You Are Deeply Stupid
Sat Dec 1, 2018 02:11

Conspiracy theories alone work off an ignorant premise, that as long as we can make assumptions with no evidence, we can pretty much deny anything that has ever happened.

First, this joke of a website is disgusting. It's full of assumptions and fallacies that support a kidnapper and child killer. Actual evidence is ignored in exchange for conjecture and that's all it is.

I mean, seriously, Scapegoat provided not on piece of evidence at all. It contained no credible sources and was nothing more than a lousy book written by a lousy person to make money off a tragedy. There is no evidence in this book that is enough to get anyone to reopen the case for this because it is 100% conjecture.

Second, you claim that the Fisch story has never been proven to be false. That's an argument from ignorance. If you can assume that if a story has to be true if it cannot be proven false, then every God in every religion exists because you cannot prove that they don't. It's not up to anyone to prove Hauptmann's story is false. It was up to him to prove it was real and he failed.

And Governor Hoffman did not make any "selfless" efforts to help Hauptmann. He could have pardoned him or commuted the sentence. He did neither. He had that power and people like you claim he refused to use it for political reasons. Fact is, he could have done it with one phone call so he obviously didn't care as much as you think he did.

Ed Reilly was a respected lawyer who had won the majority of his murder trials. Not only that, but Hauptmann had three other lawyers working for him as well. The reason the defense was only about Fisch was because Hauptmann was guilty and that was the story he stuck to. His lawyers, including Reilly, appealed his sentence all the way to the Supreme Court. So your comments about him show that you are nothing more than a despicable and uneducated person.

Hauptmann did not choose death rather than lie. He chose to lie because it was his only chance. Hauptmann chose to keep up the lie rather than to admit what he did because he obviously thought people were stupid enough to believe his dumb story. Then, once he was convicted, a confession meant nothing. You cannot go back in time and make a plea deal after a conviction and this disgusting person seemed to believe he would either be acquitted or that the governor would pardon him.

Noel Behn was four years old when the kidnapping happened. He had no access to any witnesses and provided no evidence for his assertions. There is nothing he presents that leads to any possible and rational reasoning that Elizabeth Morrow killed the baby. That is complete and utter conjecture.

So you criticize Jim Fisher and say that the only people who believe his work is objective are people unfamiliar with the case. Well guess what, moron, that's exactly what you want. You want someone with no preconceived idea about what happened to look at your evidence and see it as objective. That's the entire idea behind evidence. Present it to someone who is unfamiliar with the case and convince them. He does it objectively, you don't. You offer absolutely NOTHING while he gives you facts.

Back before I knew anything about this case, I looked up his website and your website. They were the first exposure I had to the details of this crime. He cites evidence, facts and they are all documented. You, on the other hand, rely on conjecture and consider the conjecture of others as evidence, which speaks only to your lack of critical thinking. I used both of your websites to study the case and then to follow the sources to actual evidence. He had it. You don't.

As for your DNA testing, DNA testing on a tree is not advanced to the point that we could tell that a piece of wood came from a specific tree. The simplest amount of research would have shown you that. It can only tell you what kind of tree it is.

Neither Ahlgren or Monier have debunked anything. If you honestly believe that even one of those arguments are logical, than you have no understanding of logic. But then, you also committed an argument from ignorance so we already established you have no idea what logic even is.

You are completely incorrect when you claim, without evidence, that it is impossible for a person to recall a specific voice from three years earlier. I am a cognitive psychologist and I can tell you not only is it possible, but it is common. In fact, cognitive psychology experimentation has shown that you can recognize a voice for the rest of your life with only having heard two words ever spoken by that person. There are plenty of peer reviewed journals that would tell you this if you got off your dumb ass and did some research.

Occam's Razor, look it up. It means that the explanation that makes the least amount of assumptions is more likely than not the correct one. Your theories do nothing but make assumptions with zero evidence. In fact, the only evidence you cite are the books of people who said things and also provided no evidence. That is not evidence.

Should Hauptmann have gotten the death penalty? No, I think that is the one thing you are correct on. First, I do not believe in the death penalty for anyone. In fact, my uncle David Spears was murdered by Aileen Wournos almost 30 years ago. There is probably no human being in my life I have hated more than her, but I was outspoken about my opposition to her death sentence. It's wrong.
And apart from that, I do not believe Hauptmann was a murderer. I do believe he kidnapped the baby and acted alone and I do believe he killed the baby, but I believe the death was an accident.

Ronelle Delmont, you really are the scum of the earth.

    • Ralph Jones you ate deeply stupidTania Bowman, Thu Dec 13 02:41
      Seems to me that you are the deeply stupid one. Leave Ronelle alone, she's 😎. Just about everyone here knows that I believe Hal Olson was Charlie Jr. So Hauptman couldn't have murdered... more
    • you should be ashamed of yourselfronelle to jones, Wed Dec 5 07:32
      You used my website to study this case and you aren't ashamed to be calling me "scum" and "moron." You don't have the decency to thank me for giving you free access to sources I spent a lot of time... more
    • You ARE NOT Deeply StupidSue for Ralph Jones, Sun Dec 2 13:43
      You are not deeply stupid, and neither is Ronelle. And if you were in a face-to-face situation discussing your thoughts and feeling, I believe you would be HIGHLY ARTICULATE as you've demonstrated in ... more
      • Re: You ARE NOT Deeply StupidMichael For Sue, Mon Dec 3 07:24
        Interesting to see how you turned an ugly attack against our friend Ronelle into something about you. Unbelievable!!!
        • About YouSue for Michael Melsky, Mon Dec 3 19:58

          • Re: About YouMichael For Sue, Tue Dec 4 08:03
            Exactly. Your bizarre, unhinged, and irrational post was about YOU. Someone maligns Ronelle and here is your chance to defend a loyal and great friend but you choose instead to use it as a way to... more
            • You Make WrongSue for Michael, Tue Dec 4 13:01
              You better watch using words like bizarre, unhinged and irrational about me, Michael. You certainly weren't using those words against me when I was contributing to your board(s) over the years! And... more
              • Re: You Make WrongMichael, Tue Dec 4 14:06
                I don't even know where to respond to this but I can say this: If you were actually right I would have defended you no matter who the offender was. But I cannot pretend you were correct about... more
            • civil discoursebob mills for entire forum, Tue Dec 4 10:34
              This forum is turning into a first cousin of Breitbart or RawStory. Can't we discuss historical controversies without attacking one another? Just because certain politicians (no names, please) don't... more
              • For Bob Millsjdb, Sun Dec 9 05:12
                Thank you, Bob Mills. If people don't mind their manners here this forum is going to turn into an Internet nightmare version of the old Morton Downey, Jr. show. It's sort of half-way there already,... more
                • the decline of civilitybob mills for john b., Mon Dec 10 10:19
                  Amen, John. Ronelle started the forum, so any restrictions or punishments for bad manners should originate with her. There have always been intellectuals who look down their noses at those they... more
                  • Bad Mannersjdb, Tue Dec 11 03:17
                    Hi Bob, Bad manners have been on the rise in recent years, especially on the Internet and in social media. This is the downside of being able to, in effect, speak to others without having to see... more
    • Re: You Are Deeply StupidMichael, Sun Dec 2 08:54
      I won't accuse you of being stupid - just ignorant. Both of Fisher's book are littered with mistakes so they aren't the Bible you think they are. I mean c'mon - the guy invented conversations! From... more
      • Re: You Are Deeply Stupidsteve for mike, Mon Dec 3 12:02
        first off sue and myself are good friends with ronnelle met many times on the Bronx tour. second many authors have used ronnelles board as a springboard to learn the case in the beginning of their... more
        • Re: You Are Deeply StupidMichael, Tue Dec 4 08:15
          I get it Steve. Believe me I get it. Now as it pertains to Fisher... No book is perfect and I am not saying he got everything wrong. I've told everyone I know to read them but caution about the... more
    • facts and theoriesbob mills for ralph jones, Sun Dec 2 05:06
      I'll never understand how an educated man like you, Mr. Jones, could possibly feel a need to describe someone with whom he disagrees as "scum of the earth." Maybe your vitriol simply reflects the... more
      • Re: facts and theoriessteve for bob mills, Mon Dec 3 12:05
        im not going to waste my time with this asshole. ronelle is not the scum of the earth I question this guys work skills and job
  • Click here to receive daily updates