, chief neurologist at Denver Health Medical Center:
"We see a lot of people with skull fractures without bleeds in the brain, and they didn't all get strangled on the way in," she said. "So it is actually possible to get a skull fracture without getting an underlying bleed in the brain."
Daily Camera, March, 2001
Dr. Robert Kirschner, a retired deputy chief medical examiner of Cook County, Ill., and a clinical associate in the Departments of Pathology and Pediatrics at the University of Chicago:
"You very often find head injuries with very little bleeding, even if some people just die of head injury without strangulation,"
Daily Camera, July 15, 1997.
JonBenet Ramsey was sexually assaulted, suffered a tremendous blow to the head and was strangled as much as an hour later, a respected forensic pathologist said Tuesday.
Dr. Ronald Wright, director of the forensic pathology department at the University of Miami School of Medicine, reviewed JonBenet's autopsy report Tuesday at the request of the Rocky Mountain News.
The blow to her head -- which Wright is convinced was not from a golf club but more likely a blunt object such as a baseball bat or heavy flashlight -- came first, Wright said.
"She was whopped on the head a long time before she was strangled,'' said Wright. "That might or might not have rendered her unconscious. But this is not anything that kills her right away.''
He said 20 to 60 minutes elapsed between the skull fracture and the strangulation.
The reason he's so sure, said Wright, is that details revealed about the brain injury, "the swelling, the bleeding here and there, they take a while to happen.''
And that wouldn't have happened, he said, if she was already dead.
"I think, probably, the head injury came first, because the strangulation resulted in petechial (pinpoint) hemorrhages'' in areas such as the eyelids, Kirschner said.
"I think she died when she was strangled. The cerebral hemorrhaging and bruising of the brain did occur first. But she was still alive when strangled.''
July 16, 1997
Charlie Brennan
Rocky Mountain News
Awesome...
my_tee_mouse
Done. Put a Fork in Me.
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2008
- Messages
- 3,580
- Reaction score
- 38
And yet to many of us the obvious is: faked kidnap for ransom gone wrong...gone wrong. Quackquackwaddlewaddle.
my_tee_mouse
Done. Put a Fork in Me.
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2008
- Messages
- 3,580
- Reaction score
- 38
Yes! And by the same token people are more than willing to decide someone is guilty because they aren't clergy or good looking or well off. Be honest IDI's: in your minds the killer is some scruffy, scummy perv who has never contributed to society.:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:
This pretty much sums up my social service work with victims of incest. When the victims were children of civic leaders, clergy, business owners, or otherwise "good looking, well-off folks", the general public just did not want to believe it. Even when the perps plead guilty, people would generate some BS story explaining why they "must have plead guilty even though they really didn't do it".
None of these people, of course, were ever in the home when these incestuous incidents took place, they just thought these otherwise "loving nice people" couldn't possibly do what they themselves admitted in court with heavy penalty to having done.
Your last sentence pretty much sums up why their minds were like bricks baked too long in the hot sun.
MurriFlower
Inactive
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2010
- Messages
- 1,980
- Reaction score
- 15
Wasth that I thee? Lookth like a gooth dithguithed ath a duck!
my_tee_mouse
Done. Put a Fork in Me.
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2008
- Messages
- 3,580
- Reaction score
- 38
Is this where I'm supposed to counter with, "I thwat I thaw a puddy tat. I did I did thaw a puddy cat!":crazy:
Similar threads
Online statistics
- Members online
- 82
- Guests online
- 3,473
- Total visitors
- 3,555