Hello,

I know nothing about who killed who, however what i do know
is that when a father repeatedly rapes his daughter, both the
mother and daughter are silenced through violent threats and
actions of the rapist.

The Talmud A-OK's rape of children, especially before age 3 . . .
Once Satan has you by the balls nothing is sacred.

Truly

Harry wrote:
Hello,

I know nothing about who killed who, however what i do know
is that when a father repeatedly rapes his daughter, both the
mother and daughter are silenced through violent threats and
actions of the rapist.

The Talmud A-OK's rape of children, especially before age 3 . . .
Once Satan has you by the balls nothing is sacred.

Truly


I'm sure that this isn't true, and in any event, I don't think that the
Talmud was a book read in this household.

And the fact that Patsy probably wrote the kidnap note suggests that
she took a leadership role inconsistent with that of the poor oppressed
living victim - though it's possible that John dictated it to her.

Harry wrote:
Hello,

I know nothing about who killed who, however what i do know
is that when a father repeatedly rapes his daughter, both the
mother and daughter are silenced through violent threats and
actions of the rapist.

The Talmud A-OK's rape of children, especially before age 3 . . .
Once Satan has you by the balls nothing is sacred.

Truly

How quick one is to blame the parents. Perhaps if the police (
detectives ) looked beyond the Ramsey's they would have found other
leads. They botched the crime scene and the investigation. Remember the
Smart girl kidnapping ( disapperance ). The cops had locked up the
handy-man and the media found him guilty. The handy-man died in jail
while the detectives prosecuted the true couple who had committed the
abduction.

Cases like the above are not always straight forward and should be
treated as such...

"DinoPro" wrote in message
ups.com...
How quick one is to blame the parents. Perhaps if the police (
detectives ) looked beyond the Ramsey's they would have found other
leads. They botched the crime scene and the investigation.

Correction: The Ramseys botched the crime-scene by having all their friends
come over before and while the police were there, trying to investigate.
The woman in charge of the investigation cow-towed too much to the parents,
and that, too, botched the investigation; but the Ramseys did it first.

Linda

"DinoPro" wrote in message
ups.com...

Harry wrote:
Hello,

I know nothing about who killed who, however what i do know
is that when a father repeatedly rapes his daughter, both the
mother and daughter are silenced through violent threats and
actions of the rapist.

The Talmud A-OK's rape of children, especially before age 3 . . .
Once Satan has you by the balls nothing is sacred.

Truly

How quick one is to blame the parents.

Yeah ... damn those empirical FBI/DOJ statistics that show PARENTS/RELATIVES
are far and away the #1 killer of young children.

Perhaps if the police (detectives ) looked beyond the Ramsey's

Why look beyond the killers?

they would have found other leads.

Their job isn't to "find other leads" for the defense. Their job is to
collect the evidence and finger the perps that the evidence points to.


They botched the crime scene and the investigation. Remember the
Smart girl kidnapping ( disapperance ). The cops had locked up the
handy-man and the media found him guilty. The handy-man died in jail
while the detectives prosecuted the true couple who had committed the
abduction.

Cases like the above are not always straight forward and should be
treated as such...

So when you find a dead fish in your cat's bowl of milk, you immediately begin
looking at the dog, right?

Kane wrote
Yeah ... damn those empirical FBI/DOJ statistics
that show PARENTS/RELATIVES
are far and away the #1 killer of young children.

That's a half truth.

With most of the EXPOSURE, this is natural.

If you take EXPOSURE into account, blood
parents don't look so bad, not by a longshot!

People who are NOT related by blood have
a huge percentage considering EXPOSURE.


Kane wrote
So when you find a dead fish in your cat's bowl
of milk, you immediately begin
looking at the dog, right?

You don't have a cat do you?
You're not supposed to be feeding cats milk!
Falling into an old incorrect cliche'?

Pushing the CLICHE' and ignoring other
possibilities is a botched investigation.
It's just the EASY thing for lazy bureaucrats to do.

"Round up the usual suspects!" is just plain dumb.

Greegor wrote:
Kane wrote
Yeah ... damn those empirical FBI/DOJ statistics
that show PARENTS/RELATIVES
are far and away the #1 killer of young children.

That's a half truth.

How can it be a "half truth?" Children don't half die when they are killed.

With most of the EXPOSURE, this is natural.

What is natural?

What is "this" you speak of?

If you take EXPOSURE into account, blood
parents don't look so bad, not by a longshot!

Well shut my mouth, you are about to provide the logic that would shoot
down some of Doug's favorite claims. chuckle

People who are NOT related by blood have
a huge percentage considering EXPOSURE.

Yes, they surely do.

Boyfriends. Day Care workers.

And please don't give me the bull**** that foster parents don't have as
much or more exposure. Compared to partying parents they run about 24/7,
easily.

So your argument just crapped out, Greg.


Kane wrote
So when you find a dead fish in your cat's bowl
of milk, you immediately begin
looking at the dog, right?

Isn't this odd. Must be I have Alzheimer's. I wrote the above WHEN?

Do you recognize this poster? "= Vox Populi© wrote:"

It belongs in place of "Kane wrote:" above.

You don't have a cat do you?

Sure. I've had lots of cats, dogs, horses, farm livestock.

I know what to feed them and what not.

You're not supposed to be feeding cats milk!

Yep, you are right, unless they are tiny kittens.

Falling into an old incorrect cliche'?

How could I. I'm not "= Vox Populi©"

Notice that little copyright symbol? Now who do we know that has picked
up the habit of putting a copyright after his name, eh?

Pushing the CLICHE' and ignoring other
possibilities is a botched investigation.

So I did an investigation, did I, and fed my cat milk....? R R R R R

You are into the sauce, ain'tcha Greg?

It's just the EASY thing for lazy bureaucrats to do.

Which bureaucrat claimed to fed cats milk, Greg?

"Round up the usual suspects!" is just plain dumb.

The contents of your post meet that criteria, Greg. Very dumb indeedy.

I am Kane. The poster was "= Vox Populi©"

Doubtless our redoubtable sock who has killer trained police dogs at his
disposal. Or someone of similar intelligence and wit.

As for you, I guess with so little practice preserving attributions,
rather that all your practice at aborting them when they might show you
to be the fool you ARE, you can't be blamed for mucking up the
attributions in this case.

Or are you holding some proof I am = Vox Populi© and are going to
spring it on us any moment now?

Grilliant, Breg, Grilliant.

R R R R R R R R R R ...






--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

Kane wrote
And please don't give me the [e.d.] that foster parents don't have as
much or more exposure. Compared to partying parents they run about 24/7,
easily.

So your argument just crapped out, Greg.

Um, Kane, are you arguing backwards or what?
In a year in the USA, Foster contractors have
only a small percentage of the exposure hours.

Their percentage of abuse is greater than their
percentage of exposure.

In Texas, the likelihood of abuse by a foster
is 4x the level in parents homes.

Greegor wrote:
Kane wrote
And please don't give me the [e.d.] that foster parents don't have as
much or more exposure. Compared to partying parents they run about 24/7,
easily.

So your argument just crapped out, Greg.

Um, Kane, are you arguing backwards or what?

No, your argument crapped out. Bio parents can conceal their child
whenever they wish. Foster's cannot do that.

In a year in the USA, Foster contractors have
only a small percentage of the exposure hours.

I offered logical argument and facts that support my claim.

Show me yours? Where do you come by this percentage of exposure hours?
Give me a number, not small...a number.

I can tell you that the child is seen by SOMEONE outside the foster home
on average 3 to four hours a week, more if they are in school. The
foster parent must open their home to every child's worker, once a
month, for one to two hour visits, PER CHILD.

Are they not subject to providing access to the child continuously? Do
they not have to allow various practitioners to see them?

Part of putting a child in state custody is the rehabilitation aspect.
This requires Dx, evaluation, and Tx, trips to see OTs, MDs,
Psychologists and even pediatricians and dentists.

A bio parent can get out of all these things if they wish. A foster
parent cannot.

All children are required to have a face to face, in the foster home,
with their worker, once every 30 days. Foster home supervisors also
visit on a monthly basis.

Every child in the home, unless a sibling, is likely to have a different
worker than the next, hence there will be multiple agency visits TO THE
FOSTER HOME

Their percentage of abuse is greater than their
percentage of exposure.

Empty babbling. You don't know the "percentage of their exposure" so you
sure as hell can't make a comparison between abuse percentages and
exposure percentages.

They abuse percentage is a tiny fraction of that of the parents
substantiated for abuse, Greg. Over 90%, and more including relatives.

You got a foster parent abuse percentage number you want to share with us?

In Texas, the likelihood of abuse by a foster
is 4x the level in parents homes.

How can they be. The child isn't IN the parent's home. They are in state
care.

The ONLY reasonable comparison has to be limited to client parent vs
foster parent.

An actual count of real abuse in bio homes is virtually impossible.
Unless there is an allegation there will NEVER BE A DISCOVERY OF ABUSE.

With foster parents there are literally a dozen or more people they are
exposed to on a regular basis that can and do report them...often for
things they didn't do, or for things that WOULD NOT BE ABUSE IF DONE BY
A PARENT.

Nevertheless they, because of their contract and training, AND THE STATE
STATUTES that make them MORE accountable than bio parents, are charge
with abuse for 'spanking,' or sending a child to bed without their supper.

You and yours are liars, Greg. Plain and simple.

Bit here I am, awaiting your proof for your claims.

Have at it.

Or are you too good to lower yourself to having to explain your claims?

Greg the Magnificent, is it?

0:-

--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

Kane wrote
And please don't give me the [e.d.] that foster parents don't have as much
or more exposure. Compared to partying parents they run about 24/7, easily.
So your argument just crapped out, Greg.

Greg wrote
Um, Kane, are you arguing backwards or what?

Kane wrote
No, your argument crapped out. Bio parents can conceal their child
whenever they wish. Foster's cannot do that.

Is that what you said, right before you said my argument crapped out?
It seems more like your logic slipped a cog or jumped a track.

snip!
Kane wrote
Greg the Magnificent, is it?

Nah, You're the Megalomaniac.