Justice Watch Support JW "Enquirer - Thread 6" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... Enquirer - Thread 6, Watching you, 16:52:56, 3/23/2001 WY,, Country Girl, 17:08:37, 3/23/2001, (#1) Well, I've waited on this long enough , darby, 17:44:09, 3/23/2001, (#2) Good grief, Darby., Holly, 18:41:10, 3/23/2001, (#8) If they didn't want, Watching you, 17:44:41, 3/23/2001, (#3) Thank you, Patsy ......., Bets, 17:50:12, 3/23/2001, (#4) Bets, JR, 21:38:45, 3/23/2001, (#19) WY, ayelean, 17:54:32, 3/23/2001, (#5) Bets, ayelean, 18:07:03, 3/23/2001, (#6) Ayelean, Watching you, 18:10:21, 3/23/2001, (#7) Heartbreaking, Pope38, 18:42:28, 3/23/2001, (#9) Speaking of pictures, SJ, 13:27:50, 3/24/2001, (#33) SJ, JR, 15:42:26, 3/24/2001, (#35) I buy the, Holly, 18:51:45, 3/23/2001, (#10) Another alternative, Mini, 21:08:56, 3/23/2001, (#16) Reply to Ned, Diwi, 18:54:53, 3/23/2001, (#11) WY & darby, fly, 19:35:56, 3/23/2001, (#12) Well, fly & Holly, darby, 20:50:08, 3/23/2001, (#13) Darby, ayelean, 22:15:28, 3/23/2001, (#21) Darby..., Pedro, 21:04:59, 3/23/2001, (#14) Diwi, FT, 21:13:40, 3/23/2001, (#17) Pedro, darby, 21:08:33, 3/23/2001, (#15) Darby..., Pedro, 21:16:14, 3/23/2001, (#18) Pictures, Sabrina, 21:53:23, 3/23/2001, (#20) Pedro, darby, 22:20:43, 3/23/2001, (#22) Darby, momo, 22:36:43, 3/23/2001, (#23) momo, mary99, 22:48:02, 3/23/2001, (#24) Mary, momo, 22:53:22, 3/23/2001, (#25) momo and mary99, darby, 00:37:41, 3/24/2001, (#26) Darby, New York Lawyer, 03:28:54, 3/24/2001, (#27) The NYL post, momo, 07:55:22, 3/24/2001, (#28) just checkin' in, watchin', 08:42:00, 3/24/2001, (#29) interesting info about Candy, tinky, 11:01:46, 3/24/2001, (#30) NYL, darby, 11:53:19, 3/24/2001, (#31) Thanks, Darby, New York Lawyer, 12:03:37, 3/24/2001, (#32) Hmmmmmm.....???, Mee Too, 14:18:30, 3/24/2001, (#34) NYL, Country Girl, 15:50:01, 3/24/2001, (#36) Could they have struck a deal?, ayelean, 19:28:48, 3/24/2001, (#37) I'd say it for a Rolex, Edie Pratt, 19:41:26, 3/24/2001, (#38) The originial thread, China, 21:07:48, 3/24/2001, (#39) An interesting remark, ayelean, 10:51:16, 3/25/2001, (#40) I Have the Natl Enquirer ...., Mandarin, 11:50:16, 3/25/2001, (#41) I got mail from Candy..., Pedro, 12:09:34, 3/25/2001, (#43) Mandarin, save your fingers..., LurkerXIV, 12:07:54, 3/25/2001, (#42) Thanks lurk ..., Mandarin, 13:06:11, 3/25/2001, (#44) Thanks candy, darby, 14:32:15, 3/25/2001, (#45) Candy, New York Lawyer, 15:20:28, 3/25/2001, (#46) Thanks, Mandarin......., sds, 15:44:28, 3/25/2001, (#48) 'Hard Candy', sarah, 15:41:50, 3/25/2001, (#47) sarah, darby, 19:01:14, 3/25/2001, (#49) Candy, Gemini, 19:10:42, 3/25/2001, (#50) I agree with Gem, tinky, 19:31:47, 3/25/2001, (#51) Gem, darby, 20:13:17, 3/25/2001, (#52) darby, Gemini, 20:21:49, 3/25/2001, (#53) ..yep gem, jonesy, 21:13:17, 3/25/2001, (#54) In Their Own Words: Why They Went to the..., Dunvegan, 01:17:19, 3/26/2001, (#55) ................................................................... "Enquirer - Thread 6" Posted by Watching you on 16:52:56 3/23/2001 I'm doing this only because jameson has written a post saying she has been contacted by lawyers for publishers of the ENQUIRER insisting she refrain from copying articles from the ENQUIRER on her forum - specifically referring to the article we are discussing and that I typed up originally. She states she made a promise to them long ago not to post anything until after Monday when the tabs are out on the stands. The tabs are on our newsstands on Thursdays. According to jameson, they don't mind if we post sections of the articles, they are happy that we discuss them, but I guess they figure if people can read the articles in full on the forums, nobody will buy their papers. Has Chris been notified of this? Is it only jameson? I don't know, but it seems a little strange that it is only now they are objecting to the copying of their materials when we have been doing it for the past 4+ years with no objections from them. OTOH, I have no beef with their wanting to enforce their copywrited materials. Pedro, Chris, do you know anything about this? Maybe we ought not to do this in the future, just paraphrase things? [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "WY," Posted by Country Girl on 17:08:37 3/23/2001 WS (Candy) has deleted her post with the article copied as well. In addition, WS has a thread regarding Fair Use Statue with a link to findlaw.com. http://www.websleuths.com/dcf/DCForumID1/115.html Hope this helps! CG [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "Well, I've waited on this long enough " Posted by darby on 20:23:09 3/23/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 20:23:09, 3/23/2001 ************************************************************************************** Here's a post of mine. You'll find it on JW on "Enquirer - Thread Four." ************************************************************************************** 32. "She also said" Posted by darby on 17:28:42 3/22/2001 "darby on JW summed up the attitude for the day on that forum - - "We are going to have LOTS of fun with this article." Called this "typical." Can anyone blame us? As I said earlier, whether or not they are murderers, this interview with the Enquirer goes right against the very grain of what they supposedly were trying to convey in their documentary. What happened to John's life mission? How can anyone believe in their sincerity--on this or anything else? They come across as complete buffoons. How can anyone--BORG or not--defend the Ramseys' latest stunt? ************************************************************************************** And here's something NYL posted a few hours later, (over yonder) on the "Ramsey Enquirer Interview" thread. ************************************************************************************** 20 . "And Don't Forget" Posted by NewYorkLawyer on Mar-22-01 at 08:53 PM (EST) LAST EDITED ON Mar-22-01 AT 09:41 PM (EST) Patsy even "hugged" one of the reporters from the Enquirer....And don't forget that this interview with the Enquirer goes against the very grain of what the Ramseys SAID they were supposedly trying to convey in their documentary, which was the bogusness of the tabloid coverage of their daughter's murder. What happened to John's life mission, which was to "change the way the media covered the news in this country? How can anyone believe in their sincerity--on this or anything else? They come across as complete hypocrites. How can anyone--BORG or not--defend the Ramseys' latest hypocrisy? There is simply NO EXCUSE. They are "media whores" just like everyone else, except they use the despicable "excuse" that they are doing all of this in the name of "solving" their daughter's murder. These are truly contemptible people. Remember: they took $750,000 from a publisher for their book. Some of that book money was ostensibly to go to the JonBenet Children's Foundation, which has yet to see a dime of it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "Good grief, Darby." Posted by Holly on 18:41:10 3/23/2001 That is nearly word for word your post. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "If they didn't want" Posted by Watching you on 17:44:41 3/23/2001 us doing this, why the help didn't they tell us four years ago? Maybe the article itself ought to be archived or something so it isn't right in plain sight. There is something in the law about past practice. The ENQUIRER has been well aware we copy their articles and have not objected previously. Why now? They should have objected long ago. I don't get it. Again. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "Thank you, Patsy ......." Posted by Bets on 17:50:12 3/23/2001 for helping me realize how lucky I am. Hubby and I have a teenage daughter. During her years of toddler to little girlhood I never once had to entertain a thought that my husband might be molesting her. Never, ever, ever. And now she's a lovely, shapely 16 year old. Her beauty sometimes takes my breath away, as she stands poised at young womanhood. Just a few weeks ago, I took my 9 year old to Tucson for a week and left her home with her father. And thank God, there was never a nanosecond of having to wonder if hubby was doing anything untoward with his own daughter. Never, ever, ever. (In fact, it never would've even occurred to me, if I hadn't been thinking about your sad admission, Patsy.) I'm not naive. Though my husband is the most decent man I've ever known and though we have a good, strong marriage, I'd not be stupid enough to sit before you and categorically state that he's incapable of ever cheating on me with another woman. I can't picture him doing something like that, but I know it's possible in the realm of human nature. But I can tell you, with flat out certainty that this man would never sexually molest our daughter. Not in the past, not now and not in the future. I feel sorry for you, Patsy, that you actually have to entertain the possibility that your little girl's daddy might've sexually molested his own daughter. And I feel blessed that I don't have to worry about something so horrible and so unnatural. Thank God for fathers who know what it is to love and protect their little girls. For fathers who recognize the sacred calling of being daddy to a daughter. And heaven help the ones who abuse that position of trust. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "Bets" Posted by JR on 21:38:45 3/23/2001 Amen! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "WY" Posted by ayelean on 17:54:32 3/23/2001 I know this means nothing to you, but I usually don't buy the NE, but today I had to go to Walgreens and looked specifically for it. It was still the old edition, and believe this or not, my husband, who rolls his eyes at anything JBR, asked the cashier when the new NE would be out. Which of course lead to a discussion about JBR. She got so incensed at the idea they are still on the loose, she went into a tirade about 'those lying, evil, rich, murderers of their own child, that were walking free, just like OJ'. She said her home state was CO, Colorado Springs, and hated what evil they wreaked on her beloved State. She was still ranting when we were walking out the door! The point being, I wanted to buying the NE because of the article, and many of us would. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "Bets" Posted by ayelean on 18:07:03 3/23/2001 Patsy is so transparent. Patsy pathologically identified with JBR. I think what she was visualizing here is her own childhood and maybe Nedra was not there looking out for her. Now that Nedra is dead, she was trying to put Nedra in a good light, as a protectress. I don't think for a NY minute Nedra protected JBR from anyone, it is a figment of Patsy's imagination, wishful thinking as it were, that she wished Nedra would have protected her. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "Ayelean" Posted by Watching you on 18:10:21 3/23/2001 Actually, that does mean something to me. I think the ENQUIRER people need to hear things like that and I am glad you posted it, because it's been said that they read the forums. I buy the tabs every cotton-picking week, and I don't care who likes it or doesn't like it. I could be hanging out in bars, you know, haha. I don't get all excited over what I read in them -I take them for what they are - sensationalized stories. But, behind those sensationalized stories are usually some truths that come out in other newspapers and on TV sooner or later. I'll sit on a Friday afternoon and read the rags and a few other magazines I buy, then my daughter reads them and takes them to my mother to do the crossword puzzles. Aunt Gem gets whizzed off, you know, at the tabs; but, haha, God didn't put me on this earth to please Aunt Gem. I like her, though. She's quite the lady, even if she is a little difficult at times. Say goodnight, Gem. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "Heartbreaking" Posted by Pope38 on 18:42:28 3/23/2001 Thanks ayelean and Watching You! Mr. Pope38 just brought home my weekly copies of the Tabs. I buy them every week and enjoy the pictures. I hate commercials and the tabs are easy to pick up and toss down while watching TV. When you get you copy of the Enquirer, your both going to be really upset. There is a never seen before picture of Jonbenet holding her dog. She has the most beautiful smile and the largest BAGS under her eyes that I have ever seen on a child. It really is ripping me up. I have not commented on the story, because all the posters state their thoughts more clearly then I ever could but this picture is a must see! There is something really wrong with the Ramseys if they haven't got a better picture to give the Enquirer than this one. A child so clearly in need! Why didn't any of her relatives or the Ramsey's friends really SEE this child? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 33. "Speaking of pictures" Posted by SJ on 13:27:50 3/24/2001 Why is Burke pictured with his shirt off? It is a very unattractive picture of him and I don't understand why the Rams would let the NE use that one? It just seems strange to me. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 35. "SJ" Posted by JR on 15:42:26 3/24/2001 Seems the R's wrote the book on strange doesn't it? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "I buy the" Posted by Holly on 18:51:45 3/23/2001 tabs too. Not each week, but pretty darn often. Except I never bought the WEEKLY WORLD NEWS, because that was just a spoof. Don Gentile is tenacious and a risk taker, but he backs his stuff up with the ENQUIRER legal department. I want to know why the Rams didn't take this exclusive to TIME or VANITY FAIR? Why ENQUIRER? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "Another alternative" Posted by Mini on 21:08:56 3/23/2001 Newsweek would be the perfect forum. They've always been pro Ramsey. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "Reply to Ned" Posted by Diwi on 18:54:53 3/23/2001 Carried over from the last thread, Ned wrote: >Diwi: Not to argue the OJ >case, but it's clear we are >entirely on the opposite site regarding >opinion on that case. However >I must say I see no >relation what's so ever to the >Ramsey's case. They are night >and day. The Ramsey case >is a real who dun it. >OJ in my opinion manipulated >the system and won. Ned, I don't mind at all that someone totally disagrees with me on the OJ case, it's when they try (as you did inadvertently) to do my thinking for me on that case. I have never devoted so much time and mental energy on any such criminal case as that one, and I think I can defend my views pretty well on it, based upon my knowledge and research (which continues to this day via many email correspondents, some very close to some of the actual players/investigators). But I do appreciate the civil way you put this. I do have to disagree with you however that there are no similarities here. I think while the two cases are very different in some areas, they are also very much alike. They both involve brutal, sadistic torture/murder. The main suspect(s) in both are/were pretty much "normal" and well liked people before all of this. Both involve rather wealthy people. Both cases have garnered extreme media coverage and both spawned tons of internet activities in the form of discussion groups, email and chat rooms. The tabloids went wild in both, often publishing completely false stories & facts. Both evoke and still do extreme emotions on the question of guilt/innocence. And both involve less than spectacular work on the part of cops and other authorities. Last but not least, both have spawned a certain "majority opinion" in the public masses (leaning to guilt in both), which involves many sociological, psychological, and political issues, creating bitter disagreements, ridicule, group think (both ways), and so on. I could go on, but that's enough I think to prove my point about there definetly being similarities in both cases. While some might say OJ's guilt is a done deal, more serious researchers know that is not true, and there's a lot of information being withheld. Same with the Ramsey case. Goes back sort of to the mindset which has come to conclude guilt and which then in a subtle way refers to others who disagree as simply not "knowing" (as they do) the "real truth" of the matter. But again, I'm not here to discuss the OJ case, only in broad terms as I see similarities in it with the JBR one. Anyone is free to go on over to true crime if you wish to discuss the former with me. Replying to some of your other comments, you said: >But besides that, you are right I >should not refer to "we" in >my statements. Therefore let me >re-phrase. It's still to early >for me to be convinced one >way or the other regarding the >Ramsey's guilt or innocence, but I >am leaning towards the later. Well, I begin ANY consideration of ANY criminal case by presuming innocence until proved guilty in a court, so that's the basis of my belief in the Ramsey's innocence. As I've said many times, we haven't even had an indictment here, no trial, and no verdict, so believing in the basics of our constitution and in all fairness, I cannot condemn or judge people as "guilty" of something they haven't even been "officially" charged with yet, let alone convicted of. It is actually more of a moral issue to me, but I digress. >The NE thing is odd, however >I take it with a >grain of salt and the story >is just a re-hash. You are right, however, I don't think what is said in the story (even if true, which it may not be), is the real issue for me. As I've said, that is that the Rams come off as very hypocritical in simply doing this, after all of the criticisms they have leveled at just these kind of folks. Again, a moral issue for me. It lowers them in my eyes that way, and brings into question their sincerity in general. Whenever I've seen them talk in so many TV appearances, despite what a lot of their harshest critics thought, my impression was always they were very believable and sincere. After doing this NE thing, I have to go back and try to remember those times in a different light. >The $3,000 extortion plan from the inmate, >does not at all strike me >as odd, because you have to >remember this is a nortorious crime, >I can't imagine how many sickos >and wackos have tried calling the >Ramsey's for whatever reason. It's >common sense for JR to be >wary. Perhaps he could have >suggested to the man to purchase >the flight tickets over the phone >if that's what the money was >really for, but if anyone out >of the blue called me up >and claimed to have murdered my >daughter and then asked for money, >I'd be weary too, no matter >how rich I was. The >fact is if the man wanted >to turn himself in, he didn't >need cash to do it. >I think that was John's biggest >tip off he was a weirdo. But there's a basic logical problem here, which I think most people have missed on this, and to this day, I've still not received any satisfactory answer. There was a context to the Star story which CLEARLY made it seem that this was not just another "crank call," and John and his team DID take it seriously. Also, no real information has been forthcoming from anyone about how many such calls or false leads the Rams have been led to believe. Therefore, with the publicity given this and the self-admission by John and his counsel that THEY took it seriously, it presents a logical dilemma for me. If they are still millionaires, and I think they are at least probably still close to it, the $3000 amount John "refused" to pay to possibly break the case wide open, clear the Ram's names, and possibly see the perp prosecuted and punished, is a VERY SMALL price to pay. It is not as if the guy was asking for $118,000, was he? So, I think you have to look at the context of the Star story and the credibility John and others GAVE to it, then ask yourself the basic logical question IF-THEN? John's "refusal" in this light is very, very suspicious to me. Like the Atlanta intruder story, which broke right when they were being sued, the Star one seemed sort of a play for public sympathy to me, and the psychological aspects of it don't make sense, within the context of the story itself. Is any of that clear? Okay, I thought not. :-) >I don't see anything telling about it, >and it doesn't lesson the fact >that the Ramsey's want the murderer >caught. However, think about it this way. Say the Rams ARE guilty. One or both. John knows this, so he KNOWS there is no "perp" and KNOWS the caller is a fake. Think about his behavior in that way, and suddenly it's easy to see why the Ram's would play this up as credible, then refuse to follow through. I thought it was also disingenuous of them to once again play the blame game, and hint that the "authorities" should be working on this, not them. Those SAME authorities they have also been blasting all of this time. Makes no sense. My own reaction, if I was innocent and thought a mere $3000 could lead to uncovering information which I myself thought credible, would be to give the guy my damn credit card number and expiration date! >As it turns out they did find >this man and he was a >fraud, so I guess John did >the right thing by not caving >it to his request for extortion. I must've missed that. They "found" the guy? Who is "they?" If this was discussed in another post or thread (or in the news), could you please tell me how to learn more? Has it really been proved the guy was a fraud, and how so? >I would think no matter what, the >Ramsey's life has to be a >living hell. Whether they are >innocent or not. To have >to deal with this every day >of their lives, and crazy sickos >crawling out of the wood work. Well Ned, if they are innocent, which I still strongly believe, you are right, and part of the problem for me in condemning/judging them (besides other reasons mentioned above) is just this fact. IF they are innocent, then I think there have been THREE real victims here, Jon Benet, and John and Patsy. It's a wonder they're not both in the looney bin already, IF they are innocent, and also quite a testiment to a strength of character and spirit which is most admirable to me. However Ned, IF they (one or both) are guilty, then frankly, I sincerely wish them an eternal living hell... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "WY & darby" Posted by fly on 19:35:56 3/23/2001 WY - One difference that might influence the NE concerning copyright is the fact that JW is not readable by the public, whereas jameson's forum is. Hers has the potential to influence more people. Not a complete fix, obviously, but might partially explain things. Then, maybe somebody at the NE just wants to make life difficult for that forum. ;-) darby - LOLOLOLOL Plagiarism, huh? Oh, my! And I thought lawyers were supposed to have such high moral standards, not to mention enough intelligence to produce original thought. I guess at least your pearls weren't wasted; stolen, but not wasted. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "Well, fly & Holly" Posted by darby on 20:50:08 3/23/2001 I debated whether I should say anything. I initially opted for a veiled message to NYL, earlier in one of these Enquirer threads. Then I got to thinking about the off-chance that someone might notice the same similarities that I did. I wouldn't want anyone to think that *I* was the one who did the copying. Note the posting times to verify that mine was posted first. Knowing that NYL has admitted to lending his hat out, I wouldn't want anyone to think that he possibly allowed me to use his hat to post over yonder. And finally, I don't want anyone to think I'm candy. (joke) As a matter of curiosity, I'd also like to know whether it was the Darnay or the candy version of NYL who actually made the post. Anyway, I guess it's possible that it's all some strange coincidence. At any rate, I'm hoping NYL will take the time to explain why his post over at jameson's forum looks an awful lot like mine here at Justice Watch. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. "Darby" Posted by ayelean on 22:15:28 3/23/2001 the choice of words cannot be a coincidence. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "Darby..." Posted by Pedro on 21:04:59 3/23/2001 ...I seen your post was first. Now are you telling us that Candy=NYL here at jw? I mean, am I understanding it right? Pedro [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "Diwi" Posted by FT on 21:13:40 3/23/2001 It's not necessary for you to repost your correspondence with yourself ... er, I mean ... your correspondence with Ned(d). We know where to find it in the off-chance we have any interest in reading it. :-) Just kidding. Maybe. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "Pedro" Posted by darby on 21:08:33 3/23/2001 I heard that NYL himself admitted that he had lent his hat out to candy. Now, I'm not sure if that happened on THIS forum or not. Can someone verify where NYL said this and why? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "Darby..." Posted by Pedro on 21:16:14 3/23/2001 ...I am appolled. No otehr than to Candy? Are we talking about the same candy? Please, Darby, help me. Pedro [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "Pictures" Posted by Sabrina on 21:55:52 3/23/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 21:55:52, 3/23/2001 I sneaked a peak at the Enquirer at the grocery store today- Pope mentioned there was a never before seen photo of JB with Jacques (I or II???) AND I noticed those awful bags under her eyes as well. In fact I was just going to post about it but Pope beat me to it! And the picture of Patsy was awful-- she looked like she had two inches of pancake makeup on. You could just see it all caked on. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "Pedro" Posted by darby on 22:27:49 3/23/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 22:27:49, 3/23/2001 Do you know how hard it is to find something when you've never laid eyes on the quote yourself, and the JW search feature now seems to work only for posts made up to one day ago, even when you put in more time--even a YEAR reverts to only one day's worth of searching...at least for me. But you asked for my help, and I know you'll ban me if I don't come up with something! :-) The best I could do--I found these posts on the "Peter Boyles (3/5)" thread (forgive the copying): 51. "For Your Information" Posted by New York Lawyer on 18:13:18 3/05/2001 Nedra died in a hospital, in front of a full staff of doctors, where she had been for quite some time. Besides diabetes, she had many other diseases. She was a sickly old woman who's time (mercifully for her physical suffering) had finally come, as it will for all of us. The decision to hold a secret funeral was to avoid the media, which is why there was no public announcement of her death. There is NO foul play here, only the sad fact that JonBenet's death and its subsequent notoriety made it impossible for Nedra to receive a public funeral. 55. "HOGWASH!" Posted by LurkerXIV on 18:32:45 3/05/2001 The Ramseys are paranoid, plain and simple. I doubt if very much press would have shown up for this elderly woman's funeral. But it would have been nice if her old friends and acquaintances in Parkersburg and elsewhere could have known about it in advance. And could have come to pay their final respects. This is another ploy for sympathy from those crafty evil people. OOOOOOOH! Poor us! We can't even have a decent funeral for our mom because of the mean old nasty press. Give me a break! NYL, either someone stole your posting hat, or you are entering early senility! 57. "Lurker" Posted by momo on 18:39:18 3/05/2001 I know Candy supposedly has his permission to post on a coupla other forums. She writes with one paragraph like that quite frequently. Sounds like her too. *** I have to assume that momo meant THE candy, and hopefully, she'll tell us where she heard about this. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. "Darby" Posted by momo on 22:36:43 3/23/2001 I can assure you that Candy is NYL. She responded as NYL one day and I picked up on it being her. After reading her posts at CS it was so obvious that it was her. Now that doesn't mean that DH doesn't respond to posts here. He probably does or he tells her what to say. You might say that Candy is his forum secretary. Wonder if she's getting paid? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "momo" Posted by mary99 on 22:48:02 3/23/2001 Oh, my poor head is spinning. You mean when Candy at CS posted that she had permission from NYL to re-post over there his comment over here that he had spoken to Lee Hill and NYL's opinion of Nancy K. is she is "a red herring", Candy was really re-posting her own opinion of Nancy K.? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. "Mary" Posted by momo on 22:53:22 3/23/2001 I think alot of the NYL posts are Candy. Now the ones going back and forth with Ginja might not be. I think she has permission to post articles or lawsuits and such but I do think she makes comments on the threads she starts. Other people think so too. Why would NYL care about explaining Nedra's last days and getting upset with posters about it? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 26. "momo and mary99" Posted by darby on 00:37:41 3/24/2001 You can post as me if you want to. Pedro, so can you. ;-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 27. "Darby" Posted by New York Lawyer on 09:14:32 3/24/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 09:14:32, 3/24/2001 I think I may owe you an apology. Rereading your post and comparing it to the one I wrote over at jamesons, it is obvious to me now that you expressed yourself so articulately that I fell into the trap of parotting parts of it word-for-word. I've written over several hundred posts in the past few years and I'm pretty careful about crediting someone when I quote them. In my defense, I can only plead that at 53, I must now be experiencing an occasional "senior moment." Naturally, I will delete the post over at jamesons, and, once again, offer you my apologies, with a reminder that "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery." Clearly, your original post must have had an influence on my thinking about what the Ramseys did with their Enquirer interview, and, obviously, I must have admired it enough to think it worth repeating, in some form, to the "poor wretches" over at the swamp. Once again, my humblest apologies....* (*I've always enjoyed reading your posts, so please keep it up. In the future, I promise that I'll try to contain my enthusiasm and try to express my admiration for them in a less embarrassingly conspicuous way.) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 28. "The NYL post" Posted by momo on 07:55:22 3/24/2001 above is definitely DH. I can tell when they are from him and when they're not. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 29. "just checkin' in" Posted by watchin' on 08:51:20 3/24/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 08:51:20, 3/24/2001 and wondering if the circus can get more rediculous. "C" as an asssociate of Hoffman's ...in any capacity? Whatever happened to 'intregity'? Rhetorical...Cochran killed it. edited to change the word professionalism TO intregity. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 30. "interesting info about Candy" Posted by tinky on 11:01:46 3/24/2001 One of the reasons I don't post at CS is because of Candy. hmmmmmmm [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 31. "NYL" Posted by darby on 11:53:19 3/24/2001 Oh, go right ahead and express any and all admiration you might have for my posts, and in as conspicuous a way as you can muster. :-) I don't particularly mind if you occasionally quote a post of mine on another forum. However, in the future, please remember to give me the credit. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 32. "Thanks, Darby" Posted by New York Lawyer on 12:03:37 3/24/2001 And I will, too.... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 34. "Hmmmmmm.....???" Posted by Mee Too on 14:18:30 3/24/2001 If Darnay aka NYL lets Candy post using his hat...Does this mean Kimberly Ballard really got in touch with Candy...and Candy is the one that had KB get in touch with Jameson.....???? Is this also WHY Darnay/aka NYL has never answered my posts Re: KImberly Ballard....??? hmmmm This Enquiring mind would like to know..... Would the REAL NYL poster/hat relpy..... ......(Mee Too) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 36. "NYL" Posted by Country Girl on 15:50:01 3/24/2001 Do you have an opinion on the real story behind why the Ramseys gave the NE an interview after they have spent years blaming the tabs for their problems? And, how do you know they were paid to do the interview since their mouthpiece states emphatically that they were not? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 37. "Could they have struck a deal?" Posted by ayelean on 19:28:48 3/24/2001 When they sued the Star about Burke, could there have been an agreement that if it eventually turned out that Burke was guilty, that the Rams would give an interview? Now this is the first installment of the Rams throwing their own son under the bus? Are P and J setting Burke up to take the fall? Are they thinking he'll get off scott free because he was under age? Could they have made a sick deal with Burke to have him agree to say he did it, so their sorry butts go free. And John is setting it up so that when he is 40 and they are dead and gone and he says he only said he was guilty so his parents would be free we will be expected to think he is crazy because John is predicting it? Is this why John said Burke had tears in his eyes, because we are being prepared to believe Burke was so sorry for burking his sister? Look son, we'll get you a Rolex, if you just say you did it. They can't do anything to you, you were too young at the time. Then we can go back to living a normal life, and you will be the hero of the family. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 38. "I'd say it for a Rolex" Posted by Edie Pratt on 19:41:26 3/24/2001 Ayelean, we'd all confess for one of them, lol! I am kidding of course, but I want to tell you you are probably more right in that last post, than you will ever know. If they could let their 6 yr old baby get on stage in slut chic and warpaint, then I think it's reasonable to consider they might just use the other kid to save their flabby butts. It sure took 'em long enough to complain about the BDI tab headlines, because they waited for at least 3 to hit the checkout lines before crying foul. They (IMO) have always wanted the public to think Burke did it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 39. "The originial thread" Posted by China on 21:07:48 3/24/2001 ....has been archived for safety's sake. Other forums have heard some complaints on posting this particular interview from this particular tab....copyrights and all you know. Carry on, just trying to keep everyone informed. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 40. "An interesting remark" Posted by ayelean on 10:51:16 3/25/2001 Yesterday I was telling my daughter and s-i-l about the new NE that is still not on the stands in my area. S-i-l said, 'you mean they still haven't been arrested?' Now my s-i-l keeps abreast with most current events but feels it is such a forgone conclusion they are guilty he thought they had probably been charged. I talked a little about it and he said 'is there any doubt that the father had to have done it?' I further explained that even among the people that really follow this there is disagreement on which of the two is guilter. He further stated, 'if your daughter killed one of my children, I don't think I could continue to love her enough to cover for her.' I thought it was interesting but then I'm not Nedra. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 41. "I Have the Natl Enquirer ...." Posted by Mandarin on 11:50:16 3/25/2001 Judging by the posts above, guess I'm not allowed to transcribe it, right? Where I live, it's already on the stands, so natch it was the first time in my life I purchased it before buying my regular Sundary morning paper. Haven't even got to my Sunday paper, because I keep reading the NE Ram's article over and over and looking at the pix of Jonbenet with Jacques. God Jacques looks as tired as Jonbenet. Jonbenet's very dark hair roots are CLEARLY evident and it should put to rest any claim Patsy has made in the past that she did not dye this child's hair. I believe Jonbenet would have the same colour hair as her brother Burke, were she alive today. As well, her hair appears to be extremely dirty, but more or less overshadowed by a rather large pink bow. She also looks like she has lipstick on - now that's strange because it doesn't appear to be a touched up photo. IMO, John must have chosen these pictures, since the other picture of Jonbenet on his boat had been provided by him to Schiller for his book, PMPT. In that picture, it is obvious also that the Michigan sun was not performing the "bleaching magic" suggested to everyone by Patsy. The article is amazing to me, considering the Rams actually went to them and to think that at the interview which took plce in Atlanta, Patsy gave the NE reporter a hug, THEN proceded to serve a dish of St Paddy's day cookies in the shape of shamrocks. Did the interview take place on St. Patrick's day? WHY did they give this interview? Honestly, this must be part II of their undoing. Part I, I believe was DOI. Coming as it does, after the break-in at their Vinings home, I said it before and I'll say it again. Is John going crazy or is he trying to drive her crazy. Or better, are they both trying to drive each other crazy? They don't have to drive very far, because after the NE interview, anyone can see, they're already there! Sure wish I could transcribe the article here. I disagree with DiWi ... this is not rehash. This is the Ramseys clearly speaking and clearly changing their story after 4-1/2 years! In fact, John Ramsey changed his story to the Enquirer three times, twice before they went to press and the last time AS THEY WENT TO PRESS", to say tht Burke WAS awake BEFORE the 911 call. Regards, Mandarin [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 43. "I got mail from Candy..." Posted by Pedro on 12:09:34 3/25/2001 ...she have told me she isn't NYL and she never had use NYL's hat here or in any other forum. She say she doesn't have NYL's permisson to use his hat/hats. She say NYL doesn't let anyone use his hat/hats as far as she (candy) knows. Now folks, I am just the messenger, ok? :-). Pedro [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 42. "Mandarin, save your fingers..." Posted by LurkerXIV on 12:07:54 3/25/2001 ...the article was transcribed here by WY, but has been removed to the archives, because the Enquirer is getting uptight about copyright considerations, ever since they became a big conglomerate. But under the "Fair Use" doctrine, small sections may be transcribed for educational and discussion purposes. We have had about 5 or 6 threads about the article, while you were away. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 44. "Thanks lurk ..." Posted by Mandarin on 13:06:11 3/25/2001 You always keep me up to date. I'd been away on a course for a few days and we had company for the weekend ..... soooooo I really am out of the loop. Think I should do a disappearing act more often, because honestly, every time I do, an even weirder Ramsey incident crops up. Just gotta say .... John Ramsey is doing an AWFUL lot of talking these days. On Dunv's threads re the Rams/Media transcription ..... Whew!!! JR nevers seems to come up for air. In fact, I forgot Patsy was there. Something weird is going on with these two. Are they doing role reversals or is the real John finally coming out after all these years. You know, I was his biggest defender for soooo long, but I'm almost 100% certain now that he dictated that note and Patsy wrote it. I get the feeling CNN and MSNBC will all come out of hiding on the Ramsey case next week. Let's see who'll be the first out of the gate. Greta, maybe? Thanks again for the info. Regards, Mandarin [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 45. "Thanks candy" Posted by darby on 14:32:15 3/25/2001 for clearing that up. (How DO you read here, anyway?) I'm sorry that I contributed to this rumor, but I had heard from a fellow forumite that NYL himself actually said that he had tipped his hat to you for transcribing purposes. (Personally, I never considered this any great evil.) But when Pedro asked, I was unable to find a quote from the horse's actual mouth to that effect. And I see that nobody else has either. So NYL is NOT, even partially, candy. But I have to wonder if the apparent variation in writing styles under the NYL hat means that NYL is more than one person. Maybe he's just moody. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 46. "Candy" Posted by New York Lawyer on 15:20:28 3/25/2001 I have never lent my hat to anyone at any time. I have, however, on occasion, thanked candy for transcribing an interview or other Ramsey document thereby publicly acknowledging her work, which she richly deserves. In my dealings with her, I have always found candy to be extremely honest, hardworking, loyal and generous. I have nothing but GOOD THINGS to say about candy, and if there are those of you who feel that you have been rubbed the wrong way when dealing with her, then I only have one thing to say: please try to get over it. You are missing out on a terrifically loyal and intelligent person, whose friendship is worth cultivating. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 48. "Thanks, Mandarin......." Posted by sds on 15:44:28 3/25/2001 You've said more than I ever could. Maybe the Gruesome Twosome is getting tired of people not figguring out what they are about. They are letting out little tidbits now. More of their game of Clue. First it was Burke not being awake, now it IS Burke being awake (When is IS is?) And Nedra sleeping in the twin bed in JBR's room after Patsy entertained thoughts of her husband molesting her daughter? How much more graphic can you get? Truly these two are a pair that deserve each other. Carry on folks. Pretty soon the Rams will confess just out of boredom. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 47. "'Hard Candy'" Posted by sarah on 15:41:50 3/25/2001 Darby and Tinky, I ask you not to go so hard on Candy, not that you'ed listen to me one whit or the other, lol. In the years I have followed this case I have seen posters come in and fade out, and posters who have hung in there through thick and thin. And in these years, the posters I have learned to respect with highest deference are our tireless workers for the JFJBR cause, from all the communities. Take for instance, Ginga's dissertation today, and Dunvegan's work- copying the Ramsey interview. Where would we be without Edie's and WY's comments, or Ma Brady's daily news. I could cite so many more. Candy is an information bringer, and she has donated many hours as a devoted supporter to the cause of JFJBR. How can we not thank her for her work? I also ditto NYL's thoughts, but I'll use my own words for Candy: She has integrity. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 49. "sarah" Posted by darby on 19:01:14 3/25/2001 Absolutely, candy has done a whole lot of work and tried with all her heart to stick with the known facts and evidence. I also think candy gets a bum rap from lots of posters, especially at her own home forum (CS). Just before CS went down to clean house, I thanked candy for something she had done (which unfortunately, escapes me). Occasionally, I notice candy making sweeping generalizations about "JW" based on ONE poster's opinion. I do call her on this. I am guilty of poking a little fun at her, mostly because she goes after some issues like a woman possessed. (Hey, people make fun of me, too.) We need people like candy. But don't forget, we also need the brainstormers who are able to think outside the box--beyond the known facts. Until this case is solved, I think we need both types of folks working on it. I don't know why we can't co-exist. At any rate, thank you, candy. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 50. "Candy" Posted by Gemini on 19:10:42 3/25/2001 obviously puts a lot of time and effort into her forum contributions. However, she's been particularly vicious toward Chris, and I can't respect that. Sorry, one kinda cancels out the other for me. The information has always gotten here, by one route or another. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 51. "I agree with Gem" Posted by tinky on 19:31:47 3/25/2001 on this Candy issue... Like I said, she was one of the reasons I quit posting at CS. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 52. "Gem" Posted by darby on 20:13:17 3/25/2001 I don't recall what candy said about Chris. She definitely said some pretty horrid things about me (and my ilk). I was trying to rise above it and acknowledge that she has made a contribution to JBR, including providing many transcripts that I've read. (Maybe I'm crazy.) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 53. "darby" Posted by Gemini on 20:21:49 3/25/2001 You're lucky if you missed it. It was not just a couple of posts ... more like a campaign - The Candy & Robin Show 2000/2001. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 54. "..yep gem" Posted by jonesy on 21:13:17 3/25/2001 ..I read all that - she is on my 'non entity' list [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 55. "In Their Own Words: Why They Went to the..." Posted by Dunvegan on 01:59:25 3/26/2001 NOTE: This message was last edited 01:59:25, 3/26/2001 Edited to move this post to a new thread, so as not to derail the discourse currently running on in this thread. Did that make any sense? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]