Reply to Who did you think killed JonBenet?

Forum Index » Off-Topic

Reply to "Who did you think killed JonBenet?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]The Ramseys also took and passed multiple lie detector tests.  That was stated on Thurday's Dr. Phil show.[/quote]

What I would've done if I were the Ramseys would be to go ahead and allow myself to be interviewed. Seems like that make ight help with finding the killer. [/quote]

This is by far the strongest evidence against them.  No innocent parent doesn't talk to the police for four months in their child's murder investigation.[/quote]

Evidence? It's suspicious but not actual evidence.

[/quote]

Please, this isn't a trial.  While not admissible, it most certainly is strong circumstantial evidence of their involvement.[/quote]

Even outside of a trial, evidence is proof of guilt. It's certainly suspicious, but not evidence/proof. Neither is wearing the same clothes, etc. 
[/quote]

Please tell me you aren't a lawyer.[/quote]

Sorry, is English not your first language? Evidence = proof here in the US.

[/quote]
Not only is English by first language, but I'm also a practicing litigator.  You have no clue what you are talking about -- perhaps consult a dictionary.   Evidence is he available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

The fact that the Ramseys refused to participate in the police investigation of their daughter's death for the vital first few months of the investigation is indeed circumstantial evidence of their involvement in her death.[/quote]

Let's see - definition:
[quote]noun
3.
Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.[/quote]

LOL. Not participating with police (whom they thought were against them from day 1) is not in any way a fact or proof. Guess you don't win many cases, bub.

[/quote]

You are hopelessly ignorant.  Yes, not all evidence is admissible in a trial, however, it is still evidence.  However, this is not a trial, this is a dcum thread and thus, it does not matter whether or not any particular evidence would be admissible.  You should stick with your day job, whatever that is.[/quote]

Nope. And this "evidence" wouldn't be admissible because it really doesn't mean anything. The police were obviously getting off track so who can blame them.

Your poor starving kids. 
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics