#0, covering an accident
Posted by jameson on Apr-30-03 at 02:31 PM
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 - -
#1, RE: covering an accident
Posted by Slapfish on Apr-30-03 at 03:46 PM
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"?
#2, answer
Posted by jameson on Apr-30-03 at 03:54 PM
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.
|