Justice Watch Discussion Board "White speak - Camera squeaks!" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... White speak - Camera squeaks!, MrsBrady, 06:52:13, 5/11/2000 Interesting, Chris, 07:01:31, 5/11/2000, (#1) Troubling Reality!, Starling, 07:07:25, 5/11/2000, (#3) As I said before..., Cassandra, 07:09:46, 5/11/2000, (#4) ..it's just too good to be true.., Nikki, 07:07:09, 5/11/2000, (#2) The Rams, Morgan, 07:21:36, 5/11/2000, (#5) Um..., BearCat, 07:30:13, 5/11/2000, (#6) Bearcat., Holly, 07:39:15, 5/11/2000, (#8) Clearly,, Lacey, 07:39:38, 5/11/2000, (#9) Why can't the Whites, Househazard, 07:35:32, 5/11/2000, (#7) Sometimes, Househazard, Watching you, 07:45:30, 5/11/2000, (#10) Well, I feel, Starling, 07:48:43, 5/11/2000, (#11) Lacey, darby, 08:12:03, 5/11/2000, (#12) What are the chances, Househazard, 08:18:07, 5/11/2000, (#14) Ooh, Househazard,, gaiabetsy, 11:24:44, 5/11/2000, (#29) Misreading, Lacey, 08:17:15, 5/11/2000, (#13) So, Chris, Watching you, 08:23:48, 5/11/2000, (#15) BDC didn't publish White letters...why?, mary99, 09:01:36, 5/11/2000, (#18) I'm continually shocked, mame, 08:49:42, 5/11/2000, (#17) mame, post 17, Sioux, 09:24:05, 5/11/2000, (#19) The documentation, darby, 08:49:28, 5/11/2000, (#16) The 1st and most important>>>, ayelean, 10:00:01, 5/11/2000, (#20) documentation, duration, and defensive, fly, 10:32:17, 5/11/2000, (#24) Hmmmm...., Starling, 14:37:06, 5/11/2000, (#43) Thanks Darby, Starling, 10:19:17, 5/11/2000, (#22) This article makes me think of two things..., Colorado-an, 10:16:31, 5/11/2000, (#21) Embarrassment by his father's, SJ, 20:14:29, 5/11/2000, (#69) A Reluctant Post, CommonSense, 10:25:20, 5/11/2000, (#23) I'm sorry, but, Starling, 10:36:08, 5/11/2000, (#25) star, Seashell, 11:30:30, 5/11/2000, (#32) We can't let the "well, maybe Patsy is covering" d..., CommonSense, 11:04:29, 5/11/2000, (#26) Reluctant Post,.......but so true, I wonder, 18:25:29, 5/11/2000, (#56) MW is the link, mary99, 11:46:30, 5/11/2000, (#34) Starling, fly, 11:11:38, 5/11/2000, (#27) As far as I know, mame, 11:23:29, 5/11/2000, (#28) mame, fly, 11:26:50, 5/11/2000, (#30) fly, mame, 11:29:15, 5/11/2000, (#31) mame, fly, 11:36:04, 5/11/2000, (#33) First,, Gemini, 12:55:23, 5/11/2000, (#38) one thing..., mary99, 12:03:47, 5/11/2000, (#37) The past articles, darby, 11:57:16, 5/11/2000, (#36) how about , mame, 11:50:21, 5/11/2000, (#35) silence, dixie, 13:24:00, 5/11/2000, (#39) I have..., canadiana, 21:38:51, 5/11/2000, (#77) I certainly, Househazard, 13:29:30, 5/11/2000, (#40) Autoerotic Asphyxia - This is L O N G, CommonSense, 13:46:18, 5/11/2000, (#42) More like, lake, 13:42:57, 5/11/2000, (#41) Well, there's a first time for everything...!, mary99, 15:34:24, 5/11/2000, (#45) And, Rat White, lake, 15:19:31, 5/11/2000, (#44) Well, Mary, lake, 15:41:58, 5/11/2000, (#46) Ya had to push it,lake...!, mary99, 15:51:31, 5/11/2000, (#47) Mary, Gemini, 15:58:12, 5/11/2000, (#49) Protecting the Whites...?, mary99, 16:52:20, 5/11/2000, (#51) So Then, Mary, lake, 15:56:45, 5/11/2000, (#48) not my theory, lake..., mary99, 17:06:07, 5/11/2000, (#52) So now, Mary, lake, 17:11:40, 5/11/2000, (#53) Because, Mary, lake, 16:13:38, 5/11/2000, (#50) What do you think, lake?, mary99, 17:28:13, 5/11/2000, (#54) Well, Mary, lake, 17:40:38, 5/11/2000, (#55) Lake says.., rico, 19:30:24, 5/11/2000, (#62) Lake, you are a fountain of information>>, ayelean, 19:15:58, 5/11/2000, (#60) Well, lake, 19:25:20, 5/11/2000, (#61) Now it's 3 ponytails, rico, 19:37:44, 5/11/2000, (#63) rico, lake, 19:42:59, 5/11/2000, (#64) Is that your final answer? , rico, 20:49:35, 5/11/2000, (#72) well, rico, lake, 20:59:45, 5/11/2000, (#73) Lake eerie, mary99, 21:09:24, 5/11/2000, (#74) well, mary, lake, 21:14:04, 5/11/2000, (#75) To Guppy in the Puddle, Ruthee, 20:00:56, 5/11/2000, (#66) Ruthee, lake, 20:14:02, 5/11/2000, (#68) no, but..., mary99, 20:22:16, 5/11/2000, (#70) Ruthee, Hannah, 20:05:29, 5/11/2000, (#67) Remote Control, Lacey, 18:32:40, 5/11/2000, (#57) Lacey, Ribaldone, 19:00:50, 5/11/2000, (#58) Lacey, lake, 19:05:18, 5/11/2000, (#59) mame is right..., shadow, 19:46:46, 5/11/2000, (#65) This is so funny>>, ayelean, 20:45:08, 5/11/2000, (#71) But, lake, 21:17:24, 5/11/2000, (#76) lake, darby, 21:50:21, 5/11/2000, (#78) Lake..., shadow, 22:20:16, 5/11/2000, (#80) darby, lake, 22:16:09, 5/11/2000, (#79) lake, darby, 22:48:45, 5/11/2000, (#81) darby, lake, 22:59:04, 5/11/2000, (#82) lake, mary99, 23:37:17, 5/11/2000, (#83) Oh, Mary, lake, 23:46:33, 5/11/2000, (#84) lake, answer the question, mary99, 00:02:20, 5/12/2000, (#85) Well,mary, lake, 00:08:22, 5/12/2000, (#86) You said..., mary99, 00:44:06, 5/12/2000, (#87) Wrong, Mary, lake, 00:58:56, 5/12/2000, (#88) Patsy, Patsy all Patsy all the time, mary99, 01:12:07, 5/12/2000, (#89) If there is one thing that I do know, lake, 01:16:16, 5/12/2000, (#90) But, lake, 01:47:10, 5/12/2000, (#91) Excuse me Lake, JR, 10:12:10, 5/12/2000, (#92) ................................................................... "White speak - Camera squeaks!" Posted by MrsBrady on 06:52:13 5/11/2000 This editorial was buried in an obscure location on the Boulder Daily Camera website. Original publication date is given as Sunday, May 7 - I didn't find it until Wednesday, May 10. Since this addresses the reactions of the Fleet White clan to the Mystery Woman mini-scandal, I didn't want it to disappear without your insightful inspection... ________________________ Ramsey case: hard choices, tough calls for editors I love my job. It is a privilege to practice journalism in Boulder County. The Daily Camera is blessed with readers who truly care about the community and the quality of the newspaper. Most days, I go home feeling fulfilled and deeply rewarded for the chance to sit in the editor's office. But some days are really hard. We live in an imperfect world and sometimes the news of the day is heartbreaking. I know the decisions I make about publishing those stories may bring pain to another human being. You readers know that, too. Your sophistication about media and your high expectations for journalism and journalists put those of us in the profession under a microscope and rightly so. Newspapers are the target of intense criticism these days. We are seen as intrusive and insensitive. To many we are not merely the messenger, but a big part of the problem. That's regrettable, because a good newspaper, and we try to be one, performs a vital role in the community. We publish information that allows you to make informed decisions. In Boulder this media scrutiny has been particularly intense since Dec. 26, 1996. It was on that day that the murder of JonBenét Ramsey became a global news story. This tragic story has resulted in journalism at its worst and at its best. We want to be part of the best. We believe the Daily Camera should be held to a particularly high standard because of our unique role as the local community newspaper. The Denver papers, the national tabloids and the television stations come and go with the ebb and flow of the next big story, and so does the attention of their readers and viewers. But those of us who live in Boulder County live with the story day in and day out. The names that appear in our news columns are those of our family, friends and neighbors. Because of that, we strive for the highest level of journalistic integrity on every story every day. We have worked doubly hard on stories about the Ramsey case. No decision in the coverage of this story has been easy. Each has been the subject of intense discussion and debate. In every case, other experienced editors might have made different decisions given the same set of facts. This is not Journalism 101. These are tough calls. They weigh heavily on every editor at the Camera. On Feb. 25, the Camera published yet another story about the Ramsey investigation. This story, about a woman from California who claims close knowledge of circumstances that seemed to her to be similar to those surrounding the death of JonBenét Ramsey, again tested our best editors and news judgment. The story was like many we have published about the Ramsey investigation. In those stories and this one, there were troubling elements and references to local people who have been associated with the family or the investigation in one way or another from the beginning. Throughout the long months of reporting on this case, many local people have been investigated, questioned and ultimately cleared by police. In every case, the names of these community members remain a part of the public record. Names, like accurate quotes, times and places, are essential facts in credible news reporting. Without them, news stories lack clarity. This creates an unfair atmosphere of guesswork among readers and casts a broad blanket of suspicion where none exists. Usually, based on documentation and reliable information from law enforcement officials, we have included names in news stories. But we have been careful not to go farther than the facts support. This is important to the newspaper and to you, our readers. When you read stories about this case, or any criminal investigation, it is essential to center on the facts. This is really hard in this case because of the international coverage and the Internet exposure. Speculation and fact have become all mixed up. In our reporting about this particular story, the name of Boulder resident Fleet White Jr. was published. The California woman said she had been introduced to the Ramsey family years ago through the White family. White and his wife Priscilla, who, as the Feb. 25 story said, have been cleared by police in the murder investigation, have written several letters strongly objecting to the family name being included in this story. Deciding whether to publish this story, and whether to use White's name, even in a neutral way, were very difficult decisions involving hours of discussion and legal advice. The compelling facts were these: The District Attorney, a duly sworn officer of the government and the highest law enforcement officer in Boulder County, believed the claims brought forward by the California woman merited thorough police investigation. The only link between the woman and Boulder County was her association with the White family. At the same time, we believed it was essential to repeat the fact that the White family had been cleared by police. And, to further protect the Whites' reputation, we also pointed out that they have been aggressive in seeking Hunter's ouster for his refusal to prosecute the Ramseys. I repeat. It is important for readers not to jump to conclusions. That's why we were so careful to point out these facts. And yet, the Whites point out that some people have jumped to conclusions even though they were not supported by the facts in the story. The police investigation into the woman's claims is ongoing. If they determine the woman's story is not credible after all you can count on the Camera to report that promptly and prominently. The Whites' anger at the Camera is understandable. Yet, it is a troubling reality that the names of community members somehow connected to the Ramseys or the case continue to surface in the investigation, even after the individuals have been cleared by police. [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "Interesting" Posted by Chris on 07:01:31 5/11/2000 The Whites' anger at the Camera is understandable. Yet, it is a troubling reality that the names of community members somehow connected to the Ramseys or the case continue to surface in the investigation, even after the individuals have been cleared by police. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "Troubling Reality!" Posted by Starling on 07:07:25 5/11/2000 The way this editorial ends is so true! It is troubling! "The California woman said she had been introduced to the Ramsey family years ago through the White family." What year was she introduced to the Ramsey family? Where was she introduced to the Ramsey family? Hopefully the next article or interview will give us more insight into this particular area of her story. Starling [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "As I said before..." Posted by Cassandra on 07:09:46 5/11/2000 I think they are digging a bunker in case one of those flying lawsuits head their way. What's the latest on the MW? Is she still in hiding? Cassie [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "..it's just too good to be true.." Posted by Nikki on 07:07:09 5/11/2000 ..that's my point of view ..IMO..the MW story is another quirky hangup in the JonBenet saga..akin to Santa McReynold's child being molested on Xmas and Janet's Hey Rube! play on the Likens basement murder.. ..I don't believe the White family or their holiday guests had anything to do with the murder of JonBenet.. ..there were 4 in the house ..but death made it 3 ..the secret ..will come. ..JFJBR [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "The Rams" Posted by Morgan on 07:21:36 5/11/2000 and the Whites seem to have made it their mission in life to shut the media up and restore their "good names". [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "Um..." Posted by BearCat on 07:30:13 5/11/2000 Morgan, you're getting the Whites confused with the ramsters. Earlier, some posters questioned why the Whites weren't defending themselves. It appears that they were. And now it seems that this fact does not make a bit of difference to some, the fact that their name keeps popping up is mysterious and possibly indicative of their guilt. Well, I agree with Nikki... the McReynolds name keeps popping up too, but I think it's all unrelated. Patsy got p.o.'d. Patsty swung the weapon. John's helping cover. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "Bearcat." Posted by Holly on 07:39:15 5/11/2000 Maybe there isn't much difference. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "Clearly," Posted by Lacey on 07:39:38 5/11/2000 Morgan has a one-track mind. Won't go there ANYWAY, thanks to Mrs. B for reposting this editorial on its own thread. For anyone who's interested, we've had some lively debate over this issue on, believe it or not, the current Mame and BJ thread. The editorial seems cloaked in double-speak but I think what they had in mind was cover all bases, cover your a$$, avoid litigation. They pretty much said News Is News no matter who it hurts, eh? Give them points for saying that lots of Ramsey friends have been hurt and apparently, continue to be, tough break Lace . [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "Why can't the Whites" Posted by Househazard on 07:35:32 5/11/2000 just say that they know who she is (or don't) and when and where she would have met the Ramseys? I understand that they don't have to, but it would put some finality to their part (if any) in this case. Because of MW, the Whites have joined the Ramseys under the umbrella. Couldn't they just say "she was introduced to the Ramseys... and My God, we had no idea this was going on" I think they have to admit one way or the other that they know who she is if they want to clear themselves publically. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "Sometimes, Househazard" Posted by Watching you on 07:45:30 5/11/2000 there really are people who don't want to get caught up in the fray, don't seek their 15 minutes of fame. The Whites have no obligation to validate themselves to anyone. They apparently have objected to having their name dragged through the mud, but they haven't gone on national tv to draw attention to themselves. You know, if I were in the White's shoes, and I knew I'd done nothing wrong, I would be damned if I would explain anything to anyone. I would not dignify my accusers' accusations by answering them. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "Well, I feel" Posted by Starling on 07:48:43 5/11/2000 I feel that this editorial was a nice reminder, that they don't just go around reporting falsehoods and is a direct responce to the White's private letters (which I'm assuming they are private since they have not been made public), voicing their disapproval of the series of articles. "Usually, based on documentation and reliable information from law enforcement officials, we have included names in news stories." The kicker is - she brought documentation. How many weeks has this investigation been ongoing now? It is still ongoing, too. Starling [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "Lacey" Posted by darby on 08:12:03 5/11/2000 This was a little different than the other bus people that the Ramseys have been implicating. This involved a disinterested party (ie, NOT the Ramseys) with documentation recorded prior to the murder about her abusers. THAT is why I felt her claims should at least be looked into. I would think that any reasonable person here would feel the same way. Nobody should ignore things which potentially could have something to do with case. And no, I don't feel conclusions should ever be jumped to. All I ever asked was further investigation. That being said, I do feel that, unless the Camera had a very good reason, the publication should have published the protesting letters from the Whites. The last word we heard here was that the DA was cautiously taking MW's claims seriously. The apparent White silence didn't look too good to me. Now we learn that the Whites were not silent after all. I wish we had had a chance to hear what they had to say. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "What are the chances" Posted by Househazard on 08:18:07 5/11/2000 of the Whites telling authorities what they know? Some things in an investigation are kept secret for good reasons. Maybe the MW investigation is ongoing because of what the Whites have told the PD? Thoughts on this, anyone? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 29. "Ooh, Househazard," Posted by gaiabetsy on 11:24:44 5/11/2000 sounds quite possible. I hadn't looked at it from that point of view before. Yea, maybe the Whites are cooperating as much as they know, but it has less to do with them and more to do with the Rams? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "Misreading" Posted by Lacey on 08:17:15 5/11/2000 Star, I don't think we can infer that MW "brought documentation" to anyone to substantiate her claims. What the Camera is referring to is their source. Alex Hunter is DA and as such is considered a "reliable source" to the Daily Camera. Alex Hunter is the one who passed this information on to the media. And I think we CAN infer something from that! Lace . [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "So, Chris" Posted by Watching you on 08:23:48 5/11/2000 who's Fred? Right on, Lacey. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "BDC didn't publish White letters...why?" Posted by mary99 on 09:01:36 5/11/2000 The Whites have apparently contacted the Daily Camera and made their displeasure known. The Daily Camera could choose to publish any such letters if addressed to 'the editor' if they wanted to let the Whites have their say. That the Camera chose to reply in the manner they did, by means of an open statement concerning their stance, makes me wonder if the Whites sent private correspondence threatening a lawsuit if the Daily Camera wouldn't retract the initial article. I find the newspaper's defense of its policy of publishing names if provided by the DA's office consistent with a possible private response to the Whites saying the same thing: it's news; it came from the DA's office; you might not like it; too bad and BTW, your're not the first ones in this case to have been cleared and then have your name in the paper in connection with this case. If the White letter(s) was sent to the editor for publication, I think the Camera would have published it with a reply. OTOH, if the letter was from an attorney, it would not be intended for publication. The Camera's 'pseudo-apology' statement makes sense from this POV to me. While keeping the exact text of the White correspondence private, it addresses the issues of an individual's right to privacy vs. a newspaper's right to print news coming from 'the chief law enforcement officer in Boulder County...Alex Hunter'. I try to keep an open mind (and anyone who reads my posts knows I feel strongly about the MW impact on the case), and as the case has taken its twists and turns some people have let us down and others have picked our spirits up. Hunter has been demonized and White has been deified. Looking at the MW allegations as a new or possibly final chapter in this saga is also an opportunity to re-think the positions taken on White and Hunter in the past. Underlying fear of being duped by the RST is what keeping more of us from seeing this with fresh eyes. JMO, not trying to start a mini-war. :) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "I'm continually shocked" Posted by mame on 08:49:42 5/11/2000 at the LACK of critical thinking here! the editorial was a "cover your ass" editorial. from a newspaper that has NEVER continuously been a voice for it's community. a newspaper that rarely has advocated for the little guy! the guy who wrote it is one of the few responsible news people behind the granola curtain... i agree that ANYONE should be cleared who deserves it. that's one of the main reasons speedy investigation and speedy justice should be sought. why has it taken three months? fleet white is the BPD's main witness in this case. it would seem they would want to keep him happy. why so long in their investigation and response? must have been a lot to look at me thinks. we're all waiting to hear what those BPD boys and girls have come up with... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "mame, post 17" Posted by Sioux on 09:24:05 5/11/2000 Yes, mame you are right about the article being a "cover ass". BTW, you wouldn't happen to know WHEN MW met the Ramseys, would you? Or you do know but can't share it for the sake of the investigation? Sioux [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "The documentation" Posted by darby on 08:49:28 5/11/2000 has been talked about in many of the articles that we have read, and the overwhelming bulk of the documentation was recorded before the murder. Alex Hunter is not the only source of this information about the documentation. Lee Hill has spoken of it as well. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "The 1st and most important>>>" Posted by ayelean on 10:00:01 5/11/2000 thing that should be investigated with the MW re this case is, what is the extent of her relationship is with Patsy! How much does Patsy know about the type of sexual abuse MW suffered as a child. Can't the FBI and BPD see how important it is to know this information. One of the two remaining suspects in the Ramsey home (THEY have excluded Burke) staged the victim to appear like MW's description. MW's description of sexual abuse is not a common, well known, established method of abuse. The very fact that MW sees a similiarity should be a tip off that it was chosen for the method of staging! It's the needle in the haystack that is important not how big the haystack is! Mary99 explained so succintly on a thread last week, how MW coming forward has stopped the Ramseys from commenting on it for the above reason. While at the same time, the Whites want it to go away because of the history of her abuser has to be painful to them. I am going to really tear my hair out when this investigation is completed and hundreds of hours of people have been interviewed, and the association of MW and Patsy is overlooked for its importance in solving this case. They need to know every word that MW, Fleet, and Pricilla every uttered to Patsy about this form of sexual abuse. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "documentation, duration, and defensive" Posted by fly on 10:32:17 5/11/2000 Yes, we've heard lots of references to documentation, but very little about exactly what aspects of MW's story are documented and exactly how they are documented. From what I have read (and inferred), she has family photos and/or letters that document that her family interacted with the Whites (at least Sr, most likely Jr, too). She apparently has told her therapist things that involve one or more of the Whites. Had the "documented evidence" been truly impressive, even of only personal abuse without any link to the JBR case, I have to wonder why BPD would essentially dismiss her story. As to the length of the investigation...yes, involved conspiracies can take considerable time to investigate. However, people can also take a long time looking in vain for conspiracies or crimes that do not exist, making sure that they don't miss something. Which is it here? I don't know, and I don't think the Daily Camera editorial provides any information either. I find it rather interesting that the Camera chose to reply publically to what pretty clearly was private communication - whether from Fleet or from his lawyer. Why not just reply privately? Perhaps they are catching flack from other directions? Feeling a bit defensive? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 43. "Hmmmm...." Posted by Starling on 14:37:06 5/11/2000 "I find it rather interesting that the Camera chose to reply publically to what pretty clearly was private communication - whether from Fleet or from his lawyer. Why not just reply privately? Perhaps they are catching flack from other directions? Feeling a bit defensive?" Fly Well, that could be the case, but the editorial went out of it's way to shed light on something we had no idea was going on behind the scenes. I would have to see the letters the Whites sent to determine if their feelings were merely hurt or if there's a certain threatening tone about them. If the Camera was catching flack from someone - it's definately from the White camp because this article clearly states before anything went to print attorney's were consulted. For all we know, this could have been the Camera's way to tell someone - back off Jack! Starling [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "Thanks Darby" Posted by Starling on 10:19:17 5/11/2000 Thanks for reminding others that documentation has and does exist. I'm recalling a certain lawyer, who went to a certain state, with a video camera... and if I'm not mistaken, the newspaper was went to first - and then Hunter was called in. It is my opinion that the writer of the Camera articles regarding MW has seen documentation. Why else would this new editorial throw in the new nugget of info that MW has indeed been introduced to the Ramsey's? I don't know why the Whites letters weren't made public - but I guarantee you there is a reason. Starling [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. "This article makes me think of two things..." Posted by Colorado-an on 10:16:31 5/11/2000 First I wonder what has them running for cover? and.... my baloney has a first name...... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 69. "Embarrassment by his father's" Posted by SJ on 20:14:29 5/11/2000 actions may be enough to keep the Whites quiet. Just because his dad is targeted by MW doesn't mean that Jr was involved. Just a possibility as to why they have been quiet. Would you want anyone to know that your father did that kind of crap? How awful for their kids! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. "A Reluctant Post" Posted by CommonSense on 10:25:20 5/11/2000 I also wonder about the staging that looks like the book of Mr. and Mrs. Claus and this stuff that looks like MW's vague story. My thought is that our murderer - Patsy - is very good at creating reasonable doubt. Throw EVERYTHING in - over do it. Now did Patsy intentionally throw in the Clause book and the MW claims? Could be. She is the drama queen. The main thing is that we can't be pulled in every direction. Stick to it - Patsy is our "man." These other questions are interesting - but they give the killer reasonable doubt to pitch to the jury. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. "I'm sorry, but" Posted by Starling on 10:36:08 5/11/2000 Commonsense you are assuming everyone here is in agreement that Patsy Ramsey is the lone gunman, I assure you that is not a true assumption. How do you not know that she is merely holding up the umbrella for others? I am going to keep an open mind until someone in the know tells me to phase the aspect of MW out. Star [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 32. "star" Posted by Seashell on 11:30:30 5/11/2000 >Commonsense you are assuming everyone here is >in agreement that Patsy Ramsey is >the lone gunman, I assure >you that is not a true >assumption. How do you not >know that she is merely holding >up the umbrella for others? >I am going to keep an open >mind until someone in the know >tells me to phase the aspect >of MW out. My thoughts exactly! I have no doubt that the Whites correspondences with the paper was of a *private* nature or the Camera would have published them under the letters to the editor. It's a very hot issue and for the Whites to be so quiet about their writing after being so very verbal before - well, I just have to wonder why. The Santas' and others' names keep coming up becuz the RST keeps erroneously pushing them in our faces. Not so with the Whites. On the contrary, the Rams have recently defended the Whites' innocence if I recall correctly. Some of you might say that the White name is up again becuz the RST is playing mind games, using the MW as a pawn. Since I don't know what's going on, I'll keep quiet on that subject. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 26. "We can't let the "well, maybe Patsy is covering" detract us" Posted by CommonSense on 11:04:29 5/11/2000 Here is the deal in my opinion: The killer has done and is continuing to do everything possible to throw reasonable doubt into this case. Patsy is certainly involved in this crime. Her note, her pen, her pad, her failure to change clothes, lack of her fingerprints on the note, her fingerprints on the pineapple bowl and it is Patsy who claims that John was asleep, that she found the note, and that she has no explanation for any of the unusual facts of this "kidnapping." I personally don't care to play detective games with Patsy. All of the evidence points to Patsy. If Patsy is not guilty, Patsy merely needs to give us the real killer. Until Patsy changes her story - Patsy is on the hook. Reasonable minds can not differ - beyond a reasonable doubt it is Patsy Ramsey who has lied herself into this murder and only if she changes her mind about what really happened will there by any reasonable evidence to suggest that we look elsewhere. End of story - put Patsy on trial. If she comes up with another story during the trial - "I was covering for John . . . I was covering for Burke . . ." Let the jury decide what the truth is. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 56. "Reluctant Post,.......but so true" Posted by I wonder on 18:25:29 5/11/2000 >I personally don't care to play detective >games with Patsy. All of >the evidence points to Patsy. >If Patsy is not guilty, Patsy >merely needs to give us the >real killer. Until Patsy changes >her story - Patsy is on >the hook. Reasonable minds can >not differ - beyond a reasonable >doubt it is Patsy Ramsey who >has lied herself into this murder >and only if she changes her >mind about what really happened will >there by any reasonable evidence to >suggest that we look elsewhere. >End of story - put Patsy on >trial. If she comes up >with another story during the trial >- "I was covering for John >. . . I was covering >for Burke . . ." Let >the jury decide what the truth >is. You logic lives up to your "Hat". It's just common sense. Thank you for summarizing the situation so well. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 34. "MW is the link" Posted by mary99 on 11:46:30 5/11/2000 Whether JR had a kinky secret or whether PR staged the garrotting after bashing JonBenet in the head over bedwetting remains to be seen. The fact is, if the Ramseys met MW, and from what the editorial says, it seems they did indeed meet, the link to the methodology of the garrotte, and knowledge thereof can at last be established. Opportunity was always there; circumstantial evidence overwhelmingly points to the Ramseys. Motive, whether a bedwetting accident triggering blind rage or pre-meditated silencing of JB over incest, varies depending on different POV. Method, the use of the garrotte, has been the question mark. How and why did PR or JR dream up a garrotte, of all things, to coverup JonBenet's death? A provable link between the Ramseys and MW through FW nails the Ramseys by matching a rare stranglulation technigue. The Ramseys have laughed off Steve Thomas's bedwetting-gone-wrong theory inferring that first of all, the wouldn't kill JB over bedwetting, and second, who would garrotte their child over bedwetting, anyway? So maybe it wasn't over bedwetting (incest, maybe? much worse, PR and JR!) but if it can be proven they knew about garrotting, their credibility just took a suicidal plunge off a skyscraper. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 27. "Starling" Posted by fly on 11:11:59 5/11/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 11:11:59, 5/11/2000 starling - This isn't the first time somebody mentioned that MW had met the Ramseys. That came out (directly or strongly implied) during the early discussions of MW. I don't remember if it was in a newspaper article, or during the Boyles/McKinley discussion, but it did come out. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 28. "As far as I know" Posted by mame on 11:26:28 5/11/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 11:26:28, 5/11/2000 The Witness has never said to anyone that she has definitely met the Ramseys. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 30. "mame" Posted by fly on 11:26:50 5/11/2000 Well, the DailyCamera seems to think she did. Are you saying they are wrong? Or is this another thing that MW "thinks" occurred - like she "thinks" Fleet Sr. molested her when she was young (wording Boyles used on his show)? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 31. "fly" Posted by mame on 11:29:15 5/11/2000 i can't speak for the daily camera, or their reporting skills. the witness is a bright woman with the ability and practice of being quite direct and clear in her allegations and evidence. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 33. "mame" Posted by fly on 11:36:04 5/11/2000 OK, how about a multiple choice format, since you don't seem to be willing to give a direct answer. What has MW said about whether she has met the Ramseys? a. She definitely met the Ramseys (one or both) through the Whites. b. She thinks she might have met the Ramseys (one or both) through the Whites, but isn't 100% sure. c. She definitely has not met the Ramseys (neither one). [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 38. "First," Posted by Gemini on 12:55:23 5/11/2000 I'm not inclined to believe the Whites (either/both) were involved in this murder. Since we really don't have enough information to even attempt to reach any kind of conclusion, I see no point in dragging them through speculation to the extent of painting them into the crime. However, Mr. White does leave me with a number of negative impressions, based soley on his own actions. He's like a big, aggressive boxer ... with a glass jaw. As long as he's in the attack mode, with little-to-no public opposition, he's in his element. The 'letter campaign' was constructed and honed to influence public opinion and to cause actual, measurable harm to people he targeted as his "enemies". OTOH, when faced with a real threat of personal notoriety, his reaction is to fade behind the scenes to threaten and bully the media he's been perfectly content to use in the past. Isn't this almost exactly the same thing many of you believe of the Ramseys? Based entirely on his actions since the murder, I do not find Fleet White to be an admirable character. But, I'm sure he isn't interested in leading a popularity contest ... is he? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 37. "one thing..." Posted by mary99 on 12:03:47 5/11/2000 I see after posting that its not confirmed that the Ramseys and MW actually met. Irregardless, if it can be proven that the Ramseys had knowledge of the use of a garrotte on little girls by men with perverted, sadistic minds, its not hard to see how the pedophile/intruder scenario came into being. Add to that the movie, Ransom, (on cable that very night); and the methodology for the entire scenario falls into place. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 36. "The past articles" Posted by darby on 11:57:16 5/11/2000 have said that MW knew the Ramseys through the Whites. That could be akin to, say, my Aunt having some dear friends, Mr. and Mrs. X, who Auntie has spoken of, though I've never met them directly. If Mr. and Mrs. X suddenly started making global headlines as murder suspects, I might truthfully say that I know them through my Aunt. This distinction ("knowing through" rather than "knowing of") would be to clarify my knowledge of Mr. and Mrs. X as opposed to the general public's knowledge of the couple. This Camera article makes it seem more personal, but maybe this was just the Camera's interpretation of earlier statements. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 35. "how about " Posted by mame on 11:50:21 5/11/2000 D. None of your business. i love ya fly but you left yourself wide open. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 39. "silence" Posted by dixie on 13:24:00 5/11/2000 Have I missed the Rams take on MM, I don't remember hearing them say squat about this woman and I wonder why? If she could possibly have any information about the killer of their daughter and it seems that they give no attention to this possible angle. And is it just me or did anyone here ever know about sexual garrottes and what they were used for way back then? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 77. "I have..." Posted by canadiana on 21:38:51 5/11/2000 heard of them. A police officer (here) told me that on the death certificate, it is recorded as 'death by misadventure'. (Protecting the person and their family.) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 40. "I certainly" Posted by Househazard on 13:31:18 5/11/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 13:31:18, 5/11/2000 am no sexual deviant, but I have heard of strangulation in sex crimes. I believe the Something Hill Stranglers did this several times to their victims before killing them finally. Maybe I just read too many true crime books. Also there was a dentist in PA (my hometown) who was found dead in his apartment with something tied around his neck and his pants down. It's dangerous to do this to yourself, obviously. I think he started to convulse or something and tightened the garrote? accidentally. At any rate, this method of sex games is nothing new and nothing rare. Edited to say: It must have been more like a noose than a garrote, but definately used for the same purpose. I also believe there was a plastic bag over his head???? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 42. "Autoerotic Asphyxia - This is L O N G" Posted by CommonSense on 13:46:18 5/11/2000 I copied this from a website - http://www.totse.com/files/XXX_A/sexthril.htm What is AA? Although it may have some variations, it is basically the act of hanging oneself in order to cut off oxygen and blood flow to the brain while masturbating. The idea seems to be that the hypoxia (lack of Oxygen) and ischemia (lack of blood flow) can contribute to the intensity of sexual arousal and orgasm. Almost always, people learn about AA after someone has died from it. It is undoubtedly the most dangerous of all sex practices. Approximately 500 to 1000 people die from it each year. It has claimed the lives of cartoonist Vaughn Bode and actor Albert Dekker. Years ago, medical examiners often made the mistaken conclusion that these deaths were suicidal hangings. Several factors differentiate an AA hanging from suicidal hanging. 1. The feet are often touching the ground. This enables the practitioner to vary the pressure that the ligature is applying to the neck by lifting his body up or down from the floor. 2. The rope or ligature is often tied in a highly complex manner. This is done to provide an "escape mechanism" to manipulate the pressure on the neck with arms, legs, or torso. 3. The victim will often have padding around the neck to prevent tell-tale bruises and abrasions. 4. Pornography is present. 5. The victim had no known motive to commit suicide. In some cases the family of the victim may modify the scene in order to eliminate the stigma of a sex-related death. This obviously creates considerable problems for the investigator trying to determine exactly what happened. To compound this problem is the question of insurance settlements. If the victim had a life insurance policy covering accidental death, the family of the deceased will argue that the death was accidental. The insurance company will argue that the victim knowingly engaged in a life threatening behavior and thus the death was not wholly accidental. the courts are still debating this question. If AA practitioners create elaborate escape mechanisms for themselves, then why do they die? The reason lies in the physiology of the heart and the nerves that regulate it. The body has feedback mechanisms for controlling blood pressure. At several points in the vascular system there exist structures called baroreceptor. Baroreceptor sense changes in blood pressure and produce nervous impulses which respond to those changes. When pressures on the baroreceptor are too low, impulses are fired to the heart and brain that lead to an increase in heart rate and force of contraction. This occurs, for example, when one stands up suddenly from a horizontal position. Gravity draws blood down from the brain and pressure drops. The baroreceptor sense the lowered pressure and fire, raising blood pressure, increasing force of contraction, and returning blood to the brain. One of the areas of the body with the highest concentration of baroreceptor is the nick. Thus, when pressure is applied to the baroreceptor (as in hanging) the opposite of the above-mentioned process occurs. Powerful impulses are sent to the brain and slow the heart, decrease force of contraction, and lower blood pressure. This phenomenon is called carotid sinus reflex. As little as seven pounds of pressure can cause this to occur. If a person is engaged in AA and is already cutting off oxygen and blood flow to the brain, the additional slowing of the heart can cause rapid unconsciousness. So rapid, in fact, that the victim may not have a chance to release himself from the ligature. Death soon follows. Who practices AA? Generally young, white males of average or above-average intelligence. Often they are socially withdrawn and may dabble in sado-masochism or bondage. AA in females is so rare that entire articles in forensic journals are devoted to single case histories. A typical case history is that of Clarey Faye reported in the March, 1985 edition of Vanity Fair. As Clarey moved into adolescence, he became introverted. "He was still going to therapists off and on, but no one could alleviate his black moods. He was playing less Bach on his cello and more hard rock on his guitar". He kept a journal, composed of a secret language consisting of Arabic, Sanskrit, and Greek characters. Repeatedly written on a page was the single word "phosphene". This very possibly refers to the reports of AA practitioners, describing "seeing stars". Clarey was 16 years old when he was found dead by his mother, hanging nude by his belt from a bar in his bathroom. A mirror was positioned so that he could view himself (an unusually common theme in AA deaths). Not all AA practitioners use a neck ligature to produce hypoxia and ischemia. There are primarily two other means. These are suffocating environment and chest compression. Tow cases from forensic literature illustrate the former method. In the first case, a man used semi-drowning ("aqua-eroticum") in a lake to provide a masturbation opportunity. In the second case, a Yale graduate constructed an airtight vinyl bag that he zippered himself into. He also bound his hands behind his back with a short length of chain. His penis was wrapped with a Saran-Wrap-rubber-band condom. Both men died. In chest compression, the movement of the ribcage is restricted or the diaphragm movement is cut off. Cases of death resulting from asphyxia in a garbage can, and suspension by a rope around the abdomen have been reported. In the first case, the victim intended to use a roll of chicken wire (?) as an escape mechanism. The mechanism failed and the man died. In the second case, a man winched himself up off the ground by a rope wrapped around his abdomen. He was unable to release the winch which led to his death. A high blood alcohol content probably contributed to his inability to release the winch. It was not known whether fecal matter found at the scene was part of an erotic fantasy or due to extreme intestinal pressure. Various other asphyxial scenarios come to mind (my mind) that have yet to appear in forensic literature. Consider that perennial child-killer: the abandoned refrigerator. It is dark, airtight, and private. Perfect for furtive AA. Do you have sexual fantasies about Mama Cass Elliot? How about ham sandwich asphyxia while masturbating? Do you get off on the music of John Bonham or Jimi Hendrix? How about AA with inspired comitus? Off-the-deep-end conspiracy types will no doubt suggest that these deaths were truly autoerotic asphyxial in nature and were simply "covered up". Perhaps the most bizarre case of a (quasi) AA death in the literature is that of J.C. Rupp's classic "Love Bug". An airline pilot drove his Volkswagen Bug to a secluded, roughly circular, flat clearing. He stripped naked and attached around his torso a chain harness which was attached to the Bug's rear bumper by a ten- foot length of chain. He tied his belt to the steering wheel and strapped it down so that the wheel was completely counter-clockwise. He started the engine and let the Bug pull him in overlapping circles. At some point, he tired of this and approached the car presumably to turn off the engine. At this point a serious "pilot error" occurred. The chain began to wind around the left rear axle and he was pulled into the left wheel area and asphyxiated by extreme compression against the car. Asphyxial games for the sake of alteration of consciousness without the addition of sexuality are not at all uncommon. Researcher Harvey Resnick refers to anthropological studies of various native American and South American tribes who play such games, variously entitled "smoke out", "red out", and "hang up". Indeed, after I started studying AA, I began asking people I knew if they could recall playing asphyxial games as children. Many did, and were surprised that they could remember doing such things. Perhaps this is an example of "repression" whereby "antisocial" behaviors of children are forgotten only to return with prompting very often, people not only recall asphyxial games, but remember the exact sequence and number of actions they performed. These include hugging by another, blowing on a finger in the mouth to prevent exhalation, rising quickly from squatting position, pressing on the neck, and many others. There is an unusual subset of AA fatalities that prove very difficult for the researcher to classify. These are cases of erotic suicide. In these the victim was known to have practiced AA, but also evidenced a suicidal intent. In the early 1970's two researchers, Litman and Swearingen, studied the sex practices of a group of 9 S&M-AA practitioners. Though none died while the study was in effect, all exhibited strong "death wish" orientation, and often strong depression. All had complex esoteric fantasies, as in #7's case. He wanted to be the "leader of an imperiled group" who "eroticized fear, nooses, hanging" and needed danger for orgasm. The deaths of any of these individuals would be very difficult to classify in either pigeon hole of "suicide" or "accident" because all seemed to intentionally live on that border. The most extreme case presented by the authors was case "A", a 50 year old actor who died of extremely eroticized AA. There was a ball in his mouth, scarf over his eyes, hand cuffs on both wrists, and the words "suck" and "fuck" written on the body. A bizarre suicide note was left of which this is only a part: "Please tender me when you cut me down. My panty girdles are fastened to my brassieres with safety pins. There are no hooks on the garter belts so you will have to pull them off". And finally: "In a frenzy of passion I kick the chair over and my body is spasming at the end of the chain noose. I come wildly, madly. My eyes bulge and I try and reach the keys, knowing I have finally found the courage to end a horrible nightmare life dangerously". End of note. Beside the obvious reason that it feels good, why to people engage in AA? Various long winded psycho- analytic explanations have proposed, all of which rely on explanations which are as controversial as the whole body of psycho-analysis itself. A very clever hypothesis has been proposed by Resnick; it asserts that while breast-feeding, a baby may experience a partial asphyxia. Further, certain gastric and urethral reflexes may, in males produce erections. Thus a very early association between the pleasure involved with feeding, erection, and asphyxia is formed. Later, when breast-feeding stops, the association between asphyxia and erections may persist. Resnick refers to the breastfeeding mother as the "smother mother". When individuals practice AA, to they always have to die? Is there "safe sex" AA? Wearing condoms and soaking the ligature in bleach just won't do. An article from the gay men's magazine Drummer suggests that there is safe AA. Author Robert Bahr interviewed "Ed", who rigged up a gaff in his apartment designed specifically to prevent accidental death. Around a wire frame is wrapped a plastic bag. On the floor beneath the contraption is a mattress. One stands on the mattress and puts his face into the frame. While masturbating, all inhaled and exhaled air collects in the bag and is quickly depleted of oxygen. The wire frame prevents the bag from being inhaled when breathing becomes rapid, near orgasm. After orgasm,or if the participant passes out, the mattress is underneath to cushion a fall. One cannot die in such an arrangement, because one cannot get caught in the bag, and unconsciousness only removes one from the gaff. This practice does not produce ischemia, however, which may limit its euphoric potential for the true thrill seeking AA connoisseur. As exhortations for abstinence have never prevented venereal disease, it is not likely that AA deaths will go away just by saying "Don't do it". Only when practitioners understand why it is so dangerous and are offered safer alternatives will autoerotic asphyxia deaths decrease. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 41. "More like" Posted by lake on 13:42:57 5/11/2000 Fleet White squeaks and the BDC speaks. If FW really wanted to speak, he would have sent a letter (denying the allegations of the Jane Doe) to the editor and demanded that it be printed. I say Fleet White is the rat that roared when it suited his purposes of misdirection. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 45. "Well, there's a first time for everything...!" Posted by mary99 on 15:34:24 5/11/2000 Lake, I agree. Long-standing personal animosities between posters only get in the way. Truth is Truth. Not half the truth, the whole Truth. If FW, and/or his close or distant relatives knew about these practices and kept their mouths shut to cover their a$$e$ for three years, they weren't truly in favor of justice for JonBenet. A person who is morally corrupt, would instead write letters criticizing a DA who didn't move fast enough to suit their own interests. Because its all about CYA. So FW didn't kill JB and feels no need to spill his guts to AH about how and why he knows they did it? No need to tell anyone the Ramseys copy-catted a crime of child abuse perpetrated on one of his relatives? No need, during these three years and millions spent, to offer any clue to how a garrotte ended up around JB's neck? Notice I am not saying FW did anthing except not speak up when he should have. That is what I would call morally corrupt. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 44. "And, Rat White" Posted by lake on 15:19:31 5/11/2000 roars with the war and peace of letters to the editors of State papers when he is attempting to get Hunter removed from the case back in 1998. But when Jane Doe contends that the elder White sexually aboused her when she was a child, Rat White squeaks with a private letter to the editors of the BDC complaining about a piece that connects his family to sick, twisted child sexual and physical abuse? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 46. "Well, Mary" Posted by lake on 15:42:33 5/11/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 15:42:33, 5/11/2000 You are taking a big leap of faith when you assume that the Ramseys knew on 12/26/96 about the sick, twisted sexual, physical and mental child abuse that may have been practiced by someone the Rs met through the Whites. Without further supporting evidence, it might be safe to assume that White knew about it on 12/26/96, but there is no evidence to support your belief that the Ramsey parents knew about it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 47. "Ya had to push it,lake...!" Posted by mary99 on 15:51:31 5/11/2000 Patsy or John killed JonBenet...it all points to them, and only them. Any other person who used a garrotte on JB would have gotten the info from the same place as the Ramseys did; from FW or a family member or friend. If anyone besides PR or JR killed her the Ramseys would not cover for them. Nope, nopey, nope. They 'loved that child' and would only cover for their own actions. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 49. "Mary" Posted by Gemini on 15:58:12 5/11/2000 What makes you believe they (the Ramseys) and covering for them (the Whites)? I haven't seen any statements or comments either way. It seems likely the Ramseys are a little too busy in the main ring (with non-polygraphs, civil suits and what-not) to insinuate themselves into this side-show, wouldn't ya think? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 51. "Protecting the Whites...?" Posted by mary99 on 16:52:20 5/11/2000 Gemini, I said I don't think the Ramseys would cover for any third party who killed Jonbenet. Only for themselves. As far as lawsuits flying like spitballs, they're as busy as beavers, so they don't have to address this issue, now or ever, if they can help it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 48. "So Then, Mary" Posted by lake on 15:56:45 5/11/2000 Your belief that one or both of the Rs killed JBR means that they were involved in some sick, twisted sexual association with the Whites or some people that the Whites introduced them to? What exactly is your evidence of that? Or is that just your belief because you cannot put the puzzle together any other way? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 52. "not my theory, lake..." Posted by mary99 on 17:06:07 5/11/2000 Give credit where credit is due, lake. Ayelean first hypothesized that Patsy scooped this idea from the MW/FW connection. How she learned of it, who told her, we don't know at this time. But if PR or JR knew about garrotting little girls from family or friends of the Whites, it stands to reason either: one or both Ramseys of them was practicing these sick games or, one or both of them was staging a coverup in the form of the pedophile/intruder/kidnapping, and borrowed heavily from what resources were available: MW's story and movies. That they alone are under suspicion and still refuse to accept the FBI as the only BPD-approved polygraph experts tells me more than ever they are GUILTY . Who but a guilty party would stall when the whole world is laughing at them??? Their high standards and 'unbiased' examiners mean squat when they wish to redeem their image so desparately. Take the FBI test, already, or be called 'guilty' forever!! At this point, passing a test given by anyone else will not make them look any less guilty, it will just look like more Ram-spin. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 53. "So now, Mary" Posted by lake on 17:21:17 5/11/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 17:21:17, 5/11/2000 Your belief is that if the Rs do not subject themselves to the voodoo of an FBI polygraph, they killed their daughter? Pretty iffy stuff, Mary. Fleet White has not be charged with any crime. Should he take a polygraph to show that what Jane Doe alleges is false and his family name is being tarnished without cause? And what if he were to refuse to take a FBI polygraph on that subject or how that subject might relate to the murder of JBR? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 50. "Because, Mary" Posted by lake on 16:13:38 5/11/2000 That is really an iffy theory you have going there. And apparently none of the cops or tabloids that investigated the Rs for about 3 years seem to have reached that conclusion. But the fact that the cops under Eller and Thomas may not have throughly investigated the other possilble angle of this case that does not include the Ramseys as killers, certainly does leave room for possiblilities that do not include the Rs as part of some sick, twisted child sexual, pyhysical and mental abuse tight knit group of adults. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 54. "What do you think, lake?" Posted by mary99 on 17:28:13 5/11/2000 Spit it out, you think they are part of sick group? Or you think they are innocent but their friends were the sick group? I think Patsy staged it. I think she was trying to dye her hair at midnight, and bashed her in a rage, or got up to wake her to pee and found JB's bed wet, and then had an argument, who can really say? But Jonbenet was sexually abused recently before she died, possibly at the Ramseys own Christmas party That's a lot of coincidences in 48 hours: 1. sexual abuse...Ramseys say no 2. 911 call...a mistake 3. party at Ramseys had Whites and their friends...did anything happen? 4. JB refused to sing for the guests, didn't feel pretty...why? 5. then off to the Whites party, where no pineapple was served 6. home and supposedly asleep, still no pineapple 7. sexually assaulted, garrotted, dead by 1 AM...who, how, why, when? 8. FW and JR search the house and find JB, 1 PM 9. pineapple found at autopsy belies parents claims...why did they lie? 10. parents later belie their own claims about their arrival time home...why did they lie? 11. 911 tape later belies their claims that Burke was asleep at the time...why did they lie? And if the parents didn't kill her, why do they lie? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 55. "Well, Mary" Posted by lake on 17:40:38 5/11/2000 Now it turns on the pineapple that JBR could have been given by a parent, a brother or an unknown person in the house? Pretty iffy stuff again, Mary. And the hair dye bit is just absurd. JBR's hair was in the same braided style that it was when at the Whites. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 62. "Lake says.." Posted by rico on 19:30:24 5/11/2000 "JBR's hair was in the same braided style that it was at the Whites". Did you not read the entire autopsy report? The coroner stated in detail the hair style-two ponytails. No braiding, just one ponytail at top of head and one below tied with blue elastic bands. If her hair was braided at the Whites (I assume you are making a factual statement) then it was changed when the R's arrived home which doesn't give me any reason to believe she was asleep at the time. Where did you get the info that JBR's hair was braided at the Whites? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 60. "Lake, you are a fountain of information>>" Posted by ayelean on 19:48:59 5/11/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 19:48:59, 5/11/2000 Your spinning is going to drive you into the ground like a well driller's bit! So now are we suppose to know that JBR's hair was in braids at the Whites or that you don't know that it was in 2 pony tails on autopsy? Everytime Mary99 logically answers one of your questions, you twist the answer to make it into another misinformation fact. Someone better be paying you well. If you think you are influencing the posters here, you are right. The influence is just 'countermeasured' to its intent. FWIW, all the info I have on MW knowing PR I got here on this forum. The first day this MW's news broke, I didn't sleep for 24 hours, trying to reconcile how IMO the only possible person to commit the crime coincided with what the MW was telling us. At that time there was no mention of any commonality with the Rams. Then, here in print it was stated that, I believe Carol McKinley said that she had met the Rams prior to JBR's death. My concept of the deviousness of Patsy fit like the OJ glove! Later when I pressed for details of the extent of MW vs Rams relationship. Mum was the word. I don't care that this forum knows the details, all I care is that the BPD and the FBI know about the association. I figured that the mumness was because it was important info. It is not a stretch for me to see that gal talk between the wives (Rams/Whites) could include the the scandalous deeds of Sr.White. I believe that as sure as God made little green apples, that at least Patsy Ramsey knew the story of the MW. This method of sexual asphyxiation, even though practiced by others on themselves is still likely rare when it is done to a child by someone else, and adding the head bashing as part of the practice. IMHO if JBR was truely a victim of this type of abuse (not just staged) the damage to her vagina would have been much more severe. Mary99, I want to thank you for carry my standard so well. I know it isn't even your primary theory, but you are so good with words, you get the point across ever so much better than I do. Lake is just busting your chops, which tells me someone doesn't like the direction of the discussion. edited to correct typo7 2 not 3 ponytails [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 61. "Well" Posted by lake on 19:25:20 5/11/2000 The hair was braided and in 3 pony tails to be exact. Certainly not being dyed or bleached as Mary is suggesting. And I guess FW is a bit out of sorts about the current topic of the Jane Doe. Does that mean to you also that he is "protecting" the Ramseys in some way? I think some of you presumed guilty posters need to regroup and get your stories straight. Some of you make less sense than the Whites or the Ramseys. And you make Steve Thomas look like a blooming idiot. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 63. "Now it's 3 ponytails" Posted by rico on 19:37:44 5/11/2000 "Her hair was braided and in three ponytails to be exact." I'll ask you again, Lake, where are you getting your erroneous information. The body was found with two ponytails and this is confirmed in detail in the autopsy report. No braids, no three ponytails. Sincerely, I respect your right to your opinions but don't confuse that with the facts; it only makes it more disagreeable to....disagree! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 64. "rico" Posted by lake on 20:07:37 5/11/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 20:07:37, 5/11/2000 I believe that it is you who are confused or uninformed. It is well known, and has been for years that the hair of JBR was braided (or was it platted) and in what one could call pony tails at autopsy. But this issue being addressed was Mary's contention that JBR and PR got into some kind of fight over hair dye or bleaching. The known evidence in no way supports that speculation. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 72. "Is that your final answer? " Posted by rico on 20:49:35 5/11/2000 "(or was it platted)"; you don't know what you're talking about Lake and that little question proves it. Please reconsider your position and do the homework and if you still believe "It's well known fact", show me the proof (which btw, is what you have always demanded of other posters and fairly so). And if you can't support your claim, lets just leave well enough alone. As for the hair dyeing, don't know anything about that. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 73. "well, rico" Posted by lake on 20:59:45 5/11/2000 That was the issue being address with the hair bit. You or somebody else injected the pony tails. Plaited, braided or pony tails. Who cares? The point is that the hair of JBR was not in a condition that would lead on to conclude that PR was attempting to dye or bleach the hair of JBR that night. Now if you have evidence that JBR's hair was different at autopsy from the the style at the White's, that would make a differnece. But of course, if that were true, one would think that the BPD would have leaked that bit of info. to support their theory that JBR was not put right to bed. Sort of like the pineapple business, you know. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 74. "Lake eerie" Posted by mary99 on 21:10:59 5/11/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 21:10:59, 5/11/2000 Patsy was busy sectioning off JB's hair to fix the dark roots so they wouldn't show when she was re-united with the rest of the family, Mindy and JAR. But she accidentally prepared her to be re-united with Beth. I doubt if they knew how much JB's blondness depended on bleach and hair dye. But, seeing the dark roots would be a dead giveaway. Oops, bad. Well, Patsy made a mess of the dye job and killed JB by accident. It was just a smelling mistake, she let it go, why can't you? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 75. "well, mary" Posted by lake on 21:20:28 5/11/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 21:20:28, 5/11/2000 speak to rico. That person seems to think that if the hair was in pony tails or braided or plaited makes some difference regarding the original issue. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 66. "To Guppy in the Puddle" Posted by Ruthee on 20:03:49 5/11/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 20:03:49, 5/11/2000 I have no idea where you get your information. I also have no idea where you get the definition of "braided". Now if you look at the back of a pony as in pony tail, you'll see that the hair growing is allowed to hang free. Now some of the horse rears that you have examined may have had "braided tails", but the term refers to free hanging strands of long hair. In this case the hair was secured with a band. I hope this clears up this muddy matter for you. When I was growing up we had a horse named "Faye", and we did braid her tail before a show. That was so the tail would be wavy for the horse pageant. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 68. "Ruthee" Posted by lake on 20:22:42 5/11/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 20:22:42, 5/11/2000 I have a pig that wallows in the mud and she is named Ruthee. And when I call that pig named Ruthee she comes a running. And my pig Ruthee loves beer. Do you like beer too Ruthee? And my pig Ruthee likes to wear a little pink bow on her tail. How about you Ruthee? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 70. "no, but..." Posted by mary99 on 20:22:16 5/11/2000 Ruthee always swims in the lake afterwards... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 67. "Ruthee" Posted by Hannah on 20:05:29 5/11/2000 Good one, I love your sense of humor. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 57. "Remote Control" Posted by Lacey on 18:32:40 5/11/2000 Man, I wasn't gonna post tonight.................. 1. Most likely, MW copied the Ramsey crime in recounting her story 2. Agent 99, repeat after me: Its Not a Garrote. That's media spin (reference: the autopsy) 3. Patsy Ramsey got the idea from a movie or crime novel, just like the ransom note. Try Presumed Innocent, for example. Almost identical crime scene. 4. I see a few folk foaming at the mouth here. Get thee to a rabies clinic Flame baby, flame . [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 58. "Lacey" Posted by Ribaldone on 19:00:50 5/11/2000 yep. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 59. "Lacey" Posted by lake on 19:05:18 5/11/2000 Nope! No evidence of that. And there is no evidence that PR wrote the note. Just you opinion. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 65. "mame is right..." Posted by shadow on 19:46:46 5/11/2000 The Camera is "covering its ass." Bad mojo to follow!! shadow [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 71. "This is so funny>>" Posted by ayelean on 20:45:08 5/11/2000 What area in the US uses 'plaited' for braided? That pig story is so much like some of the other prankish tales we've heard about. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 76. "But" Posted by lake on 21:26:49 5/11/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 21:26:49, 5/11/2000 What about the rat that roared about Hunter but just peeped when someone called his old man a molester of little girls? Seems to me that FW is hiding something. And if the Jane Doe accusations are of substance, it is much more likely that JBR was molested by someone associated with the Whites and by a Ramsey. And by extension, likely that someone other than the Rs were behind the murder of JBR. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 78. "lake" Posted by darby on 21:50:21 5/11/2000 What gives? How come you feel that every single solitary soul should be saved from any scrutiny concerning the murder... EXCEPT FOR THE WHITES AND THEIR CIRCLE OF FIENDS? Just asking. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 80. "Lake..." Posted by shadow on 22:20:16 5/11/2000 I know that I agreed to not "bother" you anymore. But I just can't ignore this statement ... "Seems to me that FW is hiding something. And if the Jane Doe accusations are of substance, it is much more likely that JBR was molested by someone associated with the Whites and by a Ramsey. And by extension, likely that someone other than the Rs were behind the murder of JBR." It's really a "no brainer" to throw crap like this out on internet forums... 1) What do you think FW is hiding? Quit the BS and tell us! 2) "...it is much more likely that JBR was molested by someone associated with the Whites and by a Ramsey." Tell us who this person associated with the Whites and a Ramsey is! 3) "And by extension, likely that someone other than the Rs were behind the murder of JBR." So you don't think the Rs were involved? Why do you have to play these mind games, Lake? Can't you just say what you think? shadow [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 79. "darby" Posted by lake on 22:52:04 5/11/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 22:52:04, 5/11/2000 Are you meaning to imply that the Ramseys have not be extensively investigated over the past three years? What do you know about any extensive investigation of the Whites and the others from California that were in Boulder on 12/25/96? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 81. "lake" Posted by darby on 22:48:45 5/11/2000 You answer my questions with questions. So I'll answer YOUR questions with one of my own: Who do you think killed JonBenet? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 82. "darby" Posted by lake on 23:04:45 5/11/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 23:04:45, 5/11/2000 Someone from California who was in Boulder on 12/25-26/96 would be a more viable suspect than either of the Ramsey parents IMO. I would dig deep into about 5-7 peoples background and forensics and see what I came up with and then go from there. And I doubt that the person who wrote the note actually killed JBR. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 83. "lake" Posted by mary99 on 23:37:17 5/11/2000 So the Ramseys have spent three years and millions of dollars to protect a perfect stranger who waltzed into their life and their house for one night to kill their daughter and then return home unblemished by investigation? All the private detectives have done is chase innocent people and spend Ramsey millions while the the killa sat in the sun, back in CA? Tell me why the Ramseys are so charitable, cause you really don't make any sense a'tall. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 84. "Oh, Mary" Posted by lake on 00:04:06 5/12/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 00:04:06, 5/12/2000 I think the Rs spent all that money on lawyers to protect themselves from a bunch of incompetent cops that had a gut feeling and knew nothing at all about following evidence. The only way Thomas could have solved this case was with a confession. And he was looking for a confession from the wrong people. Read his book. His story gives him away. If the evidence did not fit his theory, the evidence must not relate to the crime. I could build probable cause case against you if you knew the Ramseys and were in Boulder at the time of the killing if that was the standard that should be followed in a murder investigtaion. You say you have an alibi. Well someone is just lieing for you. You say your handwriting is not a match to the note, well you just disguised your handwriting. You say you have no prior history, well that does not matter, there has to be a first time for everything. And if I had a woman on 12/26/96 who told me that you and your father had sexually abused her, I could have your butt in jail on suspicion of murder if I found any of your forensics in that house, no matter how they got there. And any cop with the attitude of Thomas could do the same unless there was someone with an understanding of the law to reign him in. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 85. "lake, answer the question" Posted by mary99 on 00:02:20 5/12/2000 You said its much more probable that a friend of the FW family from CA killed JB, and yet you can't explain why this 'fiend' of the family hasn't been identifed and arrested. Are you saying that the Ramseys can't find him, don't want to find him, or know who he is and where he is, but for altruistic reasons prefer not to turn him into police and see justice served? And, if they know the killa and have no confidence in Boulder police, why then haven't their ex-FBI and BPD detectives gone out and built an iron=clad case and handed it to the BPD and AH? I thought that was the ostensible point of hiring those two, or are they really working for free? It makes no sense for them to be innocent and refuse to take polygraphs if they can produce the killa. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 86. "Well,mary" Posted by lake on 00:20:34 5/12/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 00:20:34, 5/12/2000 I doubt that the BPD has made all the crime scene evidence collected by the BPD available to the Ramseys and their lawyers and their detectives. Do you think they have? But even if they have (which I think we should know they have not) would that evidence be conclusive and exculsively related to the crime? Maybe not. I think JR said that the BPD had the killers DNA. He did not say that his investigators had the killers DNA. And what else might the investigation have that the public and the Ramseys investigators are not privy to? I would think, some important evidence. If the cops have the crime scence evidence, it is they,not the Rs who can to tie the evidence to someone, not the Rs and their investigators. But the BPD has dug their hole of speculation and theory. Some other law enforcement agency is going to have to tie the evidence to the killer, not the BPD or the Ramsey investigators. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 87. "You said..." Posted by mary99 on 00:44:06 5/12/2000 You can't have it both ways, lake. First you said the killa is a FW friend or family member from CA, and the BPD needs to check out 5-7 people and do forensics tests. That still doesn't explain two things: ***Why the Ramseys aren't telling all they know about this friend of a friend, preferring apparently to reside permanently under the umbrella of suspicion while killa-guy goes scot-free and drinks up the sun. Makes no sense, lake!!! ***Then you switch and say its up to the BPD to find him and match him to forensic evidence, like we're talking about the unknown pedophile/intruder/kidnapper all over again. Which is it, lake, you're going in circles here. Friend of family of FW/MW? Unknown maniac? Can't be both. You say the Rams didn't do it, look at 5-7 guests from CA. So the MW sex ring theory is alive and well? Yet Patsy wrote the note. The killa isn't neccessarily the author of the note. Therefore, Patsy didn't do it (kill JB), you say. Are you now saying she wrote a coverup note for either an unknown maniac or a friend of a friend, who came in and murdered JB while they slept? Why would she write a ransom note for a kidnapping that never happened? While JB is dead and the killa goes home. I think you have spun yourself dizzy tonight. One more time: If the killer was a friend of a friend, she would not write a ransom note and cover up the murder, she would turn them in after calling 911. If the killer was an unknown maniac, who knew all about using rope to slowly strangle little girls, then explain all the Ramsey lies about the activities and events for the 48 hours before the murder. If MW knew the Ramseys, or they knew of her, that explains the method. It implicates them more than any guest they may have had or met. There was no intruder!!! Are you saying the person who killed JB was unknown to the Rams, yet also knew of FW/MW/CA? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 88. "Wrong, Mary" Posted by lake on 01:08:45 5/12/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 01:08:45, 5/12/2000 You think Patsy wrote the note. Some experts think otherwise. Some experts, including the CIA concluded that there is no evidence that PR wrote the note. And the BPD had apparently dismissed the Ca. connection without an extensive and through investigation. So sure they have find the person. I understand that there are people who were in Boulder, Co. at the time of the murder who are now in Europe. Do you know where they are? Do you know that someone else handwriting out of that group might not be an even closer match to the note than PR? Does the BPD know? I doubt that you know that. And if you find in believable that PR would leave a ransom note in an attempt to deflect attention away from her, it is just as likely that someone who knew the Ramseys would do the same to deflect attention away from them. Especially if they were not going to be around to give a handwriting sample to the police. After all, the police have handwriting samples from people (other than PR) in this case who cannot be excluded as the writer of the ransom note based exclusively on their handwriting sample alone. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 89. "Patsy, Patsy all Patsy all the time" Posted by mary99 on 01:12:07 5/12/2000 The note is Patsy through and through. Linguistics, psychology, commonality of phrases, margins, and text blocks, all common to Patsy. Do you really think the handwriting of a woman who has just killed her daughter is going to match a handwriting sample given in a tranquilized, medicated state later on? I'm sure her hands were shaking so badly she could hardly form letters. That would be very hard to duplicate in a medicated state the following day. So I think the handwriting test being inconclusive is irrelevant. Linguistics, phrases, blocking, margins are less likely to change under extreme stress or excitement. What she formed in her mind is unique to Patsy and it shows in the note. Regardless of the handwriting being inconclusive, as tested by the CBI, other experts found her to be the author. Which goes to show, you can try to change what you are aware of, but what you aren't aware of doing will stay the same. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 90. "If there is one thing that I do know" Posted by lake on 01:41:12 5/12/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 01:41:12, 5/12/2000 It is that it is highly unlikely thatPatsy Ramsey wrote that ransom note. And if that is what you are hanging your hat on, you are dead in the water just like the BPD. Why even that nut Donald Foster does not attribute the content of the note to Patsy Ramesy. But I guess you are a better expert than Donald Foster and the CIA handwriting experts? Your handwriting ID table