Justice Watch Discussion Board "Mame/BJ Report: 5/10/00" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... Mame/BJ Report: 5/10/00, ToppCat, 21:35:23, 5/09/2000 Thanks, good update and info!, mary99, 23:10:19, 5/09/2000, (#1) Mame, BJ, AutumnBorn, 00:18:45, 5/10/2000, (#2) LOL TC, Waiting, 06:17:43, 5/10/2000, (#3) Oh dear..., mame, 06:30:05, 5/10/2000, (#4) MW's Claims, Real Stormy, 07:35:41, 5/10/2000, (#5) summary, please?, fly, 07:38:22, 5/10/2000, (#6) Kicking Butt, Lacey, 08:31:07, 5/10/2000, (#7) Lacey, mary99, 09:04:26, 5/10/2000, (#9) Yepper, it would appear, Watching you, 08:44:01, 5/10/2000, (#8) no apology, fly, 09:16:26, 5/10/2000, (#10) I agree with Fly., Cassandra, 09:51:16, 5/10/2000, (#11) Stand By Your Post, Lacey, 11:07:01, 5/10/2000, (#12) So, what did, Watching you, 11:11:17, 5/10/2000, (#13) Personally, Starling, 11:26:28, 5/10/2000, (#15) Lacey, fly, 11:21:54, 5/10/2000, (#14) You know what this reminds me of?, gaiabetsy, 12:04:39, 5/10/2000, (#16) After having read, Real Stormy, 14:33:56, 5/10/2000, (#17) Speaking of Hunter, Cassandra, 14:50:13, 5/10/2000, (#18) Fleet White, lake, 15:28:50, 5/10/2000, (#19) Lake points at Fleet White - now we KNOW . . . , CommonSense, 15:32:05, 5/10/2000, (#20) Well, lake, 15:35:41, 5/10/2000, (#21) But..., Starling, 16:23:28, 5/10/2000, (#22) right, Starling, Edie Pratt, 17:10:53, 5/10/2000, (#26) Great show, momo, 16:38:02, 5/10/2000, (#24) Starling, lake, 16:37:09, 5/10/2000, (#23) Lake, Starling, 16:46:48, 5/10/2000, (#25) Fraaaaaaaaankie!, Abra, 19:12:55, 5/10/2000, (#27) Oh, Toppcat, mame, 21:30:25, 5/10/2000, (#28) My take on the MW , fiddy, 22:58:23, 5/10/2000, (#29) fiddy, lake, 23:04:45, 5/10/2000, (#30) Lake, what does>>, ayelean, 08:28:34, 5/11/2000, (#31) Hi Lacey!, docg, 21:45:38, 5/12/2000, (#32) ................................................................... "Mame/BJ Report: 5/10/00" Posted by ToppCat on 21:35:23 5/09/2000 Hi, Mame is probably in bed by now, so I'll post this. My luck though, she's probably typing one as I'm typing this. Anyway . . . A new Mame and BJ report is now up at the broadcast website. Log on and enjoy the show. I guess we can use the rest of this thread to post any comments about the news (or as things have been lately, the lack thereof). Take care. I'm off to NYC early morning for a meeting with the people at Estee Lauder to do a hologram of Elizabeth Hurley. Everybody's been telling me she's a big star . . . but I never heard of her until they called me to do the hologram. Guess I have to get out more. http://www.holoworld.com/ramseyreports Take Care. Frank (ToppCat) [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "Thanks, good update and info!" Posted by mary99 on 23:10:19 5/09/2000 Mame, you, BJ, and Toppcatt, of course always bring some new insights. We're hitting the 'underbelly' of the case...we're waiting for news... Listening to you and BJ chat always perks me up. I especially appreciate BJ's comments on the MW angle...I encourage all posters to listen to BJ's analysis of the implications of her allegations. Whether she's a red herring or not, she deserves to have her claims fully investigated! The Ramseys can use her if there're ever arrested, to deflect the prosecution's case. She introduced questions that have yet to be answered. Until those allegations are fully investigated, the Rams can 'spin' her story to suit their own purpose! All the naysayers have already pronounced her and her supporters as nut-cases...but if the Ramseys ever go to trial, it's essential that MW be on the prosecution's side. This can only happen if the investigation digs deep into her allegations...even if it winds up putting a potential 'star' witness in a bad light. The truth must come out. This was not by any means the main subject of Mame and BJ's report, but it was of interest to me. Looking forward to Steve Thomas next, Mame! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "Mame, BJ" Posted by AutumnBorn on 00:18:45 5/10/2000 First, I'm bummed. Then I'm excited. Then I'm bummed. Then I'm hopeful...another great broadcast, of course. I swear, it never entered my mind that MW's testimony might be just enough information to cause reasonable doubt in a trial. Sometimes I'm so dense. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "LOL TC" Posted by Waiting on 06:17:43 5/10/2000 Never hear of the Hurley? Well that's refreshing! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "Oh dear..." Posted by mame on 06:30:05 5/10/2000 i'm being bumped by Elizabeth! whoa... well, it could be worse it could be raining... ha! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "MW's Claims" Posted by Real Stormy on 07:35:41 5/10/2000 I have no way of knowing whether any or all or none of MW's claims are true. I also have no way of knowing whether or not they have been thoroughly investigated. I hope they have been but I can't assume that just because the information has not been made public that the claims have not been investigated. In fact, I assume they have been. We may never know if they are true or not. However, since no information has come out, it indicates to me that there is nothing there. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "summary, please?" Posted by fly on 07:38:22 5/10/2000 How about a summary of mame & BJ's latest for those of us who can't listen? I know I'm not the only one in this situation. Would be greatly appreciated. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "Kicking Butt" Posted by Lacey on 08:31:07 5/10/2000 and Taking Names? Well at least ONE online is addressing a rampant speculation issue this morning.. The Whites have been writing again. The pen is mightier than the sword! My guess too, is that somebody is tracking the gleeful perversity of some of the Fleet White bashing going on at this very forum. If you've gone too far, some of you, y'all will get yours. I'm with you RS. I think, there is very little to support the MW/FW connection, except for the fertile imaginations of a small forum faction, LOL! The Whites are a bit eccentric and this has been parlayed to perversion. Forgotten are the facts that this woman has a history of false allegations and even Mark Beckner has said she proved less than credible when they talked with her. I doubt the Whites would be pushing for action in the JBR investigation if they had anything to hide. And be sure and read the pseudo-apology in the onlines off Mrs. Brady's today. The Whites can be commended for dealing with this without hiding behind a phalanx of lawyers like their former friends. Lace . [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "Lacey" Posted by mary99 on 09:04:26 5/10/2000 The way I took the Boulder Camera editorial was the opposite from your take, so I guess they played to all sides after all. What I picked up on was a clarification of their policy that news is not good reporting if too many relevant facts are left out...and while the Camera isn't attempting to tell people it's true by virtue of being printed in the newspaper, the article goes on to say that since the FW link came from the DA's office, the newspaper feels that it's not irresponsible to publish it. Whether AH has an ax to grind with FW or not, and slipped his name into the press release to 'get even' isn't the point. Many local people, the Camera goes on to say, have had their name printed in conjuction with this case. The Camera states that FW and PW sent anti-Hunter letters, and both were cleared as suspects, letting the reader evaluate for themself, as you did, whether the use of FW's name was an intentional smear by Hunter. I personally think that while Hunter may privately relish seeing the White's get a taste of their own medicine, he would not carelessly bandy FW's name about on a whim. If the name came up when MW came forward, and a link to Boulder 'case-related figures' was positively established (see Mame and Holly's interview, part 2)he had every right to hold a press conference if he felt the info was important and could lead to a break in the case. Also, you noted that since there has been no more news of the MW investigation's outcome, you conclude that there's nothing there anyway. Read the Boulder article again...the author states very clearly that as soon as there is any news that the claims are disproven or proven to not involve FW, the paper will be the first to let us know. (my paraphrasing). IOW, they aren't going to let FW dangle indefinitely ---they promise to let us know how it turns out. While the Whites may be upset, and have probably sent several letters into the editor, the newspaper's job is to report the news, and if it comes from the DA's office, it's good enough to print. That's my take on it. And notice the last sentence, which goes on to say that previously cleared names in the Ramseys case just keep popping up again. To me, that's a tongue-in-cheek innuendo that there is no unknown killer out there, but the answer lies in looking at the known case figures, all of them, with 'better eyes'. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "Yepper, it would appear" Posted by Watching you on 08:44:01 5/10/2000 that FW has not been as silent as some had thought. The guy is a private sort of person who doesn't need publicity like the Rams do. I admire him for keeping a low profile. I would do exactly as he has done. I do not believe he deserved to be dragged through the trash the way he has been. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "no apology" Posted by fly on 09:16:26 5/10/2000 Lacey - I didn't see it as any sort of apology either. I saw it as a defensive piece, more like what mary99 described. Almost a CYA piece, especially in the context of all the Ramsey libel suits. The one thing in the piece that rather irritated me was the admonition to not take things too far - implying that some folks have speculated way beyond what the article addressed. While I totally agree with that general advice, I thought it was a rather cheeky thing to say given how the article had done almost everything but shove the reader over the cliff of speculation. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "I agree with Fly." Posted by Cassandra on 09:51:16 5/10/2000 I think they are VERY nervous, and digging a bunker, just in case one of those flying lawsuits heads their way. I can't hear Mame and BJ. My sound is still burbly. What did BJ say? Any hope of a transcript? Cassie [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "Stand By Your Post" Posted by Lacey on 11:07:01 5/10/2000 Good grief, can anyone here define PSEUDO? (Spell it? Pronounce it?) Nevermind. In plain English, my own take on the article is that The Camera was responding to the White's letters, they're sorry, but that's news and that's the way it is. What an editorial! In short order it addresses the Whites' concerns, it states their position, it's controversial, and I hope everyone reads it. And no way does it lead me to believe we should be suspicious of the Whites or any other so-called pop-ups tumbling under that bus. LOL that "Hunter would not carelessly bandy FW's name about on a whim." He's done it! In fact he's consorted with tab types and done just that with Eller and several others who got in his way and it's documented. It's not just Steve Thomas saying so. We've heard it before and it's on the record. So sorry to imply otherwise Lacey . [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "So, what did" Posted by Watching you on 11:11:17 5/10/2000 pseudo now, Lace? Gol, you're good, girl, I brung you up right. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "Personally" Posted by Starling on 11:26:28 5/10/2000 Personally, I enjoyed the editors story - especially the final word (last sentence). That sums it all up for me! Coincedences suck when we're dealing with the brutal murder of a child and no one is behind bars. It's a natural thing to be curious. Once, this forum was told that all of a certain posters posts were being forwarded to the proper authorities, for similar circumstances - and it's two years later and nothing came of that. I guess I'll just tip toe back over to my corner :-) Starling [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "Lacey" Posted by fly on 11:21:54 5/10/2000 I beg your pardon. I did misinterpret what you said. I agree fully with your last post. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "You know what this reminds me of?" Posted by gaiabetsy on 12:04:39 5/10/2000 How about the "Ken Starr investigation" of the Prez, etc.? Whenever it looked like Starr and his bunch had something on the prez, some new and uglier mud was slinged back at anyone cooperating with Starr. That's what I see coming out of the Ramsey camp. Hit'em where it hurts and claim to be the crippled ones. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "After having read" Posted by Real Stormy on 14:33:56 5/10/2000 The Boulder piece, it appears to me that it is an attempt to fend off a possible lawsuit by the Whites. The Whites may have grounds for a lawsuit against certain media outlets as well as some of the posters on this forum. It is not enough to say, after libeling someone, "Hey, I was only speculating." Speculation must have some demonstrable basis in fact, however incomplete. I have read libelous statements about Fleet White, Sr, Jr., Mrs. White, Mrs. White's relatives and Mrs. White's relatives' friends. If I were one of those people, I know that I would already have discussed it with my attorney with a view toward initiating litigation. Perhaps they have. I don't know. I hope so. Insofar as the Boulder newspaper saying that when the results of the investigation are known, they will report them. Yes, I'm sure they will if they have access to the results. Have they had access to the results of the DNA tests; the fiber tests? No, they have not. Why does anyone think they will have access to the MW investigation conclusion? On the basis of the information I have, in my opinion it was reckless of Hunter and the news media to have published the White's name in connection with this bizarre tale prior to an investigation being conducted, merely on the mention of White Sr's name by a clearly disturbed individual. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "Speaking of Hunter" Posted by Cassandra on 14:50:13 5/10/2000 I wonder if anyone is going to sue him? The line may be forming even as we post! Or Jay Leno? LOL The last one I heard was that Janet Reno was planning to send in the Ramseys if the Miami relatives didn't hand the kid over! Cassie [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "Fleet White" Posted by lake on 15:28:50 5/10/2000 Is an odd duck. Years ago he appears before the BCC to complain that the JBR investigation is giving Boulder and the BPD a bad name and asks the BCC support for the removal of Hunter. But when a woman who represents herself as a friend of his family makes claims that the elder White sexually abused her (and had offered her money after the murder of JBR to keep quite about her claimed experiences) Fleet White just writes private letter to the BDC, apparenly making threates of law suits for publishing a story connecting his family name to the claims of the Jane Doe. Well, Burke Ramsey was cleared by the BPD and that does not seem to have stopped some from the continued specuation that BR was involved in some way in the killing of JBR. Fleet White was "cleared" way back in 1997 before the BPD did anything of substance other than concentrate on the Ramsey parents under Eller, with Thomas as the lead field detective. Fleet White apparently has a story to tell that he is not especially anxious to tell publically. The man seems to be hiding as much or more than the parents of JBR. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "Lake points at Fleet White - now we KNOW . . . " Posted by CommonSense on 15:32:05 5/10/2000 that Fleet had nothing to do with the death of JonBenet. RED HERRINGS, RED HERRINGS SEND ANOTHER RAMSEY VICTIM RIGHT OVER [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. "Well" Posted by lake on 15:59:20 5/10/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 15:59:20, 5/10/2000 The Ramsey are bringing suits. Don't hold your breath waiting for the Whites to sue on the Jane Doe claims published in the media and repeated on internet forums. Now that is something that would be really interesting, Fleet White bringing suit against the BDC for repeating the claims of the Jane Doe brought to the BPD and BDC by the lawyer Lee Hill. And I trust that the BDC will publish a story informing the public when and if the claims of Jane Doe are disproved or confirmed. Seems that FW has opened the door for further reports if in fact the calims are confirmed by the FBI or some other federal agency. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "But..." Posted by Starling on 16:23:28 5/10/2000 From the editorial: "The California woman said she had been introduced to the Ramsey family years ago through the White family." I'm sorry, but I am not tip-toeing around this one.LOL The Ramsey's and the Whites were not speaking since around the time of the burial of JB. So, this lady is claiming to have met the Ramsey family before the murder! All the other articles simply stated "knew the Ramsey's" through the Whites. I'm in awe that the Ramsey's aren't all over this! You would think, you know who - whom has a direct line and probably walkie talkie to Susan Stine's bedroom would be fishing for some answers from Frumpy & Lumpy. Am I the only one questioning this? Starling [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 26. "right, Starling" Posted by Edie Pratt on 17:10:53 5/10/2000 you would think the R's would be all over that. In fact, it would give them yet another reason to beat the Justice Center's door down, while they're being the BPD's "worst nightmare",LOL. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "Great show" Posted by momo on 16:38:02 5/10/2000 Mame and BJ. Thanks ToppCat for allthat you do. I think that is neat that you are doing a hologram of Liz Hurley. Can't wait for the Thomas interview. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. "Starling" Posted by lake on 16:38:09 5/10/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 16:38:09, 5/10/2000 Good observations. Why would the Ramseys and Jams not be all over the Jane Doe claims? Therein lies one of the keys to the probable truth of the killing of JBR. There is apparently some truth to the Jane Doe claims or the authorities would have publically dismissed the issue months ago. All Beckner really said was that he the BPD did not think the claims connected to the murder of JBR. And considering the BPD's track record on the Ramsey case, that judgement by Beckner means little or nothing. Because Beckner has a butt to cover too. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. "Lake" Posted by Starling on 16:46:48 5/10/2000 The editorial even stated the investigation is still ongoing. It really is a long investigation. It doesn't seem they hit a dead end street, but in my opinion one lead led into another which is casting a rippling effect. It sounds like they are really being thorough. Starling [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 27. "Fraaaaaaaaankie!" Posted by Abra on 19:12:55 5/10/2000 C'mon baby, I've been waiting all bloody DAY... ToppCat, darling. What do you mean, you don't know me? ***SMOOCH*** Love, Liz [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 28. "Oh, Toppcat" Posted by mame on 21:30:25 5/10/2000 I fear you'll never find time to talk to little ol' Mame! Well, Mame is a tough act to follow...but, if someone has to do it it might as well be Elizabeth. Well, I'll follow with Steve Thomas...touche!!!! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 29. "My take on the MW " Posted by fiddy on 22:58:23 5/10/2000 Have been lurking for years and read most threads. My take on MW is RTS. I think it is Ram Spin and that's why we haven't heard from the Rams about this issue and also why little heads are asking few questions. (JMO) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 30. "fiddy" Posted by lake on 23:13:14 5/10/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 23:13:14, 5/10/2000 Well, place your bet on the MW being Ramsey spin if you have money to burn. Otherwise, forget it. It is a safe bet that Jams pushes the Ramsey cause, and the fact that Jams treats the MW and FW issues like the yellow fever should tell all but the totaly lost in prejudiced thinking crowd that there is a reason for Jams and the Rs staying clear of the MW FW issue. It should be manna from heaven for Jams. Yet she treats it like yellow fever. And you must know JR is just shucking you about his still considering FW a friend. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 31. "Lake, what does>>" Posted by ayelean on 08:28:34 5/11/2000 SHUCKING mean in the context of your last sentence? Is that a colloquialiam? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 32. "Hi Lacey!" Posted by docg on 21:45:38 5/12/2000 How ya doon, kid? Fancy meeting YOU here. It's so nice to know that every once in a while we can manage to agree on something. This mystery woman, forget her, folks! She's just a figment of her own imagination. Like Lacey says: keep yer eyes on the prize. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]