|
Post by janetruth on May 24, 2008 17:03:09 GMT -5
As far as bashing anyone else, they Youngs and their cohorts have been among those protecting, defending and enabling Jason, while some of them have been on the boards crucifying the Fishers.
If just one member of Jason's family would speak up, or otherwise behave in a responsible manner (google the Hacking case, to see what I mean), that member would be off the hook.
Attacking IS posters?
Believe me, I would take it to their faces at IS, but...OOPS...JaneTruth got banned over there, for a light-hearted bit of alliteration, and my succeeding nic has been given a time out for no other reason than starting a thread, after CW said to, but before she told us she had changed her mind.
Kat and her little troll posse win AGAIN!
|
|
|
Post by janetruth on May 24, 2008 17:09:09 GMT -5
This was at her Raleigh day care, around the time of the funeral. It was, of course, discounted as "rumour," but whoever had posted it at CTV (at the time) was very positive and very credible. ETA, it could have been WS. Of course, if it was, it's still there. I don't think they have a history of deletion. 'cept for that pesky "daddy did it" enhancement link. I think they were right to suppress that. It could be extremely prejudicial in a way that stories of purple tallywackers and "romantic relationships" couldn't even approach.
|
|
|
Post by Cardinal on May 24, 2008 17:15:36 GMT -5
I know, Petulant and RPD - it isn't about me. But I didn't bring it up. I've been doing my best to ignore you since you returned, but you keep trying to drag me into your nonsense. Please cease and desist. Won't happen again. Ignore away.
|
|
|
Post by Cardinal on May 24, 2008 17:26:06 GMT -5
I can't argue with anything you said. It's true that IS is a corporate entity and Scout's board is not. From a poster's perspective, however, do you honestly think that distinction is made? And it's true that Scout refuses to allow bashing of the Fishers. She does, however, allow bashing of Jason, the Youngs and the IS posters. I wasn't around when this case started, but your summary sounds reasonable and makes sense to me. If Jason is arrested, do you think those same tactics will be used at trial? It's not only that I *think* Jason is guilty. It's that he is the most logical suspect, and some of his actions before and after the murder indicate that he is the most probable killer. They have been mentioned several times over the past year and a half, but here are a few: Before: Calling Meredith to retrieve the printout for a VERY LATE anniversary or VERY EARLY Christmas gift Running the car off the road Getting a very large life insurance policy A continuing pattern of public disrespect of Michelle, from complaining to female co-workers that she didn't like to do certain things, to entering into a romantic "relationship" with one of her sorority sisters After: Silence Non-cooperation with the investigation Sequestering Cassidy from Michelle's relatives Lack of interest in claiming the aforementioned life insurance settlement Meredith cooperated from the beginning, had nothing to gain by her sister's death, and is statistically much less likely to be the killer. If it wasn't obvious before the LBLO, it should be after, that Meredith is NOT A SUSPECT in her sister's murder. Jason, OTOH, has had search warrants executed on his property, and the property of others with whom he has been living or otherwise connected. The fact that LE, though not specifically naming him a suspect, is watching and investigating him very closely, and NOT doing the same with Meredith frees us up to speculate in a different way than if there were no such indications. The phone call about the printout does set off my hinky meter. I still think the car accident was an accident. The life insurance policy - that could go either way. In order to believe that's a motive, you'd have to accept that Jason didn't believe he'd be a suspect. I have issues with the silence and the lack of cooperation, yes. Sequestering Cassidy could have other explanations - explanations that are no more flattering, but not necessarily COG. And while LE has obviously targeted Jason, I don't know what they have or haven't found. I've never thought Meredith was either guilty or a suspect.
|
|
|
Post by Cardinal on May 24, 2008 17:29:10 GMT -5
"As for saying nothing to the JIIs at IS, you probably missed it because those posts (and occasionally entire threads) were deleted shortly after I posted them." That should tell you something right there. The only time most of us take on the IS trolls is when they start in on Meredith and Linda. After all that those women have endured since Michelle's murder, I, for one, cannot stand to see them attacked, and lied about, day in and day out. The trolls take a light-hearted myspace or facebook post from years before the murder, and stretch it to make Meredith out to be something she is obviously not. How you can defend that is totally beyond me. Freedom of speech is a fundamental right, I know, but there is no Constitutional freedom to libel. I'm not ignoring this post or janesdean's, but there's nothing I can say that you'd accept, so I won't burden others with a response.
|
|
|
Post by rpd on May 24, 2008 17:32:13 GMT -5
"The life insurance policy - that could go either way. In order to believe that's a motive, you'd have to accept that Jason didn't believe he'd be a suspect".
I think his soft kill plan was designed so he would not be the suspect. Obviously the bloody mess changed everything and did not allow him to 'set the stage' as planned.
|
|
|
Post by Cardinal on May 24, 2008 17:34:30 GMT -5
"The life insurance policy - that could go either way. In order to believe that's a motive, you'd have to accept that Jason didn't believe he'd be a suspect".I think his soft kill plan was designed so he would not be the suspect. Obviously the bloody mess changed everything and did not allow him to 'set the stage' as planned. Are you referring to the attempted strangulation? Even if that had been successful, how would he not be a suspect?
|
|
|
Post by barbara2 on May 24, 2008 17:35:41 GMT -5
"As for saying nothing to the JIIs at IS, you probably missed it because those posts (and occasionally entire threads) were deleted shortly after I posted them." That should tell you something right there. The only time most of us take on the IS trolls is when they start in on Meredith and Linda. After all that those women have endured since Michelle's murder, I, for one, cannot stand to see them attacked, and lied about, day in and day out. The trolls take a light-hearted myspace or facebook post from years before the murder, and stretch it to make Meredith out to be something she is obviously not. How you can defend that is totally beyond me. Freedom of speech is a fundamental right, I know, but there is no Constitutional freedom to libel. I'm not ignoring this post or janesdean's, but there's nothing I can say that you'd accept, so I won't burden others with a response. The problem with IS/CTV is that there is a long history. You're seeing one small piece after over a year of activity. It would be like you witnessing a divorced couple in a social setting and seeing the woman say something mean and come to the conclusion that she is the one at fault because he's "being so nice" to you. You missed the months and months of "him" acting like a total jerk and doing things to completely undermine everything. But it is your right to form your own opinions. Just don't critisize those who have formed a different opinion.
|
|
|
Post by rpd on May 24, 2008 17:41:39 GMT -5
"The life insurance policy - that could go either way. In order to believe that's a motive, you'd have to accept that Jason didn't believe he'd be a suspect".I think his soft kill plan was designed so he would not be the suspect. Obviously the bloody mess changed everything and did not allow him to 'set the stage' as planned. Are you referring to the attempted strangulation? Even if that had been successful, how would he not be a suspect? The husband is always the suspect until cleared. However, his plan likely included evidence of a sex assault and solid evidence of a break-in / burglary. I'm sure he was more than willing to talk to the cops and simply explain he was away on business. He thought the "fax" story would fly since he had floated the purse gift story to 3 different people in the days before the murder. When Cassidy woke up and saw the bloody mess, that plan went poof. He barely made it back to hillsville in time after he tended to her and cleaned himself up.
|
|
|
Post by Cardinal on May 24, 2008 17:44:39 GMT -5
I'm not ignoring this post or janesdean's, but there's nothing I can say that you'd accept, so I won't burden others with a response. The problem with IS/CTV is that there is a long history. You're seeing one small piece after over a year of activity. It would be like you witnessing a divorced couple in a social setting and seeing the woman say something mean and come to the conclusion that she is the one at fault because he's "being so nice" to you. You missed the months and months of "him" acting like a total jerk and doing things to completely undermine everything. But it is your right to form your own opinions. Just don't critisize those who have formed a different opinion. I started reading the Michelle Young board shortly after I registered at IS last June. I read the posts on the various other boards as well. I know exactly what you're talking about. I've never said either "side" was at fault, and I haven't intended to criticize anyone's opinion. Nor am I either gullible enough or naive enough to think someone's not at fault because they're nice to me - anymore than I think they are at fault because they're pi$$y. I simply see things on both "sides" that contribute to the problem, and I don't know what it accomplishes.
|
|
|
Post by petulant on May 24, 2008 17:45:33 GMT -5
'cept for that pesky "daddy did it" enhancement link. I think they were right to suppress that. It could be extremely prejudicial in a way that stories of purple tallywackers and "romantic relationships" couldn't even approach. I agree! It will be front and center at the trial, where it should be.
|
|
|
Post by Cardinal on May 24, 2008 17:48:00 GMT -5
Are you referring to the attempted strangulation? Even if that had been successful, how would he not be a suspect? The husband is always the suspect until cleared. However, his plan likely included evidence of a sex assault and solid evidence of a break-in / burglary. I'm sure he was more than willing to talk to the cops and simply explain he was away on business. He thought the "fax" story would fly since he had floated the purse gift story to 3 different people in the days before the murder. When Cassidy woke up and saw the bloody mess, that plan went poof. He barely made it back to hillsville in time after he tended to her and cleaned himself up. But couldn't he still have included evidence of a sexual assault and a break-in/burglary? He could easily have ripped her clothes and smashed and grabbed something on the way out. How long would that take?
|
|
|
Post by rpd on May 24, 2008 17:51:27 GMT -5
The husband is always the suspect until cleared. However, his plan likely included evidence of a sex assault and solid evidence of a break-in / burglary. I'm sure he was more than willing to talk to the cops and simply explain he was away on business. He thought the "fax" story would fly since he had floated the purse gift story to 3 different people in the days before the murder. When Cassidy woke up and saw the bloody mess, that plan went poof. He barely made it back to hillsville in time after he tended to her and cleaned himself up. But couldn't he still have included evidence of a sexual assault and a break-in/burglary? He could easily have ripped her clothes and smashed and grabbed something on the way out. How long would that take? She was bludgeoned to death on the floor and the little girl came in the room (imo). He obviously had a very tight time-line and that was stretched to the last second with the cleanup and the child's care. Remember, I was told by one of his buds he was 1/2 late to the 'meeting', arriving at 10:30 am. BTW, he did grab 2 jewelry drawers for good measure
|
|
|
Post by barbara2 on May 24, 2008 17:51:28 GMT -5
The husband is always the suspect until cleared. However, his plan likely included evidence of a sex assault and solid evidence of a break-in / burglary. I'm sure he was more than willing to talk to the cops and simply explain he was away on business. He thought the "fax" story would fly since he had floated the purse gift story to 3 different people in the days before the murder. When Cassidy woke up and saw the bloody mess, that plan went poof. He barely made it back to hillsville in time after he tended to her and cleaned himself up. But couldn't he still have included evidence of a sexual assault and a break-in/burglary? He could easily have ripped her clothes and smashed and grabbed something on the way out. How long would that take? The idea is that he could have done all of that if the soft kill had worked. He had a window of time he was working with and didn't have time to stage the scene the way he would have liked when he had to clean up before he left the house.
|
|
|
Post by Cardinal on May 24, 2008 17:54:30 GMT -5
But couldn't he still have included evidence of a sexual assault and a break-in/burglary? He could easily have ripped her clothes and smashed and grabbed something on the way out. How long would that take? She was bludgeoned to death on the floor and the little girl came in the room (imo). He obviously had a very tight time-line and that was stretched to the last second with the cleanup and the child's care. Remember, I was told by one of his buds he was 1/2 late to the 'meeting', arriving at 10:30 am. That's possible, I know. But there's no proof that Cassidy came into the room until later. It's just not strong enough to be convincing unless you already believe he's guilty.
|
|