White Knight
Senior Member
THE SHADOW KNOWS. In the shadow of the highest is a refuge from all fear.
Posts: 510
|
Post by White Knight on Jun 3, 2009 22:05:40 GMT -5
JHJMR, we must remember that Bandtroll is only dealing with "facts". Sure trying too ... The more you assume the further you will get from the facts. So which is it? Am I sticking to my story or flip-flopping? Where have I ever said the names were duplicated? Wow, that was quick. I thought I was sticking to the story?? "which is to stick by the story you have chosen" Glad you pointed that out. That does seem to be what is happening in trying to pin 'the list' to someone other than the twins. What field is that? (Seeing I have never stated who I am nor what I do, nor do I ever plan to) Assumptions ... Agreed, in many cases people seem to be just guessing because they can't wait for the facts to come out. Experienced, yes. Like anyone else in life, we do what has to be done. Looks like you get a real rush pulling our postings apart, yet you can't answer these questions Were you at any of the hearings? Are you professing? How well do you know JF and have you ever advised him in any of this MI. situation? Have you ever advise anyone in this MI. situation? How well do you know the accusers? How well do know the family and or others involved in this case? These are the question you keep burying. Don't need to ask me any further question as I/we have already clarified them throughout all the threads. Thanks again for your participation throughout this situation. Sincerely:WK
|
|
|
Post by bandtroll on Jun 3, 2009 22:20:50 GMT -5
The court ruled they were both incompetent and sent to the Forensic Center for help. One twin finally admitted to lying and was found competent. Everyone should know if you are able to accuse this many people of such a crime you are definitely INCOMPETENT Not legally/medically, there is a difference between being "crazy" in the general sense and legally/medically incompetent. Many people go back and forth between competent and incompetent their who lives. That was the reason they were sent to the hospital, to become competent (enough) to stand trial. Just because someone is competent enough to stand trial and be 'on the outside' does not mean they are able to hold down jobs. Some end up on SS (which can not be garnished). If they are able to hold down a job, yes, they should pay for their crime. But in this case that is not what the judge ordered. Above you stated that they were INCOMPETENT. They did not choose to be INCOMPETENT and have little control over their lives in that state of mind. What's to be gained by trying to destroy what is left of their lives? The twins were "found competent"/released from the hospital after six months of working on getting them to the point of being competent. At the time they were charged with lying, they were found incompetent to stand trial (and could have been at the time they came up with the list)
|
|
|
Post by bandtroll on Jun 3, 2009 22:23:32 GMT -5
I realize they are 18, but if they were ruled legally incompetent that should have made them as minor children again That is not easily done.
|
|
White Knight
Senior Member
THE SHADOW KNOWS. In the shadow of the highest is a refuge from all fear.
Posts: 510
|
Post by White Knight on Jun 3, 2009 22:24:37 GMT -5
Try again bandtroll
|
|
|
Post by bandtroll on Jun 3, 2009 22:25:44 GMT -5
bandtroll: Are you absolutely sure this is a fact in this case? Or is this merely more assumption on your part? After all you are only after facts or want the facts of this case do you not! s......o Why not answer our questions as it will give everyone the honest facts about you will it not, or is that what scares you? Are you absolutely sure this is a fact in this case? That what is the "fact" in this case?
|
|
|
Post by bandtroll on Jun 3, 2009 22:30:42 GMT -5
Mental illness (if that's what this is) can start at any time, who, where, etc may have nothing to do with it. this has nothing more to do with facts but merely taking the defense of the workers and thwarting all the blame onto the twins!!!!! Simply go back and read all your postings the trail is long and getting longer. check and mate mate. thwarting all the blame onto the twins I will agree with this much of your statement, until someone produces facts to prove that the twins did not alone come up with the list.
|
|
White Knight
Senior Member
THE SHADOW KNOWS. In the shadow of the highest is a refuge from all fear.
Posts: 510
|
Post by White Knight on Jun 3, 2009 22:31:36 GMT -5
bandtroll: Are you absolutely sure this is a fact in this case? Or is this merely more assumption on your part? After all you are only after facts or want the facts of this case do you not! s......o Why not answer our questions as it will give everyone the honest facts about you will it not, or is that what scares you? Are you absolutely sure this is a fact in this case? That what is the "fact" in this case? You can'''''''''t seem to answer is it fact or fiction?
|
|
White Knight
Senior Member
THE SHADOW KNOWS. In the shadow of the highest is a refuge from all fear.
Posts: 510
|
Post by White Knight on Jun 3, 2009 22:33:25 GMT -5
bandtroll: thank you for your hypothetical answers and admitting admonition to others,while burying other more prominent questions left unanswered. And if I may ask, as I seem to fail to understand your thought in the accusation of a mob. From the side I/others stand, we are the accused protecting our selves. We have been very forthcoming in the events leading up to, during and right onto this very hour. So now it seem to be an integrity issue. This is what Leeds us to believe you are from the inside on the other side. So maybe you can dispel the myth by answering a few simple questions. Were you at any of the hearings? Are you professing? How well do you know JF and have you ever advised him in any of this MI. situation? Have you ever advise anyone in this MI. situation? How well do you know the accusers? How well do know the family and or others involved in this case? These are the question you keep burying. Don't need to ask me any further question as I/we have already clarified them throughout all the threads. Thanks again for your participation throughout this situation. Sincerely:WK
|
|
|
Post by bandtroll on Jun 3, 2009 22:35:51 GMT -5
Looks like you get a real rush pulling our postings apart No, but I don't like seeing assumptions posted as facts and having them go unchallenged. (and lately a lot of posts have been directed at me/my positions) Can, won't.
|
|
|
Post by bandtroll on Jun 3, 2009 22:37:24 GMT -5
Are you absolutely sure this is a fact in this case? That what is the "fact" in this case? You can'''''''''t seem to answer is it fact or fiction? Sorry, we both have a lot of posts on here. Is what fact or fiction?
|
|
|
Post by jphillips on Jun 3, 2009 22:37:47 GMT -5
I dont usually read the Michigan threads, but happened to stop by and noticed this post addressed to me an Manfred. The only words from Lin's quote below that were mine were these seeking information: "Can you share when this was? And where? (I just want to make sure his name is on the WINGS list of convicted sexual abusers.) Thanks" The rest of the info was quoted from some other post/poster. I cannot look up someone in the public records without a name...and I was asking for the name. Saavy? FWIW, I am no longer associated with WINGS and have not been for some time. CK if this individual was charged, arrested, jailed, prosecuted, convicted and incarcerated for his offense then why can't you identify him? It's public record! How can you offer PROOF without disclosing the name of the convicted criminal, otherwise it's speculation, innuendo or just hearsay? Or it's perceived as an embellishment to colorfully enhance your position. Saaaaaaaaaaaavvvvvy! Since you presented it as a question! Naw, CK, from my seat it's just more of your double-talking B.S. that I've seen on TMB over the last fifteen months. I've seen you play repeated games, slyly trying to reap information from TMB members, for your website or cause and it's like the 'kettle calling the pot black' in relations to your personal crusade. You've got to play your games of deception, oh yeah, saaaavvvy, but you'd persecute the TRUTH for identical antics. And I'm an EX. That said I do enjoy randomly pulling some old names from your website!
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Jun 3, 2009 23:15:23 GMT -5
Manfred, You're entitled to your opinion and perspective. I have no problem with that. Have at it. Go for it...believe whatever you want to and put your spin on whatever you see or think you see. We all do that. It's your right and I respect that.
I've been on a quest for truth for quite awhile now. Truth is my priority, and always will be.
CK
PS I have no problem asking questions about what I want to know outright. I tell people why I want to know the information, so they have the option of refusing to give me info, should they wish to. I respect their right to remain silent.
