Justice Watch Discussion Board [ JonBenét Ramsey Discussion ] [ Missing & Exploited Children and True Crimes ] [ Front Porch ] [ Work Out Room ] "Forum History (repost)" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... Forum History (repost), Chris, 05:55:57, 3/25/2000 Great Review, szundi, 09:01:36, 3/25/2000, (#1) this was a grand post, pat, 09:16:51, 3/25/2000, (#2) The Evolution of Justice Watch, straykat2, 10:08:41, 3/25/2000, (#5) It DOES explain quite a bit ....., CynAnne, 14:45:41, 3/25/2000, (#8) Thank you, CaringMom, 09:26:21, 3/25/2000, (#3) This explains..., MsPlum, 10:03:16, 3/25/2000, (#4) MsPlum, straykat2, 10:24:05, 3/25/2000, (#6) Good Points, ms plum..., LurkerXIV, 14:03:43, 3/25/2000, (#7) Thanks Chris, Gemini, 15:41:53, 3/25/2000, (#10) I printed this thread>>>, ayelean, 15:32:12, 3/25/2000, (#9) Newbies, Aurora, 22:42:16, 3/25/2000, (#11) Thank you, Chris, starry, 01:35:42, 3/26/2000, (#12) Please read again well..., CaringMom, 01:57:04, 3/26/2000, (#13) Don't worry , CaringMom ..., CynAnne, 18:13:23, 3/26/2000, (#14) Caring Mom,, LurkerXIV, 18:32:49, 3/26/2000, (#15) I survived BNF '97, Policedog, 06:48:58, 3/27/2000, (#16) ................................................................... "Forum History (repost)" Posted by Chris on 05:55:57 3/25/2000 Back in 1998, one of our posters gave a very good "introductory" lesson on JonBenet forum history. It pretty much still applies and might help some of the newer posters understand the "culture" of the JonBenet discussion boards so I went and dug it out of the archives. Chris "22 months of forum history for frankg!" Posted by V on 18:55:29 10/13/98 (Warning -- this is long). To frankg -- You said the other day, "I wasn't looking for someone to replay 22 months of forum history for me." Too late, I'm already here. Bear with me on this -- it may help put in perspective some of what you've seen and heard lately. During the first year of forum discussion on this case, the principal forums were regularly subjected to attacks -- and I don't mean criticism, I mean relentless, concerted efforts to physically shut the forums down. The worst was a siege lasting several months in which a hacker group used all the means at its disposal to render the Boulder News Forum unusable, even inventing a "spam-bot" that posted garbage threads 24 hours a day. We'd log on each day never knowing if we'd find case discussion or loads of raw sewage from the hackers; sometimes we'd jump from forum to forum to stay ahead of the disruptors and keep the case discussion going. Eventually the BNF had to shut down entirely for months. The point is that right from the start, we had to *work* at discussing this case on the web, and we were vividly aware that there were people out there who, for whatever reasons, would like to see such discussion grind to a complete halt. In addition to the hackers, other kinds of troublemakers tried to perch on the JBR forums -- such as the guy who posted megabytes of rude anatomical observations about his gerbil. (Gerbil-boy actually managed to crash the BNF once through sheer volume of material). There were also religious cultists, political crazies, and garden variety loons, who thought nothing of jumping right into serious discussions about the case to push their own agendas. And finally, there were people who acted like they wanted to discuss the case but in the long run just wanted to disrupt whatever discussion was going on, by any means necessary. We began calling these people "trolls." It wasn't necessarily a partisan thing: there were trolls who fell under the "pro-Ram" umbrella and trolls under the "anti-Ram" one. Some common denominators: trolls never really listened to anyone else; they seemed to be totally immune to reason; their views remained completely static over time, unaffected by new information in the case; and they either dodged tough questions or answered with non-sequiturs. They did nothing to advance our collective knowledge about this crime, and plenty to impede promising discussions. In any event, after experiencing the hackers, the loonies, and the trolls, we may be a bit hypersensitive and/or paranoid about whether newcomers have come to this forum to help or hinder. Kind of like those guys who came back from Vietnam and found themselves hitting the dirt whenever a truck backfired. Overreaction, yes, but an overreaction that was learned over a substantial period of time and for a real reason. A new arrival on the forum will be welcomed, but there's sometimes a bit of lingering wariness: will the new person turn out to be another troll? And God help that person if he or she innocently or inadvertently displays any of the behaviors that we're likely to interpret as the warning signs of trolldom. Altogether, between troll attacks on one hand, and, on the other, serious (and sometimes loud) differences of opinion among the "real" posters, these forums have been feistier than most from square one. It takes some getting used to. Now, I'm assuming that you're not a troll -- you genuinely want to discuss the case, and have recognized from the start that most of your information comes from a source which we consider suspect: the A&E documentary. So, what went wrong the other day? You introduced yourself on the "Theory" thread (response 10), and by (42) found yourself being roasted on a spit. Hey, JusticeWatchers, what're we trying to do, set a new land speed record for running people off? We've barely heard from frankg since then, except for a comment in "I Stand By My Beliefs 2" about how hostile we are here. "I still don't understand where the flame came from but it was nasty and downright abusive." So what happened? Play by play -- You began by stating that you only recently got back to following the case, thanks to the A&E documentary, and say you sent an e-mail "that in hindsight probably came across as a flaming emotional outburst" to Mrs. Brady. You go on to say that after seeing the documentary you were sympathetic to the Ramseys, and did not understand why this forum seemed to be so sure they were guilty. You asked us to explain why, and what was wrong with the A&E documentary. Eight of us posted responses -- some of which welcomed you to the forum and supported aspects of your position. Most of us attempted to answer your questions, and made at least 16 distinct points. You speak again at length in (22), in which you answer one of these points, then state "So far I've seen lots of emotional perspectives but little hard fact." The next post (23) supports your position. At (27) and (29), CensusGrrl and I respond to your posts, both for the second time; she adds several more points, and I add a whole laundry lists of reasons why the Ramseys' behavior after the crime was suspicious. At (28), fly supports your intruder scenario, with a reservation. You add another element to your scenario at (30) and agree with fly at (31). At (33) you respond to two points of mine, dismissing them and stating "your position seems to be one of 'this guy's guilty and I'm going to find fault in anything he did'." Then you dismiss the *entire* laundry list, suggesting that no one should be convicted "solely on the basis of... behavior after the crime." You repeat your questions, what evidence do we have that the Ramseys are guilty?... what was incorrect in the A&E documentary?... and say, "Please leave emotions and lack of expected behavior out." At (34) CensusGrrl returns with a point-by-point deconstruction of the intruder theory which you have sketched thus far. At (36) Shamrockpati welcomes you to the forum and suggests that you read the A&E threads. At (37), the flaming begins. mandarin implies that you know more about the case than you claim, suggests that you may be a lawyer, and says, "jumping in on page 330 of GONE WITH THE WIND and expecting the rest of us to bring you up to speed and revisit every argument we've had for two years is somewhat arrogant." You deny his charges at (40), and say that so far neither of your questions has been answered. "Surely with everyone so sure of their guilt there had to be some evidence I hadn't heard of... Either the A&E piece was not factual or there were numerous fallacies brought forward by the media that unfairly portrayed the Ramseys. I was looking for someone to tell me what was not factual. So far, no one has been able to do either of these things. Doesn't that bother anyone?" At (42) mandarin repeats the charges, compares you to Dan Quayle and suggests that you go elsewhere. Okay, let's freeze-frame this thing right here. Again, frankg, I'm operating under the assumption that you are no troll -- but in that exchange, you were being treated like one. Why? Well, my personal troll-detector went into "warning" mode about the time of your post (33). By this time, you had asked repeatedly for any factual inaccuracies in the A&E program. I had stated that I was told that the program says that suspicion of the Ramseys "began" with the story about there being no footprints in the snow. I had tried to point out that the suspicion actually began in the first week after the crime, with the Ramseys' refusal to talk to police; that the "no footprints" story didn't break until three months later; and that in stating that suspicion "began" with the footprint story, the documentary was misrepresenting both the timing and the cause of suspicion in the media -- and was substituting a late, weak cause for an early, strong one. Your response: "No 'timing' of the footprints was implied in the program." Non sequitur. This does not address what I said, and sounds as though you read through my post so quickly that you didn't even get the point. Then you go on to repeat your claim that no one has identified anything factually incorrect in the documentary. In the same post, you characterize me as having a position of "[Ramsey]'s guilty and I'm going to find fault in anything he did." At about the same time, you go back and forth with CensusGrrl about your theory of how a kidnapper could have killed JonBenet accidentally and hidden the body intending to try to collect the ransom anyway. By (34) CensusGrrl seems to be icily polite (read: furious), perhaps because she, too, is having to re-answer questions which were already dealt with. She gives a long, detailed, well-thought-out account of why this scenario won't work, and you don't respond to it. So by now I'm irked, CensusGrrl is irked, Mrs. Brady -- who has contributed more towards keeping this case in front of the public than almost anyone -- may well irked, because of the "flaming" e-mail. You asked for evidence against the Ramseys and were given at least two dozen separate points. And still, you continued to say that "no one has been able to do (this)." Further, you suggested that you did not want to hear any evidence regarding the behavior of suspects after the crime. That was an amazingly sweeping stipulation, ruling out a huge portion of what actually constitutes criminal investigative methodology in real life. And all of this BEFORE mandarin flamed you. I'm not going to defend what mandarin said 'cause mandarin can defend hirself just fine; in fact, I'd suggest to mandarin that the use of the word "arrogant" on (37) and the sarcasm on (42) were needlessly insulting. Also premature -- do we really need to decide that someone is an irredeemable troll on their first day here? And comparing anyone to Dan Quayle is a terrible thing. I will also, however, suggest that mandarin's response did not come out of a clear blue sky (though it appeared that way to you). I'm not saying that you deliberately intended to do this, but you *did* dis several of us, displayed a classic troll symptom (asking questions and not paying much attention to the answers), and repeatedly make generalizations: about how no one here could answer your questions, about how our arguments were "emotional" and "bogus," and about how warmfuzzy the Ramseys' A&E documentary was. Think about this for a second: if a Ramsey defense attorney were to find himself on JusticeWatch, incognito, what would he do? He'd ignore any evidence or reasoning that would pose a problem for his clients, fixate on alternative suspects, attempt to frustrate and annoy the people who were trying to demonstrate his clients' guilt, and repeat, mantra-like, phrases which called into question the motives and methods of JusticeWatch posters and which affirmed his impressions of the Ramseys as good people. (Making sure that there were plenty of posts in which the Ramseys were praised and the other posters' comments were dissed might be helpful for when media people drop by the forum to take a look). Plus occasionally throwing in false logical/rhetorical moves, such as ruling out behavioral evidence, if he thought he could get away with it. Now, I'm taking your word for who you are. You are not a troll -- you aren't stoopid, and trolls usually are. You are not a Ramsey lawyer, and it was out of line for mandarin to suggest as much -- but you can see where mandarin got that impression. Summary: on arriving in this forum, you conducted yourself in a manner remarkably similar to what we could reasonably expect from a member of the Ramsey camp. You're not a member of that camp. So why the resemblance? The answer to that, I think, may tie in with the reason why you, and other newcomers, are *needed* on this forum. You stated that most of what you know about the case came from the A&E documentary. Same goes for millions of other people, a good many of whom, we may presume, will be in the jury pool. I would suggest that one reason for the debacle on the "Theory" thread the other day might be: the documentary worked. It did exactly what it was supposed to -- it was effective propaganda. It was intended to cultivate empathy and warmfuzzies for the Ramseys and skepticism about those who criticize them. It was intended to encourage people, after two hours in the video hot tub, to come out with the same kind of attitudes and assumptions about the Ramseys and about the case that the Team Ramsey members themselves have. This is the new "environment" of the case, and something which we who have been following the case must not ignore. We on JusticeWatch must not simply dismiss the comments and reactions of people like frankg who are only guilty of going by the only substantial source of information they've seen about the case. It behooves us to know what types of responses the documentary is promoting, what kind of questions will be asked of us in its wake, and what kind of responses to give. frankg, a deprogrammer I'm not, but I'd like you to consider something about the motivations of some of the people involved in the documentary -- as compared with your cranky colleagues at JusticeWatch. I'll assume that Michael Tracey, the Boulder filmmaker, is sincere in his belief that the Ramseys are innocent. Beyond that, let's also consider the serendipity: making this documentary has boosted his bank account by about six figures, brought his work to a national / international audience, and left him in a position where one of the principal power-brokers in Colorado politics -- John Ramsey's attorney, Hal Haddon -- now owes him a couple of big favors. In turn, Hal Haddon -- who we will also assume is sincere in his belief that the Ramseys are innocent -- has so far run up a bill which will result in a seven-figure transfer of funds from John Ramsey's bank account to the account of Haddon Morgan & Foreman. So Haddon and Tracey, both of whom benefit substantially and materially from the proposition that the Ramseys are innocent, want everyone to see and believe the documentary. Two words: vested interest. Let's return to your question of what was wrong with the documentary. [And again, I'm at a disadvantage here, going by written descriptions of it -- those of you who have seen it, please call me on it if I misstate.] I'm not saying that the "crockumentary" is a *total* crock. There is useful information in it, accurately presented. There were and are many admirable things about the Ramsey family, and it is certainly within their rights to point those things out. (The anti-Ram species of troll refuses to believe the Ramseys are anything but totally evil -- as unrealistic a view as considering them saintly). Some of the documentary's criticisms are well-taken. The tabloids have tended to take molehills of fact and speculation and whip them into lurid screaming headlines -- which, often as not, contradict last week's and next week's lurid screaming headlines. The Ramseys are also within their rights to point out, as many of us have noticed, that some of the tabloid stories are, well, crocks, and mean-spirited ones at that. Where the documentary falls short *as* a documentary -- and starts to become an infomercial -- is in its treatment of the case. Now, it comes with a disclaimer stating that it does not try to solve the case, so it leaves itself a loophole regarding all the issues which aren't addressed. However, it also deals, very selectively, with certain aspects of the case, thereby creating the impression that serious matters germaine to the solving of the case are, in fact, being dealt with. The documentary seldom lies outright, but does a substantial amount of misdirecting by omission. The "evidence" against the Ramseys which is shown to be bogus -- "no footprints in the snow," for instance -- tends to be minor. The major elements, the principal reasons for the suspicion in the first place and for the steadily increasing suspicion thereafter, are not even mentioned. Ultimately, one of the documentary's lessons needs to be applied to the documentary itself: you can't always believe everything you see in the media. (Show only the good things about the family, get us to know them and like them. Show all the terrible things that the least reputable media have said about them, and imply that ALL media coverage of the case was at the same level. Triumphantly knock over a few straw men while tacitly giving the impression that major evidence against them is being demolished. Leave us with the impression that those poor people have been persecuted terribly, and with the motivation to defend them. Very professionally done. Leni Riefenstahl would be proud.) (Okay, strike the Leni Riefenstahl remark. That was tacky.) About your other major question -- where is the smoking gun? Sorry. Can't help you there. Most people who commit capital crimes try to make a point of not leaving the smoking gun in plain sight. If we were to require such a thing, there wouldn't be many prosecutions for such crimes -- except maybe for the street hood who guns down the convenience store clerk while the camera's running. Asking for the smoking gun, especially in a case as complicated as this one, is like approaching someone who's working a thousand-piece jigsaw puzzle and saying, "show me *the* piece." Sorry -- it's the *relationship* of the pieces. All of the aspects of the case which may not mean anything in isolation, but which show a pattern when they're all viewed together. (When a suspect tells one untruth, it might just be a mistake; when a suspect tells many, it can't be). *The* piece of the puzzle is exactly what we can't give you in one simple package -- especially in the wake of the documentary/infomercial. You've recently spent two multimedia hours experiencing a carefully-crafted view of what certain people with certain vested interests in the case wanted you to see, being given exactly the emotional cues they wanted to give you, and being left with certain blind spots in places where they'd rather you not look. We can't counter this with half an hour's worth of strangers' words scrolling by on your computer screen. If you want to know what's going on in this case, the real story and not the prefab sound-bite version, it will require an investment of time, energy, and critical thought. It's worth it. Yeah, we can be pretty cranky here. And our patience wears thin -- after all, it's been almost two years. But unlike Hal Haddon and Michael Tracey, we have no vested financial interest in promoting a particular point of view about this case. In fact, some of us have invested hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars on it, with no realistic prospect of getting back one red cent. We only seek one kind of return for all that we have put into this, the most important return of all: justice for JonBenet Patricia Ramsey. JfJB 1. "V is for..." Posted by Shy on 21:21:26 10/09/98 Include Original Message on Reply voluminous! And for VERY excellent history and analysis of what causes some consternation among forum members. Thank you, V--there's nothing I have to say or add, because you have done it all. 2. "V is for VERY brilliant" Posted by Greenleaf on 22:07:34 10/09/98 Include Original Message on Reply My Dear V, Who are you and where have you been? I was on the old BNF from the very beginning, and later, here on Justice Watch. Your assessment of the rise and fall of BNF was astonishingly accurate. From the first day of the old BNF to this day, on this forum, I have never read a post as brilliant as yours. (above on this thread) Like Shy, I cannot add a single thought, nor subtract a single word, to enhance its eloquence. The only other time that I used "brilliant" to describe a post was when Teacher posted on this forum. Well, V, I tip my hat to you. Anything I say pales in comparison. Just know, FWIW, that your beautifully written post is very much appreciated by this old gal. With love and best wishes, Greenleaf 3. "gawd... that was beautimous!" Posted by cbreez on 23:52:34 10/09/98 Include Original Message on Reply V.... I'm standing on my computer chair applauding you. My family merely thinks it's time for my medication. I know differently, though. Outstanding.... BRAVO!!!!!! M. 4. "Simply Wonderful V......" Posted by mee too on 01:13:51 10/10/98 Include Original Message on Reply I have READ ALOT of posts on ALL the forums There is only one other poster...that moved me to tears...That was a post by Thinker (on Joshua 7) about JonBenet America's Princess....Your post is so moving...SO well said..... You did your self proud.... Thank You.....(mee too) 5. "what it means frankg" Posted by sarah on 04:48:24 10/10/98 If you don't go along with the majority and share their ideas regarding how this case should be handled, you are a troll. They have built-in troll meters. Pro or anti, it doesn't matter. You can see from V's post that they hold the keys to who is who around here. They hinge this upon the fact that some kids came and tore up the old BNF, so this is how they weigh newbies. It has no basis, but this is their logic and reasoning for most of the false accusations to others. sarah NOTE: This sarah is not the same sarah who has recently begun posting. This sarah was Minniemoe/Space -- the poster who freaked Peter Boyles out by telling him Mrs. Brady was a witch who flew over his house. (I'm not lying!) 7. ""theory" thread" Posted by reporter on 06:43:24 10/10/98 I started the "theory" thread and had no expectation that it would veer off into what has been a most interesting exchange of thoughts, and ideas! V, I am saving and printing out your post to show to people who try and understand this forum and my interest in it. What a writer and thinker you are. Thank you for your long, detailed and right-on analysis. In the months ahead such clear thinkers will be needed to plow through what is coming. IMO. 6. "Thanks V" Posted by frankg on 06:07:54 10/10/98 Include Original Message on Reply V, thanks for that wonderful post. The historical perspective of this forum explains an awful lot of what has happened here. It also puts some of my posts in perspective as well. I suppose I got as defensive as anyone, which as a newcomer I really didn't have a right to do. Since I do still want to participate here let me (hopefully) wipe the slate clean by (A) assuring any and all, I am who I said I am. I am not a plant and am not pro-Ramsey, per se. I am not a Troll. (B) I am deeply sorry to anyone I have insulted... most of all to Mrs Brady, where my "how dare you incriminate these people with such weak evidence" attitude began. I suppose I have a built in defense against believing parents could commit such a crime against such a beautiful, young child. Not wanting to believe they could have done it and basing most of my "newly informed reasoning" on the A&E crock (am I sounding like a veteran now ), hopefully you all understand where I was coming from. Yes, I was looking for the smoking gun and I guess, short of a breakdown by one or both of the Rams due to the increased pressure, there may never be one. With that said, I'm still not where I think most of you are. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt - almost to a fault. So I can write off more of their behavior then I suspect most of you can. But that's OK. Perhaps as I learn more and more of their post-crime behavior I will decide for myself that less of it is excusable. I also am still not there wrt why the intruder theory is so implausible. I do understand that there are a great many who have followed and researched this crime far longer than me and who feel the intruder theory doesn't stand up. So again, I'll just have to listen and learn a little longer. Last point. Scientists who are developing a theory which can't be proven with undeniable evidence use a reverse process to prove the theory. They try to punch holes in the theory. Logic being, if you can't disprove something then that lends credibility to it's accuracy. My point to this is that this is how I tend to rationalize things out. So while I may be far more educated on the subject than I was a week ago, I still need to learn for myself why certain things don't ring true. I may do this via the "but what if" or "but why couldn't this have happened" approach. If I do this rest assured it's only my way of learning about the crime. If it's truly "old news" then please be patient with me. And if someone knows of an older thread or archive where this was explained in detail I will be most happy to go back and read it. It's just, as I said to mandarin, I can't be expected to go back thru this entire forum to weed things out. There's just way to much and I don't have *that* much time. Again, V, thanks so much for putting things in perspective. I do appreciate it. And my sincere apologies to any and all who I have offended. I never intended to do that. 9. "thanks V" Posted by Allipat on 06:55:05 10/10/98 Include Original Message on Reply Very good and to the point post. Ed Note: RIP Allipat! 10. "Frank..." Posted by MrsBrady on 07:18:18 10/10/98 Include Original Message on Reply ...no need to apologize. If you sent me a "flaming" email I deleted it partially read. That's my routine. I am wracked by enough guilt, self-doubt and low esteem that I don't let myself read stuff like that. As a crotchety old fence sitter (who merely intensely dislikes the Ramseys) welcome aboard. 21. "Thanks Mrs Brady" Posted by frankg on 05:45:07 10/11/98 Include Original Message on Reply for the kind words of forgivness. In the past couple of weeks I've gained tremendous respect for you and what you represent to this forum and this crime. 11. "Great Post V" Posted by Ron S. on 07:28:55 10/10/98 Include Original Message on Reply I remember the old BNF, was there myself during the times you described so well. At that time I was wearing the hat, "Showme." Do you remember, "Readymix?" I have thought about him many times, and have wondered what ever happened to him. He seemed to be a good old guy. Thanks again, you brought back some old memories. Ron S. 12. "frankg, I presume" Posted by Greenleaf on 07:31:07 10/10/98 Include Original Message on Reply My goodness, frankg, your civility proves that we can agree to disagree. I congratulate you on your beautiful & intelligent response to V. That said, I'm going to resume my search for Dr. Livingstone. GL; aka Stanley 13. "WOW" Posted by Phantom on 09:42:07 10/10/98 Include Original Message on Reply V-You got it down V! frankg-You're ok too. Don't worry, you don't need to change your mind about who's the murderer, but you can if you decide too.You decide what you think. 15. "Thanks V" Posted by China on 10:07:44 10/10/98 Include Original Message on Reply Your extraordinary journal was brilliantly edited with remarkable taste, honesty and a sense of humor. As all can see, we have as posters brilliant pen-portraits of people as diverse as deposed monarchs, philosophical lobstermen, professional pugilists, chess champions, political muck-a-mucks, tennis players, financial wizards, actors, actresses and society personalities of every persuasion. Justice Watch has an identity, flavor, insight and irreverence found in no other crime forum on the net. And ain't we proud? 14. "Frankg" Posted by eedayspa on 10:07:43 10/10/98 Include Original Message on Reply As a relative newcomer to the forums, I can understand what Frankg went through and it's nice that someone took the time to get it straight for him. And, it's nice to see Frankg's response, putting everything back into the neutral zone. I just wanted to add my comments. I know that if I had come to this forum after viewing the A&E program with it as my starting point, I would also wonder about alot that is posted here. But, I lurked and read first, and before that, I had accumulated as much data as my search engines would find for me and had read most of it. When all my research was done I started posting and was immediately running away from my computer because of the reaction to my posted theory. I came back, found a bit of support from other posters, and have enjoyed this forum very much since. From time to time, I check out the other forums, too. My well-researched theory has changed and I still have not made up my mind about this case, I guess that means I'm a fence sitter right now, though I have many questions about the R's. I continue to watch and listen and discuss, and I would encourage other "newbies" to do the same. It is worthwhile, and I for one will continue to watch this until justice is done. I am sending out good vibes for the Grand Jury, and place my faith, at this point, in them. 16. "FrankG..." Posted by CardyA on 10:46:36 10/10/98 Include Original Message on Reply I posted an article critiquing the A&E show, written by the author of the Vanity Fair article and published in the LA Times. You may want to look up that thread: Ann Louise Bardach (name from meory, excuse spelling) in the LA Times One major factual error she pointed out in the show was John Ramsey's description that the cops set their sights on the Ramseys as killers from moment one. This is demonstrably untrue. Proof One is that the cops treated thge scene as a kidnapping. They believed the ransom note. Proof Two is the 1/1/97 CNN interview. John Ramsey praised the work the police were doing. This brought to mind--for me anyway--OJ Simpson's kindly conversation with LAPD during his Bronco chase. If there was evidence against Simposnj, why was he not screaming "Frame!"? Instead, he was telling the cops they were doing a good job. Other factual errors or inconsistencies in the A&E interview: the Ramseys' attempt to downplay JonBenet's involvement in pageants and the implication that she wore "sexy" costumes. That evidence speaks for itself. I understand the Ramseys downplaying it, but their denial impeaches their credibility on more serious issues, does it not? These are a few of my observations. Hope it helps the discussion. 23. "CardyA" Posted by frankg on 08:51:15 10/11/98 Include Original Message on Reply thanks for the tip. I'd like to read it. Is the heading of the thread "Ann Louise Bardach"? I understand the spelling may be a bit off. Any idea how far back I should be looking? Thanks. The pageant stuff is still an area where I don't see it as damning as others. I'm not into pageants myself and would never have my girls involved in them unless they asked (even then, probably not!). But in the limited video I've seen there are several other girls of the same age in similar costumes performing the same way on the same stage. If this should honestly be construed as sexually exploiting the children should we not as a society be insisting that they stop immediately? Can we condemn the Ramseys for participating and then do nothing about all other parents for doing the same thing? Have any of the other parents involved ever spoken out against those who claim these pageants as sexual exploits? 17. "Newcomers" Posted by goodnana on 14:47:52 10/10/98 Include Original Message on Reply I am a newcomer to this forum. You guys need to expect more people browsing over these threads in the nexr few months. Interest in this case will be growing even more during the next few months and especially if they Ramseys get indicted by the grand jury. I am one of those who belive that the Mom did it, even before I read these threads. Now I am about 99% certain that they have a least more knowledge than what they are claiming to have. I am also a child advocate, in private, but I think it is going to change soon. These (JB) plus other local matters are forcing me to take more action every day. Do not be weary of strangers. Be opened to ideas, even those that may seem that may damage the case against the Ramseys. These thoughts will be helpful to the prosecution of this case. We need to know every defense that the Ramsey may use and we need to be prepared. I just wish that we knew more.... A lot of the info. on this forum is based in speculation or rumors. I have enjoyed reading all these threads for days and already have a lot of opinions, ideas, thoughts, etc. I want to communicate all of these with you and I hope that I will feel welcome. 18. "Goodnana" Posted by Greenleaf on 15:06:33 10/10/98 Include Original Message on Reply Welcome! 19. "BRAVO!!" Posted by books on 16:18:54 10/10/98 Include Original Message on Reply V Excellent!!! Brought back memories of the old BNF. Your points are all well taken and should be REQUIRED reading for all. Congrats on a great post Thanks 20. "V" Posted by Shamrockpati on 20:19:22 10/10/98 Include Original Message on Reply Excellent post, you said it better than anyone so far. your thread should be saved a required reading by all "newbies" and a lot of the "oldbies" Frank, I still welcome you LOL, and hope we can "All just get along" as ol Rodney King used to say And we do welcome all here as long as we are polite to each other, but be aware that sometimes we let our lil ol fingers get the better of us and we get a bit prickely...LOL 22. "V's post" Posted by Geneva on 07:06:59 10/11/98 Include Original Message on Reply Excellento V! Welcome frankg. We need stimulation and welcome all theories. Glad we can all get along. 24. "V's Post" Posted by KT on 16:00:23 10/12/98 Include Original Message on Reply Thanks, V, for the concise walk back thru the minefields of the trolls. Things have been so incredibly better with the Justice Watch Forum that I had begun to forget the horror of having our other forums almost destroyed. (Like childbirth, one forgets the pain until in the middle of it again !!) I agree that it is so important that we maintain our sanity and openmindedness here and now for the new people who join us. When and if there is ever a jury, some members of it may have been amongst us at some point. And I think this is one of the few places available that known evidence and probable/possible/impossible theories are being cussed and discussed, torn apart, tossed aside,etc., searched and researched. And where so many people who are knowledgeable in their fields are willing to share their thoughts with us. As one of those who has been 'here' from the beginning (mostly lurking), I really love having a forum available which is mostly sane and always has Justice for JonBenet as it's agenda. 25. "give me a ...V" Posted by hadley on 17:57:03 10/12/98 Include Original Message on Reply One of the all time best posts. Sure took me down memory lane and all the frantic forum hopping to try and find meaningful conversation in the days of old. You are thanked! 26. "V and frankg, both" Posted by janab on 06:33:01 10/13/98 Include Original Message on Reply Thank you for the threads you have posted here. V, I was absolutely astounded at your eloquence and your ability to lay down the history in the manner that you have. I feel like I have been here forever, but you have even given me a history lesson. frankg, thank you for responding to V and for accepting us for the wary people that we are. I try to always be tolerant (and even nice) to newcomers because I remember the first time I asked a question that someone thought was "unnecessary" or ridiculous in light of the information previously known to everyone else. I promised from that moment on I would never do that to anyone else. Occasionally, someone starts a thread specifically for newcomers to ask old questions and you would be surprised how many of us are willing to go into that thread and answer any questions you all may have or direct you to where you can find your answers. Feel free to start one if you, or anyone, thinks it might be time to do that again. 27. "may I be frank?" Posted by darby on 07:03:52 10/13/98 Include Original Message on Reply Frankg, you are one lucky newbie to be treated to this wonderful history. I would have given my eye teeth for this type of info--and it would have only been 12 months' worth when I started! In December, '97, I blundered first into Murphy's Mountain forum and based on the skewed Mountain viewpoint, made a wrong assumption that most people on the 'net must think the Rams are innocent. I remember wondering where in the world did these people come from? Most of the people I knew thought the Rams were somehow involved. I finally figured it out and blundered into Joshua-7. Well, talk about a hodgepodge of viewpoints at J-7! I had unwittingly cast myself into a quagmire of various posters who believed druids did the killing, masons did it, JBR did her own self in, at least one poster claiming JBR was still alive, and of course the usual JR/PR/BR/GPP/SickPuppy-did-it gang. Curious died and was cannonized and enshrined on J-7. I didn't know him but figured him to be a saint. I started posting just as J-7 fell to pieces and never totally understood why it did (was it ME?!?). Then I blundered (but a good blunder) once again, into JW. Nobody told me about it, I just found it. Soon after, Curious arose and became the devil himself. I found it amusing, but did feel sorry for those who thought they knew and loved him. These hats disguise all too well at times, and people do take advantage. Anyway, frank, I'm glad you came along and stimulated V's most excellent post. I for one am glad to see other viewpoints, and I hope you keep posting. 28. "Amazed!" Posted by V on 19:04:12 10/13/98 Include Original Message on Reply NOTE: This message was edited 19:04:12, 10/13/98 Well, I was up all evening writing that essay and honestly didn't know how it was going to go over -- was afraid it was going to be one of those threads that sinks like a stone with a few flames to speed it along its way. Needless to say I was overwhelmed by the response. Thank you all for your comments -- and especially Shy and Greenleaf, for letting me know right away that it hadn't all been in vain! frankg, thank you for hearing out what I had to say in the spirit in which it was intended. Rest assured that when I first posted on the BNF I was flamed within seconds! Feel free to ask anything about the case, and as long as it's in bite-sized pieces, we'll be glad to accommodate. You'll be getting a good look at some of the alternatives to the documentary's worldview over the next few weeks. I hope you'll stay tuned. mandarin, apologies for rapping your knuckles in the above epic, especially in view of the many points you made and questions you raised in reporter's "Theory" thread. Hope you'll understand that it was intended to be for a good cause. To all the BNF veterans -- should we have buttons made up, "I Survived BNF '97"? Thanks for the memories -- and Ron S., thanks for reminding me about Readymix. The first thing I ever posted on one of these forums was responding to something Readymix said about the case on the Tom Sullivan forum (before Sullivan threw up his hands and got out of the Ramsey business). Hope he's still with us and will drop by again sometime. Once again, thank you all for your comments, and everyone KEEP POSTING! 29. "Dimmie didn't die?" Posted by Fra on 19:46:51 10/13/98 Include Original Message on Reply Oh God. I cried for hours and hours over that. I gave $20.00 in his name to my town library. I'm a bigger fool than he is. 30. "To V" Posted by Greenleaf on 21:04:00 10/13/98 Include Original Message on Reply NOTE: This message was edited 21:04:00, 10/13/98 Dear V, There's a lot of talent on this forum. I am amazed at the original and creative posters found here. However, it is a rare thing to find a post so beautifully written that you want to print it out and read it over again; i.e., your post at the beginning of this thread. I was not the least bit surprised that you received such glowing comments. That proves that most people here appreciate an informative, logical and well written post. So there! I've complimented you twice. Are you male or female? Just curious. With love and best wishes, Greenleaf [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "Great Review" Posted by szundi on 09:01:36 3/25/2000 Bump [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "this was a grand post" Posted by pat on 09:16:51 3/25/2000 and explains much that I didn't know having been here a short time,,a year I think. Thanks for posting a very well written and thought out review from the early days,,,this forum deserves a book,,really,,it is remarkable. And where did some of those early posters go???? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "The Evolution of Justice Watch" Posted by straykat2 on 10:08:41 3/25/2000 Being new to this forum, I appreciate the eloquent review of how this group evolved. Thanks for taking the time to repost it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "It DOES explain quite a bit ... " Posted by CynAnne on 14:45:41 3/25/2000 Agreement , straykat2 - I had been invited long ago , by Matt Causey to join the forum , but it seemed like every time I tried to enter the forum , it was ' down ' . I eventually gave up , and stayed where I was ( the " Excite " message boards ) . I'd been forced previously to drop my " AOL " service because of an ' unbalanced poster ' repeatedly ' TOSing ' me for refuting his insane postings at the " JonBenet Ramsey " message board . And when I say ' insane ' , I mean truly unbalanced . This " farbish " fellow was claiming , among other things, that " his sperm had been stolen to create JonBenet " - terrible things about " digging JonBenet up , in order to ' re-animate ' her for information " , and worse . I asked him for evidence , all we'd get was more insanity . He TOSed many people , and made the AOL board a ' hell-hole ' . I can't imagine having a literal ' league ' of hackers dedicated to crashing a forum , but it's a testiment to determination that the Justice Watch has demonstrated , and continues to lead the charge . There are so many people here that genuinely want " Justice for JonBenet " , and are willing to think about all sides of the case , and offer opinions with honesty and humor . Bravo ... ! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "Thank you" Posted by CaringMom on 09:26:21 3/25/2000 I now understand this alittle better..I have figued out how to post and answer people. The information was really interresting... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "This explains..." Posted by MsPlum on 10:03:16 3/25/2000 why but does not EXCUSE rude behavior.. example of the type of behavior I'm talking about...look at Shadows post #58 in Caringmom's original thread. Ya'll post sarcastic acusitory posts about us like we (newbies) are not here instead of asking questions that may shed light on a bogus poster. This was done to me as well and when I posted in my defense an aplogy was given but it included a critisim on the number of paragraphs I used to explain my presence here. I have been in very similar circumstances with trolls, flamers, etc. on other forums expecially from people who do not want people to believe that abuse exists and that it does cause long term damage. Sometimes it was kids playing on a saturday night, sometimes it was people from the False Memory Syndrom Foundation, sometimes it was Viet Nam Vets who claim that nobody but them can have PTSD. My policy was to ignore them and most times if they did not get the attention they were looking for they went away. On a public forum, a little bit of the benefit of the doubt goes a long long way. Especially on a forum where new information is esential to solving a case. Sure, you will get crackpots, but if you chase everybody away based on past experiences you may miss out on some very important information. Using the past as an excuse to be suspicious and rude to new posters is the same thing I described in my post regarding Victim Speak. You have been vicitmized in the past so anything that comes up now can be excused therefore you are not responsible for your behavior, it's somebody else's fault. I'm sure I just put a lot of posters here on the defense and opened myself up to a few flames, but thats ok as long as they are directed to me with thought out posts and not about me like I'm not even in the room in an attacking, sarcastic manner. Ms. Plum [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "MsPlum" Posted by straykat2 on 10:27:52 3/25/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 10:27:52, 3/25/2000 Some of the information you have posted here has had an interesting impact. Keep it up. I meant your previous posts, not just the one above. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "Good Points, ms plum..." Posted by LurkerXIV on 14:03:43 3/25/2000 ...I will try to be more gentle with newbies, since I was one myself....long long ago. V, where are you? I miss your well-reasoned and intelligent posts. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "Thanks Chris" Posted by Gemini on 15:43:41 3/25/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 15:43:41, 3/25/2000 for replaying the wonderful post by V and, the usual gentlemanly response by FrankG. Yikes! Never realized I had anything in common with msBrady but, I'm a (sometimes) grouchy fence-sitter, too (not at all sure the parents are murderers but wouldn't want them for neighbors either). The only thing I'll add is that there does seem to be a bit of a double standard ... an attitude that it's generally OK for the anti-Rams to bash and trash but inappropriate for the fencers or pro-rams to poke or punch. Otherwise, V's post is a very good orientation for newbies. Oh, one more thing ... sometimes it's hard to keep track of the players in these forums ... hard to tell new people from old posters who just decide to opt for an identity (hat) change. Since hat games have been so common over the 3+ years these forums have existed, some of us are going to raise an eyebrow when new posters make a dramatic entrance. Most of the time tho, it's great to have new opinions tossed in. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "I printed this thread>>>" Posted by ayelean on 15:32:12 3/25/2000 When I try to explain to friends that being here is so interesting, they can't imagine how there is still anything to talk about. I will be prepared for the next one that asks what holds my interest. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "Newbies" Posted by Aurora on 22:42:16 3/25/2000 Thanks for sharing that Forum History. I understand why you would be wary of newcomers. Rest assured...I am one of you! I have been a daily Mrs. Brady follower and just recently came in here and started reading the threads and couldn't stop. All I want is justice for that little girl. I think there are a lot more people that think Ramsey's are GUILTY than innocent and with good reason. Afterall, that is why we are here. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "Thank you, Chris" Posted by starry on 01:35:42 3/26/2000 for posting V's wonderful post and the trip down memory lane. I feel as if you put this thread up because of my response to caring mom. And I'm glad you did. You all know that I'm usually peaceful and never flame and am usually amoung the first to welcome newcomers. I still feel that way. Newcomers ~ pro, anti~, or fence sitters ~, should be welcome. (IMO) I can't explain my response to caring mom, other than something doesn't "feel" right. Not that I want her to go away. I'm just not buying the story. I have no idea as to the validity of her post, but something has my radar up. I am not calling her a liar, simply saying that something's causing me to be cautious. Still having that feeling as I've read other posts. You'll notice I didn't answer on the first dark thread. I have no desire to start a forum war or to flame or to run off a newcomer. I'm sorry, caring mom, if I've hurt your feelings or am pre-judging you. You certainly have stated enough times that you think along the same lines as I do regarding the Ramsey's guilt. Not that if you didn't, that you make you less believable to me. Hir believes in the Ramsey's innocence, and I believe hir is exactly who she says hir is. I am just experiencing some inner radar that tells me that you are playing some sort of game. Who knows? My radar may be down. Peace to you. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "Please read again well..." Posted by CaringMom on 01:57:04 3/26/2000 If you have time please read all the different things that have been said..I have given up my time too, to be here trying to get my experience out where maybe someone can take it and do something with it. I feel it has sat in the dark to long. I told what happened, I've remembered in detail, I answered questions where I would have to sit and remember, Why? Because I want to make absolutely sure of each and every detail that I remember before I say it.. No LIES here!! I didn't know anyone knew she had a SHORT ASH BLONDE WIG... An yet...Thats what I said and Thats because thats what I saw!! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "Don't worry , CaringMom ..." Posted by CynAnne on 18:13:23 3/26/2000 There are those who will never ' believe ' the Ramseys are guilty , just like there are still people who think O.J. Simpson is just a ' framed former football flinger ' ! Those of us who take the time and thought needed to examine this case keep an open mind , and listen to the ideas presented here . And the incredible tale you've relayed to us is definitely worth consideration . Like I said before , try to ignore the flamers . All they do is waste typing space , and who cares about that ? We can just start another thread ... ! ;) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "Caring Mom," Posted by LurkerXIV on 18:32:49 3/26/2000 I'm trying to think of reasons why Patsy would be working on changing her handwriting this late in the game. Maybe she is truly paranoid, and thinks the whole world (and NYLawyer) are attempting to get more samples of her writing for analysis. Maybe she is planning to "kidnap" Burke, and do a much better job on disguising her handwriting in HIS kidnap note. Maybe she thinks her handwritten notes will be sold at Sotheby's someday, the way they sell other crime artifacts, and she wants her handwriting to be really spiffy (like John Hancock's). Who knows what goes on in that demented mind of hers? You may or may not have seen the real Patsy Ramsey. She has an identical cousin. But if it was really Pats, I don't see what relevance the episode on the plane would have to the prosecution. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "I survived BNF '97" Posted by Policedog on 06:48:58 3/27/2000 I just had to say that since I don't have a pin that says it yet, or a bumper-sticker. ROFL! Wow, what an incredible scene that was! V, I remember you from those days, and if you're around reading today, thanks for the memories. Policedog (always have been, always will be) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] ARCHIVE REMOVE