the poll, a bit slanted doncha think.

[twinkiesmom]

Yes, you can say the poll is biased...The questions are leading. It pigeonholes the RDIs into PDIs...and pigeonholes the PDIs into potty-rage scenario.

There are other plausible scenarios rather than PDI potty rage and stranger-intruder.

 

[PrayersForMaura]

If you don't think it is Patsy, then don't choose her as the answer. That's not biased. As you can tell, many people who voted think that Patsy did it.

Perhaps the story for the article is about people who think Patsy did it...
If that is what the story is about, then the poll is not "slanted" ... the questions are whether you think Patsy did it or not. If you don't then vote for someone else. Duh! :doh:

The thing that gets me is, the numbers aren't matching up to the votes.
The number of people who voted for question number one is not the same as the number of people who voted in question number eight.

Either the counting system is messed up or people can't follow directions well. I am leaning towards the latter ...

 

[Chrishope]

Yes, you can say the poll is biased...The questions are leading. It pigeonholes the RDIs into PDIs...and pigeonholes the PDIs into potty-rage scenario.

There are other plausible scenarios rather than PDI potty rage and stranger-intruder.

Yes, there are other scenarios. But maybe the pollster isn't interested in those other scenarios. Again, you need to know what the pollster is after before you can say the poll is biased.

 

[JMO8778]

I also think question 5 should have had a 3rd choice to cover a 2nd degree murder scenario (not preplanned but not accidental either).

Me too.Would this cover all bases,any opinions?

Was JB's death:

1-accidental and without assistance of any type(ie-she fell down the stairs)
2-unplanned in advance,but not an accident
3-premeditated
4-accidental, but with intent to inflict injury (ie-she was pushed down the stairs,or struck with an object,but without intent to kill or inflict serious injury.

I'd try to leave the door open to all possibilities...accidents of any type,premeditated(1st degree murder),second-degree murder and unintentional homicide(manslaughter).

 

[rashomon]

Why exclude Burke, doesn't it make most sense to include everyone that was known to be in the house that night?
Siblings can and do kill each other.

Although I don't think Burke was involved, I have to agree with Narlacat on that.

 

[coloradokares]

Although I don't think Burke was involved, I have to agree with Narlacat on that.

I agree as well, I don't think Burke was involved but you have to look at everyone that was known to be in that house with the fine tooth comb. And a magnifying glass. And every other method to prove their innocence. I still have not totally dismissed JAR although admittedly it seems totally implausible. Based on Barnhills statement he saw him walking across the lawn. I still have ....nagging doubt.

 

[JMO8778]

I put in no. 3 in the remote event it was JAR.I know he had an alibi, but some have q'd it.

I just noticed I goofed on that answer...I put in no. 3,BR,because he was in the house and I felt he had to be included in order to be fair and unbiased,altho I don't think he had anything to do with it.

 

[JMO8778]

I agree as well, I don't think Burke was involved but you have to look at everyone that was known to be in that house with the fine tooth comb. And a magnifying glass. And every other method to prove their innocence. I still have not totally dismissed JAR although admittedly it seems totally implausible. Based on Barnhills statement he saw him walking across the lawn. I still have ....nagging doubt.

I have some doubt as well.