|
|
|
Post by jhjmr on Jun 4, 2009 9:16:17 GMT -5
Trying to put doubts in facts never worked and never will. Why would Bandtroll be so interested in trying to make doubts out of facts? Don't like the facts? I do know facts and I know that you are trying to get anything out of anyone that you can so you can-----what, have an argument in court, try to protect those that becamse involved for personal agenda, protect poor judgment or saving one from ignorance. Those who stuck their neck out without knowledge and with wrong intentions pretending they knew something they didn't has to be uncomfortable with the way things have went. Trying to prove a lie as truth is a big job and having someone admit in court that they lied was commendable. That wasn't something that would be fun to admit and in court, not just to a person. It took everyone by surprise because, when you try to brainwash, you hope you have been successful. But as they say, everything comes out in the wash. Being incompetent and gaining enough help to be able to understand what has taken place and by whom means our tax dollars are helping some people and that is a relief. Standing alone against people that for nearly two years tried to persuade and convince someone that lying was o.k. and hurting innocent people was o.k. needs to try and put a spin on facts. But, in reality it isn't going to work and many people are being seen for what they are. Instead of asking questions and seeking truth now is a little late.
|
|
|
Post by pianoman on Jun 4, 2009 11:25:52 GMT -5
Bandtroll, I will type this real slow, so please read it real slow. Maybe you will get it.
The twins had help with the names. Only an idiot would not see that.
No matter how mentally ill, incompetent or whatever, you can not make up names of people you don't know, people that actually exist.
That is your story you stick to. The flip flopping is when you get backed into a corner. You have a different argument for each point that you trip on.
Your sympathy for the twins is touching. Yes they have suffered at their own hands, but why do you not recognize that many have been questioned, and put in jeopardy over what they did?
Also, there is really no known "cure" for "mental illness" as you describe, so how did the twins get cured, just enough to stand trial?
I do know of places in the world where they take medical care of prisoners so they can execute them. The U.S. is one.
|
|
|
Post by dgaab on Jun 4, 2009 13:20:27 GMT -5
The twins have made their own beds and are legally responsible for their statements.
An assumption on my part, but I suspect they were not legally classified as 'mentally incompetent' last fall by the court system when they were institutionalized (that's not at the discretion of the judge, ADA, attorneys but only determined by recommendations from psychiatric professionals for the courts to eventually act on), but they were sent there for observation/examination to see if such was the JUST cause for their aberrant behavior of tales. One twin came clean after separation from those in the faith and continued professional counseling.
|
|
|
Post by bandtroll on Jun 4, 2009 13:36:37 GMT -5
The twins had help with the names. Only an idiot would not see that. Still unproven. And it would have to be proven to win a court case. Good luck on getting a jury to buy it. The difference between a jury and the readers of the TMB is that the jury would not be emotionally involved with the case and would be a much harder sell. IF they were mentally ill, they would not need to know you very well. But they may have either known your name or "who you were" and had help filling in the rest.
IF they were mentally ill, they may have remembered you because you .... Once looked at them the wrong way. Or did not look at them when they wanted you to.
You may have ignored/payed attention to one of their friends.
They may have heard someone they trusted/hated say something positive/negative about out.
BUT for some reason your name stuck in their head. Show me. Thank you. But I have spent little time defending them. I do. They (likely) are not cured. Their illness is under control (for now). Sometimes they can do ok without ongoing treatment, but in most cases they would be receiving counseling and medication
|
|
|
Post by pianoman on Jun 4, 2009 21:23:33 GMT -5
Bandtroll, to quote you:" IF they were mentally ill, they would not need to know you very well. But they may have either known your name or "who you were" and had help filling in the rest.
IF they were mentally ill, they may have remembered you because you .... Once looked at them the wrong way. Or did not look at them when they wanted you to.
You may have ignored/payed attention to one of their friends.
They may have heard someone they trusted/hated say something positive/negative about out.
BUT for some reason your name stuck in their head."
This is in direct contradiction of "the twins came up with the names on their own" statement you made earlier.
Can we get an amen to either one, they did get help with the names, or they didn't?
"Had help filling in the rest"......Hmmmmm I guess that is not speculation, but fact?
|
|
|
Post by bandtroll on Jun 4, 2009 22:11:47 GMT -5
..." BUT for some reason your name stuck in their head."" This is in direct contradiction of "the twins came up with the names on their own" statement you made earlier. No, both statements are saying that the twins came up with the names and accusations. "Help?" So we have gone from the twins being "given" the list to them getting some help with names? "Help" could be like you wanting to remember someone from a grade school class, so you call another former classmate and describe things about the person until you together come up with the name. But you were the one that knew who you wanted to ID. IMO it is only speculation that they had help. Only four people know how much/if any, the twins had with those names. I'm saying that the twins could have come up with all the names (people) and accusations on that list.
|
|
|
Post by jhjmr on Jun 5, 2009 9:36:55 GMT -5
You could also say you are the king of England, but you will never be. Maybe you could try and get that fact across in court. But, what will be the answer is. Not that they could have, but did they! Speculation is an old game. Only fools think that speculation is a fact. Speculation is used to try and put doubt in someone minds. Only minds that don't know any details of the case. So, if you want to use speculation as your only argument, it means you can't use facts because, who you are defending will be in deep doo doo. Speculation was used in court to have what you are calling incompetent twins, but the dr. said, I treated them many moons ago and he wouldn't want anyone to think he didn't work wonders. Both are declared competent. Does that make them responsible? But, now all we hear is incompetent from you. So, get your witnesses, your arguments and your so called evidence in place. It'll be interesting what you will use in court. And who's butt you are protecting. One interesting aspect is, guess what, the incompetent twins were made competent by what means? One admitting that she lied and wanted to get on with her life and try to salvage whatever she could. The other one that said, nope, I didn't lie and now must answer a lot of false accusations, which everyone knows are absolutely ridiculous charges and many impossible. But, those moral supporter of hers, are there to help her through this ordeal of fantasy and will say, yes she lied. Can't use the excuse, incompetent! But then who would want it to be made to the court that an incompetent girl was misled by a personal agenda. Oh boy, that would make them responsible. The excuse from them for her lying, boy that excuse should set the record straight. Bring it on!!
|
|
|
Post by pianoman on Jun 5, 2009 10:31:16 GMT -5
Bandtroll, you are saying that the twins came up with all of the names, or that is most likely how the list was compiled.
This is what is known as speculation, in your description, at least sometimes.
Quoting you;"Only four people know how much/if any, the twins had with those names. I'm saying that the twins could have come up with all the names (people) and accusations on that list."
You are either one of those four, or in very close to this group. No that is not a guess, and I am not trying to figure out "who" you are. I have enough information on that subject.
The help you describe " (quoting you) "Help" could be like you wanting to remember someone from a grade school class, so you call another former classmate and describe things about the person until you together come up with the name. But you were the one that knew who you wanted to ID."
I really feel for those involved here, on both sides with your "intuition" and "expertise".
I guess if you are assaulted, raped or harassed, by someone that you know, you need to have help describing them to really be sure they are the one or ones that did such a traumatic thing to you. I am sure that in every case where a person is violently harmed by someone they know, they call in their old school chums to remind them what the persons name is, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THEY WERE NOT PRESENT AND DID NOT WITNESS THE EVENT!!
Quoting you again;" IMO it is only speculation that they had help."
You are not willing to say anything about your involvement, or participation in this mess, hold yourself out as the "voice of reason" and then you expect the readers that do have direct involvement to not ask questions, not want answers, but above all, they are not to make speculations that you don't agree with thus they are accusing and condemning "people that have not been named".
I must say that you are very consistent in being inconsistent. Your boney accusing finger points at these people that have been damaged, forever, and condemns them for questioning how the list was compiled, yet you nearly swear that the twins, alone, came up with the names, (of course now, they may have had help, but only remembering people that committed horrendous acts upon them). However, anyone that questions or suggests the most likely of suspects that probably did come up with all of the names, don't exist, and that is speculation on these victims of this terrible action by these twins.
Once again, the fact remains that the twins did not know the entire 200 on the list, and if that is a fact, and has been confirmed by your own words, " I'm not sure all of the accused were "friends and workers." And it wasn't turned in as one list, first two a few were accused and then the list was added to, and added to again until they were told to stop turning in lists."
Who is they? The twins were out of gas with names, so someone was feeding them. information to pass along.
Another fact that you are missing by a country mile is that the authorities that are investigating this deeper than your examination of the "facts", were smart enough to tell someone other than the twins to stop with the lists. They would not be examining the twins and tell them in midstream, to stop telling their story, unless it was obvious that they were being supplied information. Their statements would be taken in their entirety, to be used against the accused, or the twins once they were determined that they were lying. Only outside sources would be told to stop supplying information.
You sound like the proverbial lying police officer, that won't change his/her story, regardless of how ridicules their story gets, and how many times they get tripped up.
Mark Furman comes to mind from the OJ Simpson trial. He was not lying, and never lied according to your facts, that come only from the courts, and then he took the fifth.
Also I am still intrigued by the bullet that made the U-turn, and struck President Kennedy in the front of the head, from behind. This is also one of the facts as you see them by virtue of "the courts say it so it is so." It has been explained in detail by both sides and both are very convincing, however, one side is dead wrong.
I guess when you are in the court system too long, you start believing the B.S. that is preached day in and day out.
|
|
|
Post by pianoman on Jun 5, 2009 10:48:24 GMT -5
Bandtroll, One question you avoid answering directly is from JHJMR. It is easy enough to answer, directly with out the misdirection you are so fond of.
It is as follows;"The twins turned in all the names, but how can you explain names being turned in that the twins have no way of knowing that person?"
This is a case that involves people that have not had a day in court, and never will unless it is a civil case, and then they will not receive the coverage that the twins received.
All I can see is that your claim to want only facts and you condemn speculation, is that you are speculating as much as others, but you are not as close as some are, and they have the entire documents from the courts.
You seem to be trying to make all of these statements as your "facts" and all I see is a smoke screen to keep those reading, that are simply trying to get the real truth, misdirected and confused to who knows what.
If you take what I write as a personal attack, you are on the money. I hate injustice, and those that are a part of it, whether they are active in the deception, or just angry because they aren't more important in their role, and want to be the "expert" and ultimate "truth bearer"in this tragic case. If you do go to meetings, you must sit next to JF, and if not, you might consider reading and getting caught up on what the truth is in most situations.
If you are a christian, certainly you know from the "facts" given by the Jews, that Jesus was a drunken, liar, and deserved what he got. I mean we wouldn't want the true purpose of his life revealed would we? Those are just writings by some ignorant uneducated followers, not the learned and educated Jews, and certainly contradict what the Jews recorded, right?
|
|
|
Post by bandtroll on Jun 5, 2009 13:45:17 GMT -5
You could also say you are the king of England, I'm not saying who I am, nor am I trying to keep up with who you think I am. Nope there are some of us that know that could not be--There is no King of England--only the Queen Mother ;D (Guess that rules one person out for you.) In court it will be up to those bringing their civil suit to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the twins were supplied with the list and who supplied them with the list. Based on what has been shared here, all the twins/ex-workers would have to do is remain silent to win. Which is the point I've been making since day one. A lot of what is posted as 'fact' is just speculation/assumption. (But I try to stay away from the personal attacks) Yes, generally they do not release anyone until the are competent. (What was the speculation on the part of the court?) First they were found not competent to stand trial, then they were sent to the hospital until they were competent enough to stand trial. One pleaded guilty, the other has not. I have not seen ruling on if they were responsible/competent at the time the list was created. Based on the time table, yes that is MO. If I am/was, I will/would do that. A lawyer protects who they were hired to protect. ?? Usually drugs and counseling. Not sure that is what she said, but feel free to prove me wrong. I had understood she pleaded "not guilty." (In court it's two different things) (Or it could be a negotiating ploy for a lower sentence or to help insulate them from a possible civil suit) Her supporters will say that?? The question will be if they were incompetent at the time the list was made up. Not if they are competent today or at any other time in their life. (Based on your odds of winning, my guess is that you don't have your lawyer on a contingency fee basis??)
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Jun 5, 2009 18:31:36 GMT -5
DIGRESSION ALERT!!! Nope there are some of us that know that could not be--There is no King of England--only the Queen Mother ;D There is no living Queen Mother of England. She died in 2002 at age 101, just a few weeks after the death of her daughter Margaret. (END DIGRESSION ALERT!!!)
|
|
|
Post by pianoman on Jun 5, 2009 22:04:44 GMT -5
Gene, thanks for the clarification. I was beginning to think that Bandtroll was the "queen" if you catch my drift.
Meanwhile back at the Michigan follow up, I guess Bandtroll believes that when you plead not guilty to something, you are not saying, " I didn't do it" they must be saying, " I didn't do it like that"
Aw the things you learn in law.
Keeping mouths shut has not kept people from being found guilty. Evidence that is not posted here will be considered.
There are those that have possession of the lists, and court documents. Let's see that be made silent.
|
|
|
Post by bandtroll on Jun 5, 2009 22:26:25 GMT -5
Bandtroll, you are saying that the twins came up with all of the names, or that is most likely how the list was compiled. This is what is known as speculation, in your description, at least sometimes. Quoting you;"Only four people know how much/if any, the twins had with those names. I'm saying that the twins could have come up with all the names (people) and accusations on that list." Correct, I am saying THEY COULD HAVE. (And only the four know for sure.) Yes, "could" that is speculation. (Is assumption the word you are looking for?) Then why all the references to who I am? I have no idea who you are nor have I made any assumptions about it. BTW, How many different people have you 'assumed' I am over the last few weeks? And what difference does it make? I doubt it. BUT for some reason you/your name stuck in their head. I'm guessing the twins (and most people) could name their doctor, and could do a positive ID on their postal person, but not know the persons name. Does that mean if they were raped by their postal person that the postal person could not be charged because they didn't know them by name? (Very seldom is there a witness to a sexual assault.) Could you quote where I have said anyone should NOT ask questions? Here's a couple of times I have said people should be asking questions. Asking questions is good, getting all the facts is good. But many posts here have stated accusations as fact when they have not been proven or admitted. I would like to see more questions, more "maybe" answers and less "facts" that the poster would have no way of knowing. I have never "sworn" that the twins alone came up with the list, I have stated they could have. And yes, that I believe they did (based on the facts so far). Others here have come closer to swearing the twins did not. ?? You don't have to have a 'personal relationship' with someone to know who they are. The accusations are lies, correct? All they would have to know is who someone is or even just someones name to write that name on a list. I'm not sure how this statement confirms they did not know those on the list ?? Someone else posted To bad he (Lute1812) doesn't live in Michigan, because I believe every man the twins have met have been named.?? Wrong. They could/should have stopped them after the first few of the accused were questioned. If the first 2-3 all came back as complete lies why would they keep the investigation going? With the accused spread out across the country, it's likely that many of the accused were being researched by the time it was realized the accusations were false. If the prosecutor knew the source of the lies then, why charge the twins?
|
|
|
Post by bandtroll on Jun 5, 2009 22:39:50 GMT -5
Bandtroll, One question you avoid answering directly is from JHJMR. It is easy enough to answer, directly with out the misdirection you are so fond of. It is as follows;"The twins turned in all the names, but how can you explain names being turned in that the twins have no way of knowing that person?" How do we know that the twins had "no way of knowing (knowing of) that person?" Again, all they needed was to have seen that person or heard that persons name sometime in their lifetime. (Is that direct enough for you?) I am condemning speculation when it is stated as FACT. If someone states it as a possibility or asks a question I have not not been 'attacking' them. And I ADMIT IT, others here refuse to. And you know that I don't? I am trying to ask enough questions so people think about what is going on and realize that it is best to wait and let the courts handle it. Even when that injustice is in the form of accusing people who have not had their day in court? (Like the ex-workers) Or is there always an exception to every rule?
|
|
|
Post by bandtroll on Jun 5, 2009 22:47:28 GMT -5
Meanwhile back at the Michigan follow up, I guess Bandtroll believes that when you plead not guilty to something, you are not saying, " I didn't do it" they must be saying, " I didn't do it like that" Aw the things you learn in law. So you have never heard of anyone using a 'not guilty' plea to force a trial or to plea bargain for a better sentence?
|
|
|
Post by bandtroll on Jun 6, 2009 8:08:54 GMT -5
As I tried to say before--This is a " Abbott and Costello"---thread It goes on and on and on and on with no one saying anything of value other then ---Oh you said, No you said blah blah. Give it a break. To me this thread has no point in it anymore. Yup -- comments from the peanut gallery. Point taken.
|
|