Skip to comments.
Clothing Found With Chandra's Body (Condit-Levy)
6-9-02
| crystalk
Posted on 06/09/2002 8:51:11 PM PDT by crystalk
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 201-211 next last
To: chemainus
Don't have lab tests back yet. Could be lyme is on the bones. Can Lyme be washed away?
To: dalebert
This is a moot question as it was not done because the effect is useless.... and you do not go to Luray for lime...go to your nearest Southern States or Lowes or garden center.... the 50# bags that sell for $1.86 is the same stuff the health food store or Pharmacy sells you in a little bottle of 30 tablets for $5.96 to eat....... leave the lime thing alone...it is a false trail...think freezer ( remote burial provides NO REASON to exhume).....
To: chemainus
HEY YOU GUUUUYS !! The Spain thing is intriguing...more info ? Also , someone was developing a TIMELINE for 1) Condit minute by minute 2) Lynch 3) Condit's other queer aide 4) Chandra minute by minute..... any news on this ?
To: chemainus
Okay, I'm backing off the lime thing.
( remote burial provides NO REASON to exhume).....
You're still assuming here the person who buried is the same as the person who exhumed. I propose that need not be the case -- see post #54.
124
posted on
06/11/2002 12:01:09 PM PDT
by
Plummz
To: chemainus
All that is known about the Chiang-Spain thing is what has been spelled out on this thread. Condit and Chiang were in Spain the same year, but no one knows when exactly Chiang was in Spain. Maybe you could riung up her brother Roger and ask.
125
posted on
06/11/2002 12:02:30 PM PDT
by
Plummz
To: chemainus
you do not go to Luray for lime There are other kinds of mines in Luray, I beleive, but I forget the details.
126
posted on
06/11/2002 12:03:25 PM PDT
by
Plummz
To: Crowcreek
Believe me C., I DO have an idea. It is very outlandish in any crime to suggest that someone moved the body, much less divided it, possibly into two different custodies-- after its original disposition. I am well aware how risky that WHB, and how seemingly weird it wd be esp if the main part were then only going to put out where it WB found!
More dearly than you, even, I would like to use occam's r. and cut out some of this, but again as I told another poster, I am being mugged by facts. Facts I take as facts.
If at some point I learn the facts (incl saw marks) are not fact, I will be the first to post it to you.
To: crystalk
Again, I ask - where did you get the "fact" of the saw mark?
128
posted on
06/11/2002 12:35:59 PM PDT
by
Plummz
To: Plummz
Look, P, your theory and mine are virtually identical.
The only difference I know of, is that you would either have the body entire, or have fallen apart purely by chance, with the left leg purely by chance having been the missing part.
I am willing in my theory to go ahead and posit a sawing off of the leg, though not specifying just how long after death this may have been.
Where there is a saw there are saw marks.
Please leave it alone there until we have more complete data.
Om mani padme hum. Shalom aleykhem.
To: crystalk
If I read a report there are saw marks, I'll posit a sawing. Proceeding vice versa makes not much sense.
130
posted on
06/11/2002 5:53:14 PM PDT
by
Plummz
To: Plummz
And if I read a report that there was sawing, I will assume that there were saw marks, and further that that is probably why there was said to have been sawing.
To: crystalk
Where did you read there was sawing?
132
posted on
06/11/2002 6:13:10 PM PDT
by
Plummz
To: Plummz
I will not hit abuse, as long as that is your last post to me in this life.
To: crystalk
I'm still operating under the assumption this is a research site, and I can ask people to cite something they claim. I'm not looking to make enemies. The simple options in answering the straightforward question I asked are:
- Cite the source of the report,
- State that your source is confidential and you can't share it, or
- Clarify that you're assuming something from the given facts (in this case, the largely-missing leg).
Any answer would be entirely reasonable, and so would telling me I was an idiot for not understanding which you meant, if indeed that was warranted. Your posts have read in such a way that I am not sure of which you're driving at. If there is a report I missed, I would like to read it. Threatening to click abuse does nothing to deepen the understanding of anyone.
134
posted on
06/11/2002 6:37:10 PM PDT
by
Plummz
To: chemainus
I've quartered deer over 200lbs, with a knife, in the dark, fool. Why would pretty boy condit, or any of his fussy friends want to do it , JUST TO REMOVE ONE LEG ?
To: crystalk
"If at some point I learn the facts (incl saw marks) are not fact, I will be the first to post it to you."What - Saw - Marks ??
If I were you - I'd give up your saw-mark evidence, or shut up and crawl back to the 'idea asylum'.
To: crystalk
"And if I read a report that there was sawing, I will assume that there were saw marks, and further that that is probably why there was said to have been sawing."Never mind, I finally found the 'evidence'.
Why don't you take up bingo?
To: Crowcreek
That wouldn't give you all these hours of entertainment. I am such an attractive nuisance to your type.
To: crystalk
So you're just a friendly troll . . .
To: Crowcreek
a lovely day for a troll in the park.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160 ... 201-211 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson