Wendy Murphy: Klonopin + pineapple?

[s_finch]

You have a right to say what comes to mind, but there can be severe consequences in doing so. For example, yelling fire in a crowded threatre or during a concert could result in a murder charge. Similarly, if you are at an airport and you talk about a bomb, you should not expect much fun to be coming your way.

Moreover, if you defame someone, they too have a right. The right to sue you -- and/or others, if the defamation occurs via the internet.

Yelling "fire" that results in a death is a crime, true. My opinions on how JBR died are not starting a stampede that is going to result in a death. I am entitled to my opinions and beliefs, whether they are right or wrong, correct or incorrect. If Lin Wood is going to sue everyone on the internet who states that the R's were responsible for "that child's" death, then he sure better get busy!

Wudge, don't threaten my First Admendment rights.

 

[Ca-Sun]

You have a right to say what comes to mind

You are correct. We do have this right.

 

[southcitymom]

I still find it peculiar that JB ate pineapple sometime before she was killed.
Why pineapple? Why not a cookie or cracker? A glass of milk? Even a bowl of cereal. I just don't think of pineapple as a snack food.

And if she ate the pineapple 2 hours before she was killed it would have to be
around 10pm or 11pm. And then did the killer wait for JB to digest the pineapple before cracking her head?

The pineapple is one piece of evidence that could go with both IDI and/or RDI.

There is some evidence that pineapple was one of JBR's favorites foods. Lots of kids view fruit as a treat - my kids have even been known to have some fruit as a late evening snack.

I personally find that the pineapple weighs more towards a RDI opinion. Both Ramseys adamantky deny that she had any when they got home or at the party. I cannot begin to imagine an intruder feeding her victim pineapple before he killed her.

I am continually open to IDI theories, but I have yet to find one that passes my believability barometer.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Note, imo, some things he had to say were laughable! Lin Wood, not Steve Thomas.

Good choice! Last week, a friend was visiting, she borrowed my DOI book, so I picked up another one at the flea market for 50 cents! :dance:

I thought Steve Thomas was/is a loon. Has he ever even investigated a murder case before this one? And he considers himself an expert homicide detective? Now what is laughable is his list that he says points to the Ramseys.

Lin is a great lawyer.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Yelling "fire" that results in a death is a crime, true. My opinions on how JBR died are not starting a stampede that is going to result in a death. I am entitled to my opinions and beliefs, whether they are right or wrong, correct or incorrect. If Lin Wood is going to sue everyone on the internet who states that the R's were responsible for "that child's" death, then he sure better get busy!

Wudge, don't threaten my First Admendment rights.

I don't think that was Wudge's intentions at all. The rules are changing little by little for internet law. There have been cases lately where people were held accountable for their internet words.

I am not saying your words would be included at all but many message boards sites are warning member/guest that we are responsible for our words and to remain aware of that and that it can carry liabilities.

I read about two months ago that a man was being accused of committing a crime on an internet forum and he was not even charged with a crime. He now has hired an attorney and the Judge has said that case can go forward. Somehow through investigations they have found out the true identity of the posters in question.

As long as you always state your post as an opinion instead of as a fact then you are certainly allowed to voice an opinion.

IMO

Ocean

 

[OneLostGrl]

Hi Enola! I would have to be a potty-raging grandma at my age lol, but no, I didn't think you were suggesting that at all. Actually my only child was easy to potty train as it upset her so badly to have a dirty diaper. No offense was taken on my behalf at all - so we are friends I hope? Sometimes my posts are taken as too formal even though I am a jokster in real life. I try to keep my sense of humor under control in the JBR forum though because of the serious nature of this child's death.

I was just wanting to point out that Klonopin is used for medical problems other than anxiety, depression, or mental issues as had been suggested by another poster earlier in the thread.

This thread is the first time I had heard of Patsy being on Klonopin either before or after JBR's death. Is this true?

I knew Stevie Nicks had Chronic Fatigue Syndrome which is synonymous with fibromyalgia but I never knew she had problems with Klonopin overuse. Interesting as I have never had the urge to take more of it than the doctor suggested. Fibromyalgia is bad, not easy to live with, but as my doctor told me "It's not ever going to go away so it's better to just learn to live with it". I followed his advice.

If I remember correctly, Stevie Nicks was put on Klonopin while in rehab for cocaine addiction. She also stated on THS (True hollywood story) that it was more difficult to come off of the klonopin then and street drug she ever used.

When I was first diagnosed with Bipolar disorder (along with panic disorder, Tourettes syndrome and OCD) I was put on a mood stabalizer, an anti-depressent, an antipsychotic and the anxiety/panic (I know it's prescribed for other things as well) medication, Klonopin. Which is a benzodiazepine. I was prescribed 5 milligrams daily and was on it for 5 years. The last year that I was on it, it actually began to cause what it was supposed to be treating.

Of course I couldn't see that it was the Klonopin causing it, but I knew that all of a sudden I was getting "crazy" again. Angry ALL the time, insomnia, mood swings, major anxiety attacks, and suicidal ideazations... An prevented me from obtaining the REM sleep. I also got into several car accidents in a short amount of time.

The Klonopin didn't make me feel "high" or drugged up but it was causing some pretty unwanted side effects so I eventually went off of it and have since learned how to handle my Anxiety/panic by myself with no medicine needed for that part of my illness.

It isn't a "bad" drug but it you can live without it your probably better off doing so!

 

[OneLostGrl]

Klonopin is a highly potent drug. I am now beginning to wonder if Patsy Ramsey was diagnosed as being Bipolar? I have seen these pills, they are huge.

Whatever medication it is you saw was not Klonopin- Klonopin is a tiny little pill about the size of a birth control pill.

 

[JBean]

You have a right to say what comes to mind, but there can be severe consequences in doing so. For example, yelling fire in a crowded threatre or during a concert could result in a murder charge. Similarly, if you are at an airport and you talk about a bomb, you should not expect much fun to be coming your way.

Moreover, if you defame someone, they too have a right. The right to sue you -- and/or others, if the defamation occurs via the internet.

Wasn't there a recent ruling on this or new law? My understanding is that we can be held "accountable" for what we post on the internet even in a forum format. At a minimum there is trend moving in this direction. I cannot recall the details, but your post made me think of this and I am certain it was fairly recent.

 

[Darlene733510]

It has been mentioned here that PR may have been taking Zoloft.

I have read somewhere here in the last day or two that JR and PR had both been takng Paxil. I don't remember if this was after JB's death or before.

A few years ago a woman I worked with had been taking
Paxil. After I saw a warning about the dangers of taking it, I told her about it. She immediately called her Dr. and he changed the Paxil to something else. So - I wonder if either JR or PR had taken
Paxil the night that JB died.

I just checked and the Paxil is mentioned on the Bedtime 12/26 thread, post #15.

 

[Wudge]

Wasn't there a recent ruling on this or new law? My understanding is that we can be held "accountable" for what we post on the internet even in a forum format. At a minimum there is trend moving in this direction. I cannot recall the details, but your post made me think of this and I am certain it was fairly recent.

Stratton Oakmont Inc., v. Prodigy Services (1995) established that defamation exposure existed even at the higher Internet Service Provider (ISP) level. Portions of the 1996 Federal Communication Act were based on Stratton.

However, since websleuths forums are moderated and the content is controlled (modified or entirely deleted), then publishing standards apply. Simply put, when you "control content", you become a publisher. To remain beyond the reach of a ruling on a defamation case, publishers focus heavily on whether or not what they produce is based on "reliable" facts/data.

Moreover, editors (or like gatekeeping agents) at publishing firms are also exposed if they willfully fail to exercise due diligence as regards the existence of reliable facts/data upon which the published work product was based.

Further still, if in producing a certain work product, the publisher's standards were to be knowingly and willfully ignored or, even worse, purposefully set aside, then "malice" (what libel lawyers dream of) could become a major focal point. Hence, instead of an "Absence of Malice" [I'm sure most everyone remembers the Wilfred Brimley/Paul Newman scene in that movie], a presence of malice could, and almost assuredly would, be argued.

 

[BBB167893]

"The problem with the Ramsey's is they don't mind if you talk,as long as you're on their side.That's not true freedom of speech."

Marc Klaas said the same.

"If Lin Wood is going to sue everyone on the internet who states that the R's were responsible for "that child's" death, then he sure better get busy!"

He's got a lot of work ahead of him!

"Wudge, don't threaten my First Admendment rights."

Smart people don't threaten me. Period.

"Has he ever even investigated a murder case before this one?"

No.

"And he considers himself an expert homicide detective?"

No, he doesn't. Not even close. But he worked very closely with people who are expert homicide investigators.

"Lin is a great lawyer."

He may be a great lawyer, but he is a rotten human being. If he had any guts, he'd settle these claims my way.

 

[Annette]

My 6th sense is telling me that guilt is mounting and mental weakness and detrioration is on the horizon. That certain someone will feel the need to repent to save his (and another's) soul. BHR knows too.

Shoe_Horn, this made me flash to a thought of dear ol'dad considering the prospect of young college man Burke partaking of typical college-life drinking....and running his mouth...

I hadn't thought of that before.

Annette

 

[s_finch]

Lin is a great lawyer

Yes he is and if I were guilty, I'd want him in my corner!! If I was an honest investigator trying to do my job, I'd want to strangle him.

 

[s_finch]

Stratton Oakmont Inc., v. Prodigy Services (1995) established that defamation exposure existed even at the higher Internet Service Provider (ISP) level. Portions of the 1996 Federal Communication Act were based on Stratton.

However, since websleuths forums are moderated and the content is controlled (modified or entirely deleted), then publishing standards apply. Simply put, when you "control content", you become a publisher. To remain beyond the reach of a ruling on a defamation case, publishers focus heavily on whether or not what they produce is based on "reliable" facts/data.

Moreover, editors (or like gatekeeping agents) at publishing firms are also exposed if they willfully fail to exercise due diligence as regards the existence of reliable facts/data upon which the published work product was based.

Further still, if in producing a certain work product, the publisher's standards were to be knowingly and willfully ignored or, even worse, purposefully set aside, then "malice" (what libel lawyers dream of) could become a major focal point. Hence, instead of an "Absence of Malice" [I'm sure most everyone remembers the Wilfred Brimley/Paul Newman scene in that movie], a presence of malice could, and almost assuredly would, be argued.

THank you for this.

 

[s_finch]

Shoe_Horn, this made me flash to a thought of dear ol'dad considering the prospect of young college man Burke partaking of typical college-life drinking....and running his mouth...

I hadn't thought of that before.

Annette

I feel sorry for Burke. What kind of life will he ever have, unless he leaves this country and makes a life for himself somewhere else.

 

[angelwngs]

I feel sorry for Burke. What kind of life will he ever have, unless he leaves this country and makes a life for himself somewhere else.

I feel sorry for JMK's sons too.......I hope their mother legally changes their names (especially their last names) and moved far, far away.

 

[JBean]

Stratton Oakmont Inc., v. Prodigy Services (1995) established that defamation exposure existed even at the higher Internet Service Provider (ISP) level. Portions of the 1996 Federal Communication Act were based on Stratton.

However, since websleuths forums are moderated and the content is controlled (modified or entirely deleted), then publishing standards apply. Simply put, when you "control content", you become a publisher. To remain beyond the reach of a ruling on a defamation case, publishers focus heavily on whether or not what they produce is based on "reliable" facts/data.

Moreover, editors (or like gatekeeping agents) at publishing firms are also exposed if they willfully fail to exercise due diligence as regards the existence of reliable facts/data upon which the published work product was based.

Further still, if in producing a certain work product, the publisher's standards were to be knowingly and willfully ignored or, even worse, purposefully set aside, then "malice" (what libel lawyers dream of) could become a major focal point. Hence, instead of an "Absence of Malice" [I'm sure most everyone remembers the Wilfred Brimley/Paul Newman scene in that movie], a presence of malice could, and almost assuredly would, be argued.

Knowledgeable as usual. Thanks Wudge. I always look forward to your no nonsense posts.

 

[Tristan]

Regarding Klonopin...the poster a few posts above is right...it is a tiny
little pill.

 

[BBB167893]

"If I was an honest investigator trying to do my job, I'd want to strangle him."

No doubt!

 

[halycon]

I just recalled something else I heard Wendy say on that program...

She made the point that as a lawyer she would never let a client answer such probing questions about drug use unless they were truly relevant in an investigation. That the Ramseys were asked this rang all sorts of bells for Wendy -- she didn't think the investigators would be talking about Klonopin unless it was in either the pineapple or JB's body or both. The lawyers would not be talking about it just for the sake of talking about it.

She also said that if JonBenet were being used in production, she might be more accommodating if drugged.

She also mentioned the "eroded hymen" and "chronic interstitial vaginal injuries," which were clear to her experienced eyes as a sexual assault prosecutor that there had been sexual abuse that predated the murder. Dr. Wecht is clear on this as well; I believe he said it went back days if not longer.

Finally, she again mentioned that fibers consistent with John's clothing were found on JonBenet's genitals. When asked about those fibers during police questioning, Lin Wood and John's reactions were very telling: false anger about the implication and classic "lawyer distraction" strategy of changing the subject. But no real answers about how his fibers got there. Couldn't be from the washing machine since the oversized underpants had just been taken from the package.

I think this is why she is adamant that John Ramsey has never satisfactorily explained himself on this topic and that there is good reason to demand he do so.