Been a while for any comments. Can't believe that people thought there might be an excuse for this kind of treatment!!
Here's a Cut & Paste of just SOME of the cop's BS I have found while looking into this:
This is the BCI report that Agent Christy S. Palmer sent to John D. Ferrero, Prosecuting Attorney Stark County Ohio.
Dated April 16, 2008 BCI Case #: SI-76-08-14-0147

This is part of page 3

http://s2.photobucket.com/albums/y39/Zemo999/?action=view¤t=BCI-Report.jpg

Sheriff Swanson has ALWAYS maintained that Steffey was ASKED & REFUSED to remove her cloths.

But here’s the BCI’s OWN REPORT that PROVES this is a LIE!

And then they try to explain away their first lie with another lie, about why it was done this way without asking Steffey to do it voluntarily.

They are trying to say that Steffey was resisting enough that EIGHT people (5 women, 3 men) couldn't take the chance of ASKING her to remove her cloths, or EVEN TELL HER WHAT WAS GOING ON!!!
What a crock!!

I did NOT see any resisting in the video, I saw eight cops parading her to the cell, with her in cuffs.

In fact EVERY video I have seen she is in cuffs!
And the ONLY times I have seen her react to the cops is after they have assaulted her or in the process of stripping her naked.

But apparently catching the sheriff's dept in a lie isn't a big deal to our "independent" BCI investigator, Christy Palmer, who seems ready to accept ANY excuse the sheriff's dept wants to use.

The report also goes on to say that they lowered Steffey in a slow controlled manner to the floor. Except that Steffey says she was thrown to the floor.
She also told her husband in a phone call that she thought the cops had broken her nose.
And she was treated by the nurse for the injury.
And in page 4 of this report Christy Palmer even states that Steffey reported that her nose was making "crunching noises".

So I guess this is proof of a second LIE! (Or third)

And still Christy Palmer, the "independent investigator" doesn’t think twice about accepting the word of the cops over the VICTIMS in spite of proof.
BTW, Christy also references a video that she says “proves that she was lowered in a slow controlled manner to the floor”. As far as I know, THIS would have to be on the 'non-existent' beginning of the strip video.
On May 5th when I asked about the "missing" video, I was told it would soon be released.
Now here again it looks as though it’s referenced...even though they NOW claim it does not exist.
Interesting. (I have filed a request for this video.)

This isn’t so much an investigation report as it is a smear campaign against Hope Steffey.

The cops can polish this turd as much as want, this STILL STINKS!

BTW I don't know why they bothered to black out the names of Nurse Coren Lennon and the jail psychologist Thomas Anuszkiewicz, aren't they PROUD of the work they do?

Just to fact check Rove, since he lies like a dog, Bush increased the debt by $5 trillion, not $2.9 trillion.

Also, the claims that the Republican plan created more jobs using Christina Romer's own model is also false, and even her own staff have directly responded to this claim, indicating that it is inaccurate.

Otherwise, it's just kind've shocking to see the This Week panel turned into such chaos, it's normally one of my favorite panels since they often find smart people to represent different ideological views who aren't overly argumentative.

It was entertaining though, and amusing to see Rove be a jackass. Normally he has Chris Wallace in his lap whispering softball questions in his ear these days.

Lots should be replaced by minority.

My biggest problem here is the way he discusses the data. Or the brief moment, where he discusses the data. I am not convinced by his discussion... I would have to look at the data myself, by that I mean look at it in data analysis software. You can't just take to frames form a movie and overlay them to make a conclusion, that is nonsense.

No doubt there is some uncertain on both axis, I think the point of the plot was to say they are correlated. My impression is that it is not an essential point which one comes first.

His panel of experts are well-known for their opinion. John Christy, Spencer, and I think maybe Ryder, all published results on satellite data in Nature, which suggested global cooling. Unfortunately, they had errors in their data analysis, and it had to be reanalyzed and corrected. The errata actually shows warming.

So it is very much dependent on when this was taped.

What I would have liked to Stossel report on is can anything really be done about global warming or should it be? I think even these scientist would agree with that... in fact I know they do.

In the series it was a Ressikan flute.
The flute in the show couldn't be played and was auctioned off by Christie's for $40,000.
According to Wiki, and other places I've looked, the sound from the flute is most likely from a penny or tin whistle.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'doug christie, the roast, heckler, pwnd' to 'Doug Williams, doug christie, the roast, heckler, pwnd' - edited by doogle

This was Sal the Stockbroker and Richard Christy from the Howard Stern Show. Yawn.

Ok, found the stupid bitch: Cristi Adkins. Wonder is she is related to "Dr. Atkins" and his miracle destroy your liver diet.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,365687,00.html

COLMES: I don't understand how you go from Hillary Clinton to John McCain. Does that mean you all of the sudden; you would like to overturn Roe versus Wade? All of a sudden, you don't want equal rights for gays? All of a sudden, you don't want energy independence? All of a sudden, you don't want to end the war in Iraq? He has the diametrically opposed views on those issues to Hillary Clinton. How do you make that leap?

ADKINS: That's not — the bridge to McCain is a lot closer than the radical gap to Senator Obama.

Again... what a cunt!

Clintons4Mccain Founder Cristi Adkins says, "Move over David Duke, there's a new racist going for the oval office. Hillary supporters have seen Obama unfairly play the race card time and time again. In fact, Obama's crypto-ethnic, inflammatory remarks have become the senator's number one method of distracting voters from his lack of qualifications, numerous flip-flops and dangerous associations."

Um... why not throw Hitler in there.. So Obama is David Duke??!!


What a lunatic.. These are both her, correct ->
http://www.foxnews.com/images/379377/0_61_061008_hc_adkins_320.jpg
http://www.enlightenmymind.com/images/christi.jpg

Cristi Babin Adkins, RN, CHT is certified in hypno-therapy by the National Guild of Hypnotists and a Registered Nurse who specializes in the body-mind-spirit approach. She served as the state representative for the American Holistic Nurses Association for the state of Utah in 1998-1999

Haha.. hypnotherapist. What a loser, how does she get national airtime????!

1. Porn cultivates good relationships. --- Porn has little or nothing to do with relationships. A relationship that is centered around, or influenced by, porn isn't much of a relationship to begin with. I've watched porn with girlfriends, but it was kind of distracting and unfulfilling. I really don't think porn has a lot to do with relationships any more than dreaming does.

2. Porn is for men who sincerely appreciate the beauty of the female body. --- It's less an appreciation for women's bodies than it is a need to see those bodies in order to gratify themselves and release some tension.

3. Porn is harmless and it has no negative effect on the person using it. --- It can be addicting, but certain people seem to need it more than others, kind of like booze.

4. Strippers and porn stars lead glamorous lives, and men respect them. --- As compared to what? A bank teller or a waitress? Some lead glamorous lives, most don't. Respect? That depends, too, on the woman and the man. Just as there are some real creeps in that crowd, there are some real bitches, too.

5. Men like variety in women so porn use helps a man stay faithful to his woman. --- Porn has little or nothing to do with relationships. Porn is a device used by some people to amuse themselves or satisfy themselves or relieve themselves with an orgasm, arguably one of the most pleasant experiences known to humanity. The impact that porn has on a person's fealty to his or her lover is usually nil.

6. Women who get involved in the porn industry choose to do so, and they have valuable careers. --- Most, obviously, choose to do so, as do the men. Rarely does a woman make a porno with someone holding a gun to her head. Some do have successful careers, like Christie Canyon or Nina Hartley. The same is true for the men, like Peter North. It comes with a price, of course, but the stigma of being in a porno has lessened greatly over the years.

7. Porn is an outlet or safety valve for men who would otherwise do Bad Things. --- Probably false on the whole. Again, the relationship between porn and human interactivity is almost nonexistant. Rapists don't need porn, they need rape. Pederasts don't need porn, they need little boys. People who need porn usually have some kind of hightened or unique sexual urge that is not being satisfied and porn is the only course to achieving that satisfaction.

8. Women who work in porn are empowered and sexually liberated. --- As opposed to women who don't work in porn who are empowered and sexually liberated? Porn is a job. Few jobs are empowering or sexually liberating.

9. Porn is just a fantasy and people do not apply it to real life. --- Overall, that's true. People who like and use porn are usually more imaginative than those who don't. The kind of people who have to apply things to "real life" are usually not users of porn. I would say that most people who use porn get to a point where they have to fetishize some aspect of it to keep from being bored. It's an outlet, a distraction, and ultimately very private in nature.

Ohh GoogleFu!

On CATO Insitute:

The Institute's work on global warming has been a particular source of controversy. The Institute has held a number of briefings on global warming with global warming skeptics as panelists. In December 2003, panelists included Patrick Michaels, Robert Balling and John Christy. Balling and Christy have since made statements indicating that global warming is, in fact, related at least some degree to anthropogenic activity:

No known mechanism can stop global warming in the near term. International agreements, such as the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, would have no detectable effect on average temperature within any reasonable policy time frame (i.e., 50 years or so), even with full compliance.

In response to the World Watch Report in May 2003 that linked climate change and severe weather events, Jerry Taylor said:

It's false. There is absolutely no evidence that extreme weather events are on the increase. None. The argument that more and more dollar damages accrue is a reflection of the greater amount of wealth we've created."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute#On_environmental_policy

On Kyoto's CBA:

"Economists have been trying to analyze the overall net benefit of Kyoto Protocol through cost-benefit analysis. There is disagreement due to large uncertainties in economic variables. Some of the estimates indicate either that observing the Kyoto Protocol is more expensive than not observing the Kyoto Protocol or that the Kyoto Protocol has a marginal net benefit which exceeds the cost of simply adjusting to global warming.[citation needed] However, a study in Nature found that "accounting only for local external costs, together with production costs, to identify energy strategies, compliance with the Kyoto Protocol would imply lower, not higher, overall costs."

The recent Copenhagen consensus project found that the Kyoto Protocol would slow down the process of global warming, but have a superficial overall benefit. Defenders of the Kyoto Protocol argue, however, that while the initial greenhouse gas cuts may have little effect, they set the political precedent for bigger (and more effective) cuts in the future. They also advocate commitment to the precautionary principle. Critics point out that additional higher curbs on carbon emission are likely to cause significantly higher increase in cost, making such defense moot. Moreover, the precautionary principle could apply to any political, social, economic or environmental consequence, which might have equally devastating effect in terms of poverty and environment, making the precautionary argument irrelevant. The Stern Review (a UK government sponsored report into the economic impacts of climate change) concluded that one percent of global GDP is required to be invested in order to mitigate the effects of climate change, and that failure to do so could risk a recession worth up to twenty percent of global GDP."

Curbing climate change is going to incur costs, however production costs increasing is a short term goal that is recoverable over the longer term. Our planet and climate is not recoverable if the extremes are met.

I mean the argument is like saying there is no point to quit smoking or even say you are planning to quit smoking because the cots of me being more nervous and edgy is too much.

Kyoto represents political commitment, something that we can hold governments to and build on to more issues. Saying its going to incur costs is a moot point. Of course it will cost, what do you expect? You can have something for nothing. But yeah I would pay more to have a normal weather system.

>> ^kronosposeidon:
..it might be a bit of a cliffhanger.
SPOILER ALERT
The butler did it.


Haven't you read Agatha Christie? It was the narrator!

Stacy Keibler vs Christy Hemme? Upvote for that and the interaction between JR and the King...JR: "Do you like the spanking?" King: "I love the spanking!" ...classic RAW commentating.

I think maybe you are taking my only half serious comments a little too seriously. I think "attacked him heavily for this" might be an overstatement. I didn't drone about one thing(I think I made one comment) I said a couple things that I found annoying.

I think he does selectively edit the video, but I will watch it again.

What I dislike with his style of journalism is that (although I know it is not intended to) he does not present both sides of an argument. He seems to intend to be inflammatory, and he neglects to mention pertinent facts about experts that he interviews(that I didn't mention before, but I will do it now). For example, that I know of, John Christy was the only scientist on his panel that published data showing that global warming doesn't happen. Did Stossel mention the fact that in a subsequent paper Chirsty's finding were called into question and they had to publish a correction? This is from Wikipedia: "A February 2000 story about organic vegetables on 20/20 included statements by Stossel that tests had shown that neither organic nor conventional produce samples contained any pesticide residue, and that organic food was more likely to be contaminated by E. coli bacteria" which turned out to be completely false. But what I really don't like is that I don't think inflammatory interviews are what America needs right now when we talk about things that matter.

Instead, people should have real conversations about these issues and discuss them completely. Giving each side a fair place to present their points.

Perhaps, it is the way I read it, but maybe we should tone down our discussion. Other than that it is fun to talk about these things.

MH

My antagonism is based on the fact that I am tired of people making intelligent comments and then ruining it by naming calling... It was just frustration.

However, I maintain that sheeple is not a word(See red squiggly). Other words could have expressed your viewpoint equally as well, and not, in my opinion, trivialized you comment.

This is his paper, which is widely regarded as one of the very few(if not the only) papers which presents data that suggests the globe is not warming.

SPENCER RW, CHRISTY JR
PRECISE MONITORING OF GLOBAL TEMPERATURE TRENDS FROM SATELLITES
SCIENCE 247 (4950): 1558-1562 MAR 30 1990

It was followed by a subsequent paper, which calls into question his conclusions and analysis. I can get that reference for you as well.

And actually there was another paper in Science

LETTERS
Consensus About Climate Change?
Roger A. Pielke, Jr.; and Naomi Oreskes (13 May 2005)
Science 308 (5724), 952. [DOI: 10.1126/science.308.5724.952]

which reiterates my comment. There has been absolutely NO peer reviewed published data showing that the globe is not warming(which has not been subsequently called into question or repealed). In most cases, I would never say anything so unequivocable, but what I have said is true. Or at least was true the last time I checked the literature. If you can find a citation which shows data that the globe is not warming, I would love to see it.

I see that you agree, that the globe is warming. I would still argue that the at least 75% of the published data suggests that the cause is anthropagenic. [Roger A. Pielke, Jr.; and Naomi Oreskes, Science 308 (5724), 952]

Warning.... extremely long post below. :-D

Mycroft, I reread my post to try and understand your first paragraph. I see where you get that "name calling" bit and I realize how it might seem I am calling someone here a sheeple. Believe me when I say that this was not my intent. So far, everyone here has been capable of having rational discourse and that generally means they are not in fact sheeple. As for the making up words part, I highly suggest that before you begin hanging logical constructs on sheeple not being a word you do just a tiny bit of research. I'm sure if you had done that in this case, you would have found that sheeple is indeed an accepted word in the internet/urban lexicon. Would I publish it in "Nature"? No. But in this venue it is a perfectly acceptable word and clearly not one which I have "made up". I am trying to understand why the tone of your message is so antagonistic in tone. You feel the need to explain anthropogenic to me when I have tried to show that I am relatively well educated. The tone of your comments appears to call my scholarship in question and seems to imply that any arguments I have made are “bad”. Please note that I am not trying to push a viewpoint here, nor am I attacking anyone’s golden calf. I am merely stating my opinions and asking that everyone learn about all sides of an argument before choosing a side to believe. Thus, my reference to “Don’t be a sheeple.”

Ok, with that bit of business out of the way I can address the actual meat of your comment. I do not understand why you ask if I have read any peer-reviewed literature. You might remember from my previous post how I stated that I had nearly completed my PhD in an “environmental” field. I would hazard a guess to say that I am as conversant with recent literature as probably more than 95% of the US population. I’m not trying to claim to be a genius or anything; just that because of my impending dissertation defense that I have paid a bit more attention to the literature than most. In regards to the question if I had read “the paper in Science” by John Christy, I have to ask… Which one? I have read a couple of papers recently in which John R. Christy was an author as well as a number of Letters to the Editor credited to him. I’ll withhold comment until I am sure which one you are referencing.

I am impressed by your willingness to state with “absolute authority” that there is no evidence that the globe is not warming. For the most part, scientists scrupulously avoid absolutes like that. I’m not going to question your absolute authority just because I don’t want to be the jackass of the group and dig out some obscure citation to "prove" you wrong. Seems like every conference I've been to has that one guy that likes to sharpshoot your presentation with a paper from the Journal of Really Crappy Science. I am not that guy. In fact, I happen to agree with you, the globe is warming. (See those other comments above) I will also stipulate that I think man is playing a part in the warming of the planet. I will however stand by all of my arguments in the comments above. I invite you to argue against any of them and will gladly read anything you have to say. I do not discount your or anyone’s opinions and am always open to learning more about the subject matter.

Damnit, dude. Don't say sheeple anymore. There are at least 4 signs to a bad argument, making up words is like #3 and name calling is #2.

(I need to finish reading all your comments...give me a moment before getting offended at this next bit.)

Have you read John Christy's paper in Science? Have you any scientific peer reviewed paper on this subject?

I have. I am telling you with absolute authority: There is no scientific data that indicates the globe is not warming. Moreover, the majority indicates that the cause is anthropagenic(caused by people).