Above The Borderline: A: A Hot Air One Night Stand

12/31/2006

A: A Hot Air One Night Stand

Q: What do you call it when www.ontheborderline.nutz blogger Luke Carnac address local "bored" meetings?

5 comments:

CANRAC said...: Canrac on Hot Air.

What have we gotten instead of hard facts regarding who wrote a threat letter where an alledged forensics expert was utilized?; December 29, 2006
CANRAC said...: Canrac on more hot air.

What we got when an OTBL moron claimed his name was used in a letter or mailing regarding the New Richmond School District elections, once again proof was never provided.; December 29, 2006
Anonymous said...: The point is the OTBL accusers are so full of their own ego, that they know "NOTHING ABOUT ANYTHING". The so called forensic experts were a joke, end of story. The Grand Puba of the group was kicked out of an Atlanta Court for guess what.... being a fraud. The other two jokes had NO experience and only took ....supposedly an on line course, and had no criminal experience. That is fact, not fiction folks. Yet (OTBL) they have a dysfunctional fetish for slandering other GOOD people.
My guess is that this is a reflection of some of the afore-mentioned clowns that get off on demeaning other real people with fabrications, and are disruptive where ever they show their dysfunctional sleaze. The fact is that many of us are aware of the past these people have, and each most certainly have skeletons in their own closets, where they should be the last people to throw stones in their GLASS houses.; December 29, 2006
CANRAC said...: The forensics deal is real basic and simple, testimony or findings are not acceptable unless they handle the original copy. Now theories or opinions can be made based on a visual, however they will never stand up and you cannot give them credibility. If indeed the Wisconsin Crime Lab does have this document, I'm sure its in the "no big deal, low priority" file.

And lastly I will admit, some of the thoughts on "who" are very legitimate to me, and I don't totally disagree. It's just the boasting and uncredible statements that were made which are unacceptable. I came to a similiar conclusion early into this thing, and without consulting a forensics expert or reading the OTBL conspriacy theories.; December 30, 2006
Anonymous said...: There is a process involved in any investigation that is fact based, and not based on political threats of an individual or group of individuals, and any given bias. There also is the reality of how fluid any one case is in relationship to it's priority, based on the availability of evidence, and the seriousness of the crime, in comparison to other crimes under investigation.
The critics in this particular case are responding from a misconstrued sense of knowledge, and overinflated egos.
They didn't like the means that information was solicited from the public, well tough, that's an investigative choice that the police have, and frankly have every right to use. No accusations were ever made (other than wrongly-so by these critics...who we all know), despite some egocentric accusations by some very narrow-minded people.
DNA testing is a very limited resource, and if the police have that evidence in-hand,they have every right to use that evidence as an investigative tool. However they also would need a DNA match in-order to identify any suspect. Even when that suspect is identified, they would still need to establish probable cause.
But, this is nothing new from them. Didn't they react the same way in other publicized criminal cases, where they didn't have a clue?; December 30, 2006

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)