It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Laura Bush a killer?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 08:45 AM
link   
From my understanding, it was dark (at night) and she didn't see the stopsign. I don't know about y'all, but that has happened to me at least once or twice. People get distracted - especially young people with passengers.

It happens to the best of us:



Nader calls on congressman to resign after fatal wreck
Crash under investigation
Thursday, August 28, 2003 Posted: 2:30 PM EDT (1830 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Ralph Nader and other consumer advocates called on South Dakota congressman William Janklow to resign Thursday after Janklow was involved in a fatal wreck near his hometown earlier this month.
www.cnn.com...


As for the privacy issue, Laura Bush is a human being who happens to be the First Lady. She accidentally killed a good friend. She was probably traumatised by it. I don't see anything wrong with respecting her privacy in this matter.

For the record, she dint even know Dubya at the time.




posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bout Time
So innocent, then why so guarded & buried?
[edit on 22-6-2005 by Bout Time]


I can't imagine how horrible you must percieve human nature to be. Honestly, it's kind of sad that you expect such horrible actions out of people and are shocked that others don't. I really hope you can come to see the good in people that is there.

As to why they're being so guarded and buried, she was a minor, and those records are supposed to be expunged. That's law that was created by your liberal friends protecting minors under the age of 18 so their youthful actions won't impact their mature adult life from a legal sense. There's not supposed to be a double standard for people in the spotlight or in opposing political parties.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
As to why they're being so guarded and buried, she was a minor, and those records are supposed to be expunged.


That's an excellent point, JJ.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
I can't imagine how horrible you must percieve human nature to be. Honestly, it's kind of sad that you expect such horrible actions out of people and are shocked that others don't. I really hope you can come to see the good in people that is there.


If you look at the facts, I have a much higher regard for the human spirit & character than those whose swear Jesus is the only salvation for mankind or want to dictate via manipulation of laws, how we govern our own lives.
The second part is this - experience has seen the powerful exist under different standards than the weak, and the majority enjoying different benefits than the minority. If you believe that the wealthy & powerful like the Bush or Kennedy clans are subject to the same rules as yourself, you may be too naive to be discussing politics.
Exactly what type of duress is Laura Bush going to endure via examination of the facts? It's old let it go.....is that the mindset? A Klansman in Tenn. enjoyed the same 40 year reprieve until just recently, yet was found guilty.
Could a child of a town luminary be subject to white glove treatment for a transgression? It's more than possible, especially in small town Texas 40 years ago.
What's sad is your naive perception of the egalitarian nature for all things Bush.

Forgot to add: what exactly is being expunged if there were no charges leveled? If you're advocating that in this circumstance, isn't that advocating the destruction of potential evidence?

[edit on 22-6-2005 by Bout Time]



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 04:15 PM
link   
I was actually refering to your immediate assumption not only of guilt, but a grand conspiracy to allow her to murder her fiance out of spite and be protected by her money.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 04:23 PM
link   
I said it was innocent on her part - I think she was completely innocent in her intentions, other than wanting to wreck his car. My first car was an old 1971 4 dr Cutlass - going back to her day, she likely felt like me ...that she was driving a tank and nothing but fenders would be wrecked. a 30 MPH collision will definetly throw you out of a vehicle with no doors & no seatbelt.....hardly speeding.

I went to private schools with the affluent; I know exactly those type of young attitude monsters I'm speaking about.



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 04:35 PM
link   
While I don't disagree those "special" people are out there, I don't think they're the norm. Also, in this situation, she would have to be incredible in her timing to be able to smack into him just as he was going through that intersection. She would have had to know exactly how long he stops at all stopsigns, what the timing is on all the lights he'd have to go through to compensate for any reds he might catch, his tendancies for driving or stopping for yellow lights, how fast he drives in various speed zones (I don't speed in residential, but I do on highways), exactly when he left from his location, and the exact traffic situation, including if there were any idiots who like to drive about 20 under the speedlimit (there's lots of them in Wisconsin
). With all that information, she would have been able to catch him at the exact moment he went through the stopsign.

Someone had mentioned earlier on this thread that in wide open country you'd be able to see him coming while being parked on the side of the road, then punch the gas and get there on time. Easy in words, but not in practice.

She was driving 50 miles per hour when she hit him in a 50 miles per hour zone. In order to orchestrate such a murder, or even vandalism and destruction to property, she would have to be a car and math wiz. She would have to know exactly how fast her car accelerates, how far away to get to get up to 50 when he pulled into the intersection, how quickly he stops at stopsigns, how quickly he accelerates out of them, what influence the road conditions had on her and his driving, and how quickly her fiance accelerates after a stopsign.

If she was able to do all of this, then it was absloutly murder, because she would have known the effects of a collision at 50 mph. No investigation was made by the officer at the scene (ie before the money started getting shoveled over to cover up the crime). This would imply that there was nothing suspicious at the scene. Going 50 miles per hour, if her timing was off by even a second, she would have to swerve her car to hit him. If she did that, there would be skid marks left on the road towards where his car was. Were I to see that, I would suspect something more may have been involved, but the cop did not.

We are working with very few details here, and my tendancy is to assume innocence until presented with enough evidence to be able to come to a solid conclusion of guilt.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 08:04 AM
link   
But why assume the "going through the intersection" thing is correct? I agree, we don't have the information, the FOI has been blocked.
It's tough to assume innocence, based on the family track record....too many deaths, not enough answers. That babysitter run over by her own car in the family driveway was my favorite!



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 12:15 PM
link   
She had no connection to George W. Bush and his family at the time of the accident; therefore, his influence had nothing to do with it.

I suspect the good ol' boys in charge probly felt bad for the traumatized young Laura, and didn't see the point in pursuing any charges. It being a freak accident.

These kind of accidents happen all the time.

And just for the record, in high school I had a '65 Chevelle. That thing was a tank. I hit a telephone pole in town one night and it barely dented it (the struck side).



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join