|
Post by Brandy on Apr 25, 2005 14:01:25 GMT -5
Brandy that's my point! Drex feels she can ask any questions and people Have to answer them. Yet she doesn't answer any about herself. You notice she answers a question with another question. When Drex ask a question it's in the "spirit" of her ::)investigation. When she is asked a question then that person is considered being defensive. She is not a family member,a friend,a loved one not even an acquaintence of David Ruffin. Why should she be trusted or believed? She's just some damn fingers on a damn key board repeating the words written by others. And that's where she has it twisted Sarahlee. nobody don't have to answer anything especially when they are trying to force Diane to answer and get involved in this circus. makes no sense. you can't force people to do what you want them to do..it just doesn't work like that. I did notice..can't answer a question with a question . that's plain bull because nobody won't be beaten down and forced to what they want it's being defensive? got to be joking. I agree totally with what you're saying Sarahlee ;D
|
|
|
Post by Drex on Apr 25, 2005 15:59:08 GMT -5
I will respond/question to each question that I posted. Here it goes:
1) You said you are still trying to 'connect the dots'(just paraphrasing what you are saying) that there were inconsistancies that you lead to believe there was a conspiracy. Was or Is it conspiracy between Showers, Brown and Murrell or all 3 parties and the law enforcement officials?
I have tried to locate where I have used the word "conspiracy" and I am not challenging that I have, but I cannot find it on either board, please post it, allow mw time to read it and I will reply.
2) I guess that question is fair unless one sees the actual police report from that night. I'm assuming there was one? And it sounds like you are 'questioning' whether David died of a drug overdose, seeing as you put in parenthesis. As an assumption, what leads you to believe that he died other than 'a drug overdose'?
No, I do not question that drugs is what killed him, I question where he got the drugs, who he got the drugs from, what is the exact amount he used and most important, how they got into his system.
3)No need for response on this one.
4)If, for instance, DR did not die of said 'overdose', wouldn't the ME's finding be questioned? Can a ME tell the actual cause of death by just reading the reports? If they do find discrepancies, you are saying that an exhumming the body will not be necessary? I'm just a little confused about this point.
The ME's report is sufficient.
5) Don't you think though, that there is also some 'defamation of character' as it pertains to Diane Showers? It is easy to say that people are trying to 'evade' your questions but as SarahLee pointed out, why should this woman have to talk to you when she can simply tell the same story to a law enforcement official? Absolutely.
There has been evasion on your part as well, not to mention accusations that have been made on and about members on this board including myself. Why, after all of this, would expect them to cooperate? What is wrong with people questioning the fact that they are skeptical, not only of this case but of you? I think these questions are fair. Also, how can people answer certain things that they do not know?
There is nothing wrong with what you are saying.
6)What I was simply saying is that when things happen at a rapid pace, a person is bound forget certain minor details. It does not mean that they forget everything. That's all I am saying. It has happened time and time again in cases where a person would only remember what they think is the important details but unconsciously forget the minor details. I don't think I'm explaining this in a conherent manner but I think you get the general idea.
yes, I do and I thank you for this kind manner of questioning.
If my working toward my Master of Science in Criminal Justice really matters, I will be glad to disclose my educational credentials, however, it doesn't take "credentials" to look at a situation and see something is wrong with it. If I find a person is untruthful in any part of a statement, I tend to ignore all their statement. Especially if it would concern a death or stolen money.
|
|
Common
Ultimate Ruffness
You Got To Feel It!
Posts: 7,442
|
Post by Common on Apr 25, 2005 17:30:05 GMT -5
I will respond/question to each question that I posted. Here it goes: 1) You said you are still trying to 'connect the dots'(just paraphrasing what you are saying) that there were inconsistancies that you lead to believe there was a conspiracy. Was or Is it conspiracy between Showers, Brown and Murrell or all 3 parties and the law enforcement officials? I have tried to locate where I have used the word "conspiracy" and I am not challenging that I have, but I cannot find it on either board, please post it, allow mw time to read it and I will reply. 2) I guess that question is fair unless one sees the actual police report from that night. I'm assuming there was one? And it sounds like you are 'questioning' whether David died of a drug overdose, seeing as you put in parenthesis. As an assumption, what leads you to believe that he died other than 'a drug overdose'? No, I do not question that drugs is what killed him, I question where he got the drugs, who he got the drugs from, what is the exact amount he used and most important, how they got into his system. 3)No need for response on this one. 4)If, for instance, DR did not die of said 'overdose', wouldn't the ME's finding be questioned? Can a ME tell the actual cause of death by just reading the reports? If they do find discrepancies, you are saying that an exhumming the body will not be necessary? I'm just a little confused about this point. The ME's report is sufficient. 5) Don't you think though, that there is also some 'defamation of character' as it pertains to Diane Showers? It is easy to say that people are trying to 'evade' your questions but as SarahLee pointed out, why should this woman have to talk to you when she can simply tell the same story to a law enforcement official? Absolutely. There has been evasion on your part as well, not to mention accusations that have been made on and about members on this board including myself. Why, after all of this, would expect them to cooperate? What is wrong with people questioning the fact that they are skeptical, not only of this case but of you? I think these questions are fair. Also, how can people answer certain things that they do not know? There is nothing wrong with what you are saying. 6)What I was simply saying is that when things happen at a rapid pace, a person is bound forget certain minor details. It does not mean that they forget everything. That's all I am saying. It has happened time and time again in cases where a person would only remember what they think is the important details but unconsciously forget the minor details. I don't think I'm explaining this in a conherent manner but I think you get the general idea. yes, I do and I thank you for this kind manner of questioning. If my working toward my Master of Science in Criminal Justice really matters, I will be glad to disclose my educational credentials, however, it doesn't take "credentials" to look at a situation and see something is wrong with it. If I find a person is untruthful in any part of a statement, I tend to ignore all their statement. Especially if it would concern a death or stolen money. Drex, I will copy and paste answers so it will be easier to read: 1) I have tried to locate where I have used the word "conspiracy" and I am not challenging that I have, but I cannot find it on either board, please post it, allow mw time to read it and I will reply.No. You didn't use the word 'conspiracy'. SarahLee used it and I used the word because that is the idea that I am getting from your statements about Shower, Brown & Murrell. I am trying to get a better understanding as to why, besides statements that were made in news articles, that you feel that these 3 'know' more than they are telling. 2) No, I do not question that drugs is what killed him, I question where he got the drugs, who he got the drugs from, what is the exact amount he used and most important, how they got into his system.I can understand the questions of where and who but even if you did determine the amount of drugs he used that night, could it not be possible that even the smallest amount could have killed him? And according to Tony Turner's book, David was an asthmatic. Could not the combination of drugs and the fact David also used an inhaler(which probably was a steroid) could've been the lethal factor that caused his heart to give out? For instance, in the death of Rick James, he died from a combination of drugs, including alcohol. While Rick's drugs of choice was cocaine ,crystal meth,pain killers & another drug, which is an extreme example, in David's cause the lethal mix of crack,(which itself is mixed with toxic substances) and the steroid drug along with alcohol(which I'm sure you know is a 'depressant'), could not have caused the final result? 4) The ME's report is sufficient. Why? 6) yes, I do and I thank you for this kind manner of questioning.
If my working toward my Master of Science in Criminal Justice really matters, I will be glad to disclose my educational credentials, however, it doesn't take "credentials" to look at a situation and see something is wrong with it. If I find a person is untruthful in any part of a statement, I tend to ignore all their statement. Especially if it would concern a death or stolen money.You're welcome. As you stated, you are a citizen of the US and you have the right to question certain situations that you deem is suspicous or doesn't add up. But once you start questioning the circumstances of a public figure, I'm sure you know, that you are also subject to scrutiny. I don't know if I would totally dismiss an individual statement if person 'lies' or 'fudges' the truth. Yes, if individual has nothing to hide then there is no reason to lie. But sometimes, for some people lying is necessary and there are reasons for it. Sometimes the reasons behind the 'falsehood' is to protect the individual(s). This is only my theory and opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Jody on Apr 25, 2005 17:47:40 GMT -5
1. Who told Eddie Kendrick the briefcase was at the crackhouse?Eddie Kendrick has living relatives. Have you spoken to any of them? Part of that money belonged to Dennis Edwards,not to mention he knows the answer to this question, why haven't you spoken to him? You were in Vegas taking pictures with Tunis surely you spoke with Dennis Edwards. Did you and David argue the last time you spoke to him?
Exactly what does the answer to this question have to do with is death? Did you and your ex-husband argue the last time you spoke to him? I have 22 of the articles on disk if you would like for me to help you refresh your memory of statements made by Showers, Murrell, Brown and Nowell.
Please have more than some news paper articles. To my knowledge there is no way to interview an article. I have read post made by you that you have back tracked on. Would you want to be held by every quote attributed to you? What is the problem with answering these questions?The problem is not the questions. The fact of the matter is why answer questions asked by a unknown person that has no ties with the legal community or law enforcement? Many of these questions have been asked and answered. Your job is to find out who has the answers. Difficult to do since you have no "In" to any of these people. Surley Jody has contributed more then a few stale pictures and stories. Why hasn't she gotten you "up close and personal" with some of these people? 2. Is this going to the police? No, the FEDS is my goal. The PPD dropped the ball, IMO.
;D ;D ;D ;DNow you have lost me. ;D ;D ;DPray tell how are the FEDS going to get involved. You do know that the FEDS deal with specific types of cases don't you? Murder,Robbery of an Individual,Drug overdoses are not Federal Offenses. Are the PPD in on this Conspiracy too? I desperately want this question answeredNo, I am not “hoping” I am right. I would love to be proven wrong, hence the polygraph. Anyone, including me, has the right to ask for truthful answers to so many inconsistenciesAt last something we agree on. "Anyone" does have the right to ask questions. "No One" including yourself has the right to expect "anyone" to answer them. Why do you feel you are entitled to any answers? Are you working on behalf of the Ruffin family? Are you gathering information for any law enforcement agency? Do you really think that anybody that knows anything is going to take a internet detective seriously? Do you think that DS would speak to a person that has openly on the internet made the statements in questioning her integrity and love for David Ruffin that you have about her? There is NO way you could believe that. The polygraph You are the person that has to prove what you are about. You are the unknown in this equasion. Your credibilty and professionalism is what's in question. Everybody know who Shower's,Murrell,Brown and Nowell are. Who are you? What is your agenda? What are your credentials? Why is anyone supposed to trust you? What about YOUR inconsistecies? There are many. Is it really about the amount of the money? If it was their father’s, it should have went to them. Regardless of the amountIf you think that David Ruffin would begrudge DS 200.00 then you have no clue about this man. Have you ever stopped to think how much of "her" money went to him? You do know that was not "their" home,it was "hers" don't you? Do you even know the circumstances in which he came to live there? OR "His" financial situation during that time? What do you know of their relationship period? When I say "know" I mean "know" not some stories you have heard from Jody. Because she doesn't know. You have made this a "personal" issue with DS. Why? If all you are after is the "truth" why have YOU made statements that speak to her character? You do not know this woman,yet you speak as if you do.IMO up to this point you have lacked the professionalism that is needed to be taken seriously. Do you even know the circumstances in which he came to live there? OR "His" financial situation during that time? What do you know of their relationship period? When I say "know" I mean "know" not some stories you have heard from Jody. Because she doesn't know. Sorry Diane, I do know...:-)
|
|
Common
Ultimate Ruffness
You Got To Feel It!
Posts: 7,442
|
Post by Common on Apr 25, 2005 17:51:57 GMT -5
Against my better judgement, I am leaving this post open. However...if it gets out of hand...it will be deleted. Please respond to each other respectfully. The adminstrator has made this clear. This conversation was extremely civil and it should be kept that way.
|
|
|
Post by Drex on Apr 25, 2005 17:52:06 GMT -5
"But sometimes, for some people lying is necessary and there are reasons for it. Sometimes the reasons behind the 'falsehood' is to protect the individual(s). This is only my theory and opinion. "
Your theory has crossed my mind, when trying by process of elimination, to discard all others. I can only do this by asking the right people the right questions and receiving the truthful answers.
|
|
Common
Ultimate Ruffness
You Got To Feel It!
Posts: 7,442
|
Post by Common on Apr 25, 2005 17:54:55 GMT -5
"But sometimes, for some people lying is necessary and there are reasons for it. Sometimes the reasons behind the 'falsehood' is to protect the individual(s). This is only my theory and opinion. " Your theory has crossed my mind, when trying by process of elimination, to discard all others. I can only do this by asking the right people the right questions and receiving the truthful answers. What do you think about the comments as it pertains to the combination of drugs/alcohol/medication?
|
|
|
Post by Drex on Apr 25, 2005 18:14:30 GMT -5
What do you think about the comments as it pertains to the combination of drugs/alcohol/medication? I find no reason to disagree with what is on record, only that the record and all its medical terms be explained to his family.
|
|
|
Post by EmergingRuffian on Apr 25, 2005 18:17:10 GMT -5
Sadly Drex has proven she does not know what she is talking about.
This is a summary of the Freedom of Information Act she claims gives her license to question DER's death and DS' motives.
"The Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. 552, provides individuals with a right to access to records in the possession of the federal government. The government may withhold information pursuant to the nine exemptions and three exclusions contained in the Act. The Electronic FOIA ("E-FOIA") Amendments which President Clinton signed into law in 1996, amended the law in several ways, including:
extend from 10 to 20 business days (excluding holidays) the time agencies must respond to requests for information; require agencies to make reasonable efforts to make records available in formats desired by requesters; require agencies to submit the NIH FOIA Annual Report by fiscal year; require agencies to make the reports available to the public by computer telecommunications or other electronic means; require agencies to list their major information systems, record locator systems, and a reference guide or guide for obtaining information; and require agencies to establish electronic reading rooms that include agency policies, staff manuals, opinions made in the adjudication of cases, and an index of records released by FOIA that are likely to become the subject of subsequent FOIA requests. these amendments have to be implemented by specific dates.
|
|
|
Post by Drex on Apr 25, 2005 18:29:19 GMT -5
Sadly Drex has proven she does not know what she is talking about. This is a summary of the Freedom of Information Act she claims gives her license to question DER's death and DS' motives. "The Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA"), 5 U.S.C. 552, provides individuals with a right to access to records in the possession of the federal government. The government may withhold information pursuant to the nine exemptions and three exclusions contained in the Act. The Electronic FOIA ("E-FOIA") Amendments which President Clinton signed into law in 1996, amended the law in several ways, including: extend from 10 to 20 business days (excluding holidays) the time agencies must respond to requests for information; require agencies to make reasonable efforts to make records available in formats desired by requesters; require agencies to submit the NIH FOIA Annual Report by fiscal year; require agencies to make the reports available to the public by computer telecommunications or other electronic means; require agencies to list their major information systems, record locator systems, and a reference guide or guide for obtaining information; and require agencies to establish electronic reading rooms that include agency policies, staff manuals, opinions made in the adjudication of cases, and an index of records released by FOIA that are likely to become the subject of subsequent FOIA requests. these amendments have to be implemented by specific dates. Keep digging ER, and check PA statutes. In addition, some states are identical and some vary.
|
|
|
Post by EmergingRuffian on Apr 25, 2005 18:39:14 GMT -5
I stand by my previous statement. Pennsylvania has a right to know act specifically for the Department of Revenue, an Emergency Management directive regarding the release of sensitive documents in light of 9/11, and various special education provisions for compliance with NCLB.
You stated that the FOIA gave you license to question everything regarding the circumstances of DERs death. I pointed out that this act is a federal act, has nothing to do with what you are doing. You were wrong.
Statutes from other states are irrelevant since DER died n Pennsylvania unless you plan on taking your investigation to Colorado.
You still don't know what you are talking about.
|
|
|
Post by Drex on Apr 25, 2005 18:44:20 GMT -5
I stand by my previous statement. Pennsylvania has a right to know act specifically for the Department of Revenue, an Emergency Management directive regarding the release of sensitive documents in light of 9/11, and various special education provisions for compliance with NCLB. You stated that the FOIA gave you license to question everything regarding the circumstances of DERs death. I pointed out that this act is a federal act, has nothing to do with what you are doing. You were wrong. Statutes from other states are irrelevant since DER died n Pennsylvania unless you plan on taking your investigation to Colorado. You still don't know what you are talking about. Ok, no arguement here.
|
|
Common
Ultimate Ruffness
You Got To Feel It!
Posts: 7,442
|
Post by Common on Apr 25, 2005 18:44:43 GMT -5
I find no reason to disagree with what is on record, only that the record and all its medical terms be explained to his family. The only reason why I brought that up was because if you are questioning who gave him the drugs, I would also think that this would lead to a statement that Eddie K. said in Tony's book. Paraphrasing Eddie, he said he felt that someone 'cooked up a special rock' and that David could not handle it. So I was just assuming that even with all that, since, really there is no 'special' rock, crack is derived from various substances mixed together. I guess I'm getting the vibe that whoever gave or got the crack for David, that there might be something sinister behind that. I don't know.
|
|
|
Post by Drex on Apr 25, 2005 18:48:21 GMT -5
"Statutes from other states are irrelevant since DER died n Pennsylvania unless you plan on taking your investigation to Colorado. " But do "all" the important papers actually record that he died in PA or MI?
|
|
|
Post by Drex on Apr 25, 2005 18:56:26 GMT -5
The only reason why I brought that up was because if you are questioning who gave him the drugs, I would also think that this would lead to a statement that Eddie K. said in Tony's book. Paraphrasing Eddie, he said he felt that someone 'cooked up a special rock' and that David could not handle it. So I was just assuming that even with all that, since, really there is no 'special' rock, crack is derived from various substances mixed together. I guess I'm getting the vibe that whoever gave or got the crack for David, that there might be something sinister behind that. I don't know. I believe that by finding the answers, the truthful answers, to the questions I have provided would also lead to the discovery of anything that may or may have not been sinister. If I cannot get a straight answer to questions like: where was Brown from 3 - 4 a.m., or who told Mr. Eddie the briefcase was at the alleged crack house before and w/o witnesses being located and questioned, I do not expect anyone to admit to any sinister involvement concerning the purification % of the cocaine.
|
|