jameson's Links  Terms of Service  News  Chat  Forum Archives  Cord Photos  Email  

jameson's WebbSleuths

Subject: "covering an accident"     Previous Topic | Next Topic
Printer-friendly copy    
Conferences Ramsey evidence Topic #89
Reading Topic #89
jamesonadmin
Charter Member
10561 posts		 Apr-30-03, 02:31 PM (EST)
Click to add this user to your buddy list  
"covering an accident"
 
   Erin Moriarty: (Voice Over) "The evidence, says Smit, simply does not support the popular theory that the Ramseys struck their daughter then tried to cover it up."

Lou Smit: "It's not a mother waking up in the middle of the night saying, "oops, I think I hurt my child, oops I got to bring her downstairs and fashion one of these things then I'm going to put it around her neck and I'm going to tighten it a couple times while she's struggling." Now if you want to believe that, go ahead, I can't say this on the air, but that's bullshit."


Even Steve Thomas couldn't imagine the theory being the truth - - he said it was a stretch. But some BORG keep putting it out.

Doesn't matter in the end - the evidence says the garrote was not put on even minutes after the blow to the head - -


  Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
Slapfish
unregistered user
 Apr-30-03, 03:46 PM (EST)
 
1. "RE: covering an accident"
In response to message #0
 
   > Erin Moriarty: (Voice Over) "The evidence, says
>Smit, simply does not support the popular theory that the
>Ramseys struck their daughter then tried to cover it up."
>
> Lou Smit: "It's not a mother waking up in the
>middle of the night saying, "oops, I think I hurt my child,
>oops I got to bring her downstairs and fashion one of these
>things then I'm going to put it around her neck and I'm
>going to tighten it a couple times while she's struggling."
>Now if you want to believe that, go ahead, I can't say this
>on the air, but that's bullshit."
>
>
>Even Steve Thomas couldn't imagine the theory being the
>truth - - he said it was a stretch. But some BORG keep
>putting it out.
>
>Doesn't matter in the end - the evidence says the garrote
>was not put on even minutes after the blow to the head - -

I agree completely. In fact I wrote a pretty long response about the "accident theories" and why they don't work on the Exculpatory Evidence thread.

I'm confused with one part of your post though, what did you mean by; "the evidence says the garrote was NOT put on even minutes after the blow to the head"?


  Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
jamesonadmin
Charter Member
10561 posts		 Apr-30-03, 03:54 PM (EST)
Click to add this user to your buddy list  
2. "answer"
In response to message #1
 
  
>I'm confused with one part of your post though, what did you
>mean by; "the evidence says the garrote was NOT put on even
>minutes after the blow to the head"?


The minimal bleeding in the head indicates the flow of blood was already limited, so it is probably true that the garrote was already in place and tightened to some degree. But I would think a lawyer might ask a doctor - - could the garotte not have been - - say - - tightened 5 SECONDS after the blow to the head? And I am not sure the doctor could deny that.

But we know it wasn't 5 MINUTES later, or 15....

No way she was struck in the head on the second floor then carried down and a garrote put around her neck then.

Sorry if I wasn't clear on that.


  Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Edit | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Conferences | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic