Posted on 02/09/2002 6:53:27 AM PST by crypt2k
Yes, but even Clinton can cry if the situation warrants tears.
I'm not going to pursue whether or not the Ramseys were involved in the death of their child because I don't know. Their behavior made me feel uncomfortable for reasons that are not clear to me. Sort've like the feeling you get when you decide not to sit next to someone and you're not sure why. Incompatible vibes, I guess. I feel the same discomfort about Danielle's parents. This does not mean they are guilty.
Only that you don't know anymore then anybody else but have already convicted everybody involved. I hope that was sarcasm.
You might turn out to be right, but you simply don't have enough information to say anything now.
When my daughter was diagnosed with pneumonia (she was very ill, I thought with just a cold and cough; I was clueless, I had never seen pneumonia or experienced it myself), I guess I didn't display enough emotion to the doctor, who called me a few hours later at home, expressing how seriously ill my daughter was, if she didn't improve in the next couple days, to call and bring her back in. This is a doctor who knows me, knows I take good care of my children, and who's never had to treat my children will any other serious illness (before or since). Lack of emotional display does not mean lack of genuine concern. But others may perceive that to be the case.
Pierce is attempting to propel himself into some type of major role here. That quote, if true, can be attributed to a multitude of non-abuse related situations. For example, Danielle may have been punished for not doing her homework and, being a child, got a little dramatic in her personal diary. Notice Pierce does not reveal what the cause of Danielle's distress was.
There can be big money in salaries and perks while running a non-profit agency that garners large amounts donations. Getting your name and the name of your organization in the public eye helps alot. Pierce clearly oversteps his bounds when calling for outside protection for the renaining children. That is not his call to make and he is impeding the investigation by the San Diego PD.
You are so completely off-base on this that I despair of being able to explain the concept of Constitutionally-protected privacy and property rights to you.
And, if you think that happily cooperating with anything and everything that the police want at all times is going to make them look more "favorably" upon you, you are dead wrong. In point of fact, many guilty people eagerly cooperate with requests for warrantless searches. Hard to believe, but true.
All I can say is that exercising your rights (that is, the right to keep silent, the right to be represented by counsel, and the right to refuse searches without a warrant) does NOT indicate guilt. It demonstrates that you are not an utter fool!
All I can say is that exercising your rights (that is, the right to keep silent, the right to be represented by counsel, and the right to refuse searches without a warrant) does NOT indicate guilt. It demonstrates that you are not an utter fool!
Well said and very true. Our Founding Fathers had a reason to secure each American citizen's protections....abuse of power, for one, innocent until proven guilty, for another; our Fifth Amendment for the right not to say something that can be [twisted around and taken out of context] used against you for yet another.
I heard Pierce on KFI, disregard the note, here is what is troubling. There is no outside access to that girl's bedroom. She lives on the second floor, there is no balcony, ladder, trees, in fact it is highly lit with no natural cover.
Whoever took her out of that house, most likely knew the layout of the house. They had to go from downstairs, to her room, abduct her without waking the parents, or the family dog, and bring her back down stairs, through an exposed area with heavy lighting without being detected.
This does not sound like a stranger case. It may not be the parents, but somebody they know.
The story on KFMB was not just that they had an orgy at the house that night, but that the mother went clubbing, had sex with some strange man in the parking lot of the club, went back home with friends, then locked themselves into the garage and had a sex orgy while smoking pot.
The report of KFMB also stated that Westerfield basically confessed to the cops, stating in essence, I can take you to her, but I need a lawyer first. The theory being that her remains are his bargaining chip for life instead of lethal injection, once her body is found he is toast.
They also reported that he volunteered to host a sex orgy in his house for this swinging group. The mom knows him better than she is claiming.
Having said all this, my guess is that Westerfield had sex with the mom and her friends, maybe with the husband too for that matter, he abducted the girl, assaulted and killed her, the parents "know" he did it, aren't technically involved, but realize how bad they would look if they told the whole unvarnished truth.
Think of the cases of people wrongly porosecuted and even convicted, and how many of them "cooperated fully", giving up their rights to do so- only to find themselves in prison!
I am very far from a "cop-basher", but I also know that the aim of investigators is to CLOSE CASES- and that means finding someone to prosecute. I do not think that there are many cases of intemntional wrongful prosecution, but we have seen on this thread just how easy it can be to convince oneself of anothers guilt, even with the flimsiest of evidence.
I'm no cop-basher either. But we've all seen what happens when someone is given unlimited power. Who was is that said: "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely"? Look at Stalin, Mao, and Hitler. There are many others one can cite. Our Founding Fathers were well-read; they remembered the horrors and atrocities committed in tyrannical nations. Without our protections, we could have easily become another Roman or Nazi empire.
We still may. Rights which are given up by the people are rarely regained, except by very painful means. It would be better to hold onto the rights we have, than to fight for them again.
By the way, it was Lord Acton who was credited with the "Power corrupts..." aphorism- but I think he was echoing a Roman (Cicero?)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.