My first post:And the purpose of this post was??? Discrediting you as a source of reliable thought and presentation of the truth in this (or any) case? Bringing into question the credentials of a presenter of fact? Since Westerfield was found guilty, is this post somehow supposed to create doubt as to your credibility on any level?
I don't think Jameson is alone in considering there was room for doubt in the conviction of Mr. Westerfield. But, since Jameson (and others who might have doubted the strength of the case) were NOT on the jury, Mr. Westerfield WAS convicted. Expressing doubt as to the strength of the case is an option open to anyone. In these forums, the position of the poster is to encourage others to become interested in their particular position, idea, or solution; to use others as a sounding board in the development of their ideas, concerns, or theories.
Using that expression of doubt or concern against someone in the discussion of another case (Ramsey), leaves a lot of room for any thoughtful person to wonder about motive. It certainly leaves ME wondering about MOTIVE and (right or wrong) I see it as an attempt at discrediting and as a way to distract/detract from any truths Jameson may bring to the table in this case. What other purpose does it serve?
My Next Post:
If Carol is going to report the NEWS, she should REPORT the news. To say, in December 2002, that "there has never been any evidence to link an intruder to her brutal murder" is eliminating a large part of the facts surrounding her news report. Since she knew full well by December 2002 that there WAS evidence of an intruder (ie Smit's Power Point Presentation) that included indications of a disturbance at a potential entry point along with a trail of leaves and debris straight into the room where the body was found, she IS in trouble with her "reporting". In December 2002, the case had been taken away from the BPD. Carol had to know that and by wrapping it up with saying NO evidence to link an intruder, knowing full well there was, she has exposed her biased reporting and her intentions to only report half the "news" is clear.
I think the Ramseys' successful suits against news agencies has motivated people like Carol to continue to stand at the pulpit and say "no way". I suspect her reasons for excluding that part of her "news" story was to continue to inflame the public with defamatory lop-sided "reporting" in order to support her disagreement with the Ramseys' success in the courts.
This post by Misty: (I think I can carry this over here since it is largely from my post in reference)
Margoo writes in defense of Jameson’s libeling statements regarding the Van Dams: “I don't think Jameson is alone in considering there was room for doubt in the conviction of Mr. Westerfield. But, since Jameson (and others who might have doubted the strength of the case) were NOT on the jury, Mr. Westerfield WAS convicted. Expressing doubt as to the strength of the case is an option open to anyone. In these forums, the position of the poster is to encourage others to become interested in their particular position, idea, or solution; to use others as a sounding board in the development of their ideas, concerns, or theories.
Gee, Margoo, wasn’t that what McKinley was doing? Stating her opinion based on doubt due to the evidence? Margooooo writes: “Expressing doubt as to the strength of the case is an option.” It’s an option? If it is an option, why is McKinley/Fox being sued? It’s ONLY an option – doubting and expressing that doubt – when it’s NOT related to the Ramsey’s party line that an INTRUDER KILLED JonBenet.
Good grief! It amazes me that there are so many over at Jameson’s place that can’t see that. Talk about cult thinking! Geez!
Misty "high-fives" Jayelles at FFJ for this post of hers, seeking a high-five in exchange, and refers to my post as hypocritical. What a good buddy she is (speaking of cults).
MISTY, let me spell it out for YOU. Carol McKinley REPORTS NEWS on a National Network. She does not have an "editorial" show. She does not get to espouse OPINION. If she is going to REPORT NEWS, she must stick to the FACTS and she must check her FACTS. Get it?
(BTW Thank you, Rose, for pointing out to Misty that she crosses the line. I appreciate your appropriate response.)