Newbie (on this topic) Question

[jfk]

A parent that had a lot to lose.

of course, that's the answer. that'd be the answer for every criminal who's ever done anything. "a lot" is relative. a criminal does what he does to avoid detection because what he has to lose, to him, is "a LOT".

the R's had to lose: their freedom, (their lives would have been in jeapordy), their lifestyle, their social status, their image to others, John's business, income...

all that compared to just their little girl, Patsy's "plaything", her...


tell me, narlacat. are you a parent?




i'm not disagreeing with you - i just know that it's a HUGE leap from accidentally killing your child (a rage thing, which there are signs of on JBR) to desecrating the dead body with a garrot and string around the wrist and duct tape and a crushed skull.

that the body was carefully wrapped in a blanket and left INSIDE the home points to a parent's "protective" desire not to leave their dead child outside in the elements, according to Steve Thomas. these two characteristics of the theory are contradictory.

to me that's an issue. i'm sure a good Det. can explain it, but i haven't heard it yet.



there are MANY parents guilty of killing their children. VERY FEW 'torture' them before or after the death and lead a normal lifestyle.

again. i'm open to the R's likelihood of guilt. i just want to hear a more plausible theory.

 

[jfk]

In 2002, it was revealed that Burke had a pair of those boots.


and >>
The boot print- We don't know who it belongs to. It was a HITEC boot, which is worn by police, some construction workers, and Burke Ramsey. There is only one print. There had been literally hundreds of people in the Ramsey household during the six months before JB's death. Construction workers doing remodeling work in Nov. had access to that room. In short if we could prove that "jfk" had a pair of HITEC boots, it wouldn't prove he was the killer. Even if jfk had been in the house and left the print it wouldn't prove he was the killer. We don't really know how old it is. It's been siezed on the the IDI folks to make the case that there was an intruder. It's just a boot print.

wow. no shet. good points, i didn't know all that. now that you mention it, i recognize HiTech as those the cops wear.

who did that Documentary? is that Smit? how awful.

Oh, YEAH? I certainly hope Scott Peterson and Wayne Williams don't find that out! Because there was infinitely less evidence against them than there is here, and they went away. The BIG away!

i was referring to the generic list someone else left. just to the list itself, not to the R's likely guilt.

Scott Peterson had much more evidence agianst him that THAT silly list.

Wayne Williams is likely innocent of the two murders for which he was convicted, much less the other 20+ attributed to him.

"Well, as much as it pains me to say it, yes, I've seen parents who have decapitated their children, I've seen cases where parents have drowned their children in bathtubs, I've seen cases where parents have strangled their children, have placed them in paper bags and smothered them, have strapped them in car seats and driven them into a body of water, any way that you can think of that a person can kill another person, almost all those ways are also ways that parents can kill their children."

of course, but all that's done as a means of murder - i'm having a problem with the desecration after the fact. when there's less RAGE (the murder is not premeditated, so there's not that factor), and time to see what's just happened to your own child, i can't imagine a parent who's not completely off her rocker like Susan Smith (the two boys in the carseats and the body of watrer) being able to do those things. most were done to her postmortem.

as i state elsewhere, that's a huge difference most detectives and psychs would attest to. i bet.

Amen to that! But why someone who can't stand liberals would name himself JFK, I'll never know.

i've explained in another thread the reasoning behind that. 1st, liberals then are a LOT different than they are today. not as "bitter"... more "backbone"...

2nd - i'm a big "student" of Dallas 63. that (starting at the end of the korean war) was the end of the trust and honor and respect america gave its government, JUSTIFIABLY. it ended the Feds covert raping of its citizens and brought it out in the open. not Abraham, Martin and John, but John, Martin, then Bobby.

 

[BBB167893]

tell me, narlacat. are you a parent?

She is, I can tell you.

i've explained in another thread the reasoning behind that. 1st, liberals then are a LOT different than they are today. not as "bitter"... more "backbone"...

No argument.

I'm young, you know? 25. I grew up with Reagan. He's something of a hero of mine. My mother is old enough to remember when the idea that he would run for prez was laughable. But he stuck to it, didn't he?

That's all on that for now.

i'm not disagreeing with you - i just know that it's a HUGE leap from accidentally killing your child (a rage thing, which there are signs of on JBR) to desecrating the dead body with a garrot and string around the wrist and duct tape and a crushed skull.

that the body was carefully wrapped in a blanket and left INSIDE the home points to a parent's "protective" desire not to leave their dead child outside in the elements, according to Steve Thomas. these two characteristics of the theory are contradictory.

to me that's an issue. i'm sure a good Det. can explain it, but i haven't heard it yet.

Would you settle for a good FBI agent?

there are MANY parents guilty of killing their children. VERY FEW 'torture' them before or after the death and lead a normal lifestyle.

again. i'm open to the R's likelihood of guilt. i just want to hear a more plausible theory.

Well, one of my favorites has always been the "John-caught-in-the-act" scenario.

Wayne Williams is likely innocent of the two murders for which he was convicted, much less the other 20+ attributed to him.

I don't think so, and I'm loathe to give John Douglas ANY credit for anything after he sold his soul to the Ramsey checkbook, but I think he nailed this one.

of course, but all that's done as a means of murder - i'm having a problem with the desecration after the fact. when there's less RAGE (the murder is not premeditated, so there's not that factor), and time to see what's just happened to your own child, i can't imagine a parent who's not completely off her rocker like Susan Smith (the two boys in the carseats and the body of watrer) being able to do those things. most were done to her postmortem.

Dead's dead. The dead don't feel pain.

as i state elsewhere, that's a huge difference most detectives and psychs would attest to. i bet.

If I can find one, I'll let you know.

 

[narlacat]

of course, that's the answer. that'd be the answer for every criminal who's ever done anything. "a lot" is relative. a criminal does what he does to avoid detection because what he has to lose, to him, is "a LOT".

the R's had to lose: their freedom, (their lives would have been in jeapordy), their lifestyle, their social status, their image to others, John's business, income...

all that compared to just their little girl, Patsy's "plaything", her...


tell me, narlacat. are you a parent?




i'm not disagreeing with you - i just know that it's a HUGE leap from accidentally killing your child (a rage thing, which there are signs of on JBR) to desecrating the dead body with a garrot and string around the wrist and duct tape and a crushed skull.

that the body was carefully wrapped in a blanket and left INSIDE the home points to a parent's "protective" desire not to leave their dead child outside in the elements, according to Steve Thomas. these two characteristics of the theory are contradictory.

to me that's an issue. i'm sure a good Det. can explain it, but i haven't heard it yet.



there are MANY parents guilty of killing their children. VERY FEW 'torture' them before or after the death and lead a normal lifestyle.

again. i'm open to the R's likelihood of guilt. i just want to hear a more plausible theory.

Like Dave already said, yes I am a parent.

What's the one thing that would make someone think the parents weren't guilty in this case- the paintbrush and the staging, who could possibly do that to their child?
Desperate times call for desperate measures.

 

[narlacat]

wow. no shet. good points, i didn't know all that. now that you mention it, i recognize HiTech as those the cops wear.

who did that Documentary? is that Smit? how awful.



i was referring to the generic list someone else left. just to the list itself, not to the R's likely guilt.

Scott Peterson had much more evidence agianst him that THAT silly list.

Wayne Williams is likely innocent of the two murders for which he was convicted, much less the other 20+ attributed to him.




of course, but all that's done as a means of murder - i'm having a problem with the desecration after the fact. when there's less RAGE (the murder is not premeditated, so there's not that factor), and time to see what's just happened to your own child, i can't imagine a parent who's not completely off her rocker like Susan Smith (the two boys in the carseats and the body of watrer) being able to do those things. most were done to her postmortem.

as i state elsewhere, that's a huge difference most detectives and psychs would attest to. i bet.




i've explained in another thread the reasoning behind that. 1st, liberals then are a LOT different than they are today. not as "bitter"... more "backbone"...

2nd - i'm a big "student" of Dallas 63. that (starting at the end of the korean war) was the end of the trust and honor and respect america gave its government, JUSTIFIABLY. it ended the Feds covert raping of its citizens and brought it out in the open. not Abraham, Martin and John, but John, Martin, then Bobby.

Thought you said you were doing your homework?
Did you go to the IMPORTANT: Michael Tracey/Westword Article/Please read thread?
Maybe you posted this before your other post on another thread.