JonBenet Ramson letter - written before or after + linguistics

[BBB167893]

(were there any paintbrush fragment in those slides??),

YES! PMPT mentions it several times, most notably on pages 559-560.

Talk about theatrics, were making stuff up thats pretty sensational and crass, and then calling it a reasonable guess. Which expert made this 'reasonable guess' anyway? You?

Actually, the experts who made that reasonable guess were:

Werner Spitz

David Jones

to name but two.

You'd do well to listen to what KoldKase has to say, HOTYH.

 

[BBB167893]

I know more than you.

What the he** is this, a playground?! I mean, can we at least keep this on an adult level?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

YES! PMPT mentions it several times, most notably on pages 559-560.

I did ask KK that, you answered which is fine. You seem to represent everyone RDI. Eager beaver, you are.

It would've been better for RDI (here we go again) if the coroner had referenced wood particles, slivers, shards, etc. in the autopsy report. He didn't, so it can also be 'reasonably guessed' that the presence of microscopic particles and the absense of larger visual slivers indicates the particles were transferred there by means other than assault with the broken end of a paintbrush. It is truly an assumption that it ever happened.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

What the he** is this, a playground?! I mean, can we at least keep this on an adult level?

A fact is a fact. Sry if you're disturbed by it.

 

[BBB167893]

I did ask KK that, you answered which is fine.

I know. But you never know how long you might have to wait, right. I'm sure KK will get back to you.

You seem to represent everyone RDI.

Yeah, I guess it must seem like that at times. Especially when I get riled up, which is all too often for my taste lately. I've always been that way. Breaking a habit of 27 years is difficult. That may not excuse it, but I hope it explains it.

Eager beaver, you are.

For once, I agree with you. Tell you what: I'll try to ease off a little bit, okay?

It would've been better for RDI (here we go again) if the coroner had referenced wood particles, slivers, shards, etc. in the autopsy report.

Maybe so. But then, there's the off-record stuff which I think should be taken into consideration.

He didn't, so it can also be 'reasonably guessed' that the presence of microscopic particles and the absense of larger visual slivers indicates the particles were transferred there by means other than assault with the broken end of a paintbrush. It is truly an assumption that it ever happened.

Possibly.

 

[BBB167893]

A fact is a fact.

Yeah, and then there's this. "I know more than you." Leaving aside my personal feelings, that's no fact; that's just juvenile. I don't greatly mind you thinking that. I'd just appreciate an adult level of conversation. We're not eight-year olds.

Sorry if you're disturbed by it.

A lot of things bother me, HOTYH. That ain't one of 'em.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Every single IDI is now an enemy. I will do what must be done. I will not hesitate. I will show no mercy.

I'd just appreciate an adult level of conversation.

LOL

I was serious, SD.

The DA exhonerated the R's last year. BPD, CBI, CASKU, FBI, etc. gave silent approval. Every single TV show on the subject shows the R's in a favorable light. The ONLY federal court action showed the R's favorably. The grand jury did not indict.

Now, even the tabs are IDI. http://www.nationalenquirer.com/new_suspects_jonbenet/crime/63477

I've been IDI years before IDI was cool. You're RDI, therefore I know more than you. Adult enough?

 

[BBB167893]

LOL

I was serious, SD.

Oh, I have no doubt of that. I just wish you'd learn to appreciate context. I certainly don't mind you reading what I have to say (in fact, I prefer it). But is it asking too much to take them in the spirit they are intended?

The DA exhonerated the R's last year.

Time will tell.

BPD, CBI, CASKU, FBI, etc. gave silent approval.

Well, since the case is back in their hands, I guess we'll see about that.

Every single TV show on the subject shows the R's in a favorable light.

If I ever get this book published, we'll see how favorable it is then.

The ONLY federal court action showed the R's favorably. The grand jury did not indict.

All of which is covered in the various chapters.

Now, even the tabs are IDI. http://www.nationalenquirer.com/new_suspects_jonbenet/crime/63477

Wow. YOU quoting the tabs. And they say irony is dead. (To that end, I would have you notice the "source" for that. I trust LS about as far as I can throw an elephant by the trunk.

I've been IDI years before IDI was cool. You're RDI, therefore I know more than you. Adult enough?

You're really pushing my buttons.:banghead:

 

[KoldKase]

LOL

I was serious, SD.

The DA exhonerated the R's last year. BPD, CBI, CASKU, FBI, etc. gave silent approval. Every single TV show on the subject shows the R's in a favorable light. The ONLY federal court action showed the R's favorably. The grand jury did not indict.

Now, even the tabs are IDI. http://www.nationalenquirer.com/new_suspects_jonbenet/crime/63477

I've been IDI years and years before IDI was cool. You're RDI, therefore I know more than you. Adult enough?

I have no doubt you've been duped that long. No argument there.

All your intruder theories about what the foreign faction did to JonBenet are just that, as the body speaks to the ACTUAL crimes against it, and your imagined intruder doesn't fit. The autopsy tells the tale. There were no LEG ties, for example, and no CHILD SEX RING, either.

The birefringent material was written about in the autopsy. This is a DISCUSSION of the case, so if you can't handle this being DISCUSSED without attacking people who have a different opinion, that would be your problem.

Mary Lacy is not a judge nor jury, so she can't EXONERATE anyone, except in Ramseyland for SPIN. She proved her incompetency in this case with JOHN PERV KARR. In the same vein as Lacy jumping to false conclusions based on faulty logic, it's simply wrong to state that just because the FBI, CBI, etc., didn't go on TV disagreeing with Lacy's stupid actions means they agreed. Lacy compromised this case from the beginning of her terms by toadying up to Wood and somehow waving her Ramsey wand to take the case away from the BPD, which even HUNTER said was UNHEARD OF in law enforcement. She was hardly UNBIASED towards the Ramseys, as her behavior showed time and again. Her actions fit right in with her status as a total embarrassment to our legal system. The DA doesn't work for suspects. Oops, she must have been absent the day they taught law in law school.

Every TV show? Rookie newscasters and talking heads who have less knowledge about this case than my dog can't change the facts of the case. All the lawsuits Lin Wood can muster to stop open case discussion that isn't scripted by the Ramseys doesn't change the facts in evidence, either.

And all the PSYCHICS Michael Tracy and Lou Smit can muster in all the crocks they sell to make money off the back of a MURDERED CHILD only thrill IDIs. To anyone who hasn't lost touch with reality, they just prove what a couple of lying shills they are. Even IDIs admitted that last show looked suspiciously scripted. Duh.

So NOW the tabs are GREAT, because they're telling lies about really innocent people, but not THE RAMSEYS? I thought you IDIs hated the tabs. Like the Ramseys...until they needed to fulfill that CONTRACT they had with the parent company of the Globe and NE, giving up a personal interview for big cash no doubt, and the opportunity for LIN wOOD to LIE again saying THE RAMSEYS WON (A SETTLEMENT...for SERVICES RENDERED...better known as SELLING OUT to the very people they said they dispised repeatedly.)

What I don't understand is why you're personally attacking some posters here when we're just discussing this case. Maybe you'd like to explain that, if you can.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I can prove it.

 

[KoldKase]

I can prove it.

Prove what?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

I have no doubt you've been duped that long. No argument there.

All your intruder theories about what the foreign faction did to JonBenet are just that, as the body speaks to the ACTUAL crimes against it, and your imagined intruder doesn't fit. The autopsy tells the tale. There were no LEG ties, for example, and no CHILD SEX RING, either.

The birefringent material was written about in the autopsy. This is a DISCUSSION of the case, so if you can't handle this being DISCUSSED without attacking people who have a different opinion, that would be your problem.

Mary Lacy is not a judge nor jury, so she can't EXONERATE anyone, except in Ramseyland for SPIN. She proved her incompetency in this case with JOHN PERV KARR. In the same vein as Lacy jumping to false conclusions based on faulty logic, it's simply wrong to state that just because the FBI, CBI, etc., didn't go on TV disagreeing with Lacy's stupid actions means they agreed. Lacy compromised this case from the beginning of her terms by toadying up to Wood and somehow waving her Ramsey wand to take the case away from the BPD, which even HUNTER said was UNHEARD OF in law enforcement. She was hardly UNBIASED towards the Ramseys, as her behavior showed time and again. Her actions fit right in with her status as a total embarrassment to our legal system. The DA doesn't work for suspects. Oops, she must have been absent the day they taught law in law school.

Every TV show? Rookie newscasters and talking heads who have less knowledge about this case than my dog can't change the facts of the case. All the lawsuits Lin Wood can muster to stop open case discussion that isn't scripted by the Ramseys doesn't change the facts in evidence, either.

And all the PSYCHICS Michael Tracy and Lou Smit can muster in all the crocks they sell to make money off the back of a MURDERED CHILD only thrill IDIs. To anyone who hasn't lost touch with reality, they just prove what a couple of lying shills they are. Even IDIs admitted that last show looked suspiciously scripted. Duh.

So NOW the tabs are GREAT, because they're telling lies about really innocent people, but not THE RAMSEYS? I thought you IDIs hated the tabs. Like the Ramseys...until they needed to fulfill that CONTRACT they had with the parent company of the Globe and NE, giving up a personal interview for big cash no doubt, and the opportunity for LIN wOOD to LIE again saying THE RAMSEYS WON (A SETTLEMENT...for SERVICES RENDERED...better known as SELLING OUT to the very people they said they dispised repeatedly.)

What I don't understand is why you're personally attacking some posters here when we're just discussing this case. Maybe you'd like to explain that, if you can.

Your post starts with an insult and ends with an accusation.

LOL.

The idea that the paintbrush was used in the way you stated (as fact) is a claim. The coroner made no visual ID of anything paintbrush. Its probably just your imagination.

 

[KoldKase]

Your post starts with an insult and ends with an accusation.

LOL.

The idea that the paintbrush was used in the way you stated (as fact) is a claim. The coroner made no visual ID of anything paintbrush. Its probably just your imagination.

No, my post starts with an opinion and ends with a question. A question you haven't answered.

I'm not imagining anything with the paintbrush, I'M DISCUSSING a well known theory based on the evidence reported in the autopsy.

Jeez, what about discussing evidence don't you get? This is not a trial, we're not in court, and if you think you have something ELSE which fits as birefringent, then just say it. Unless you were there or you have seen an official lab report on it you'll share, you're just "imagining" as well, aren't you? But go for it, that's what we do.

 

[KoldKase]

I can prove it.

Okay, again: prove what?

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

Okay, again: prove what?

I know more than SD.

 

[Holdontoyourhat]

No, my post starts with an opinion and ends with a question. A question you haven't answered.

I'm not imagining anything with the paintbrush, I'M DISCUSSING a well known theory based on the evidence reported in the autopsy.

Jeez, what about discussing evidence don't you get? This is not a trial, we're not in court, and if you think you have something ELSE which fits as birefringent, then just say it. Unless you were there or you have seen an official lab report on it you'll share, you're just "imagining" as well, aren't you? But go for it, that's what we do.

If presenting mere claims as if they were established facts is your idea of 'discussing evidence,' then my idea of discussing evidence is to point out your misconception.

 

[KoldKase]

I know more than SD.

That's it? That's all you got?

 

[BBB167893]

That's it? That's all you got?

All I can say to him is if he thinks he can prove that, good luck! He's going to need it.

 

[KoldKase]

If presenting mere claims as if they were established facts is your idea of 'discussing evidence,' then my idea of discussing evidence is to point out your misconception.

I thought that's what we all did, only vice versa for RDIs?

 

[KoldKase]

All I can say to him is if he thinks he can prove that, good luck! He's going to need it.

I can't wait. I hope it's good. We may be seeing human history made here.... opcorn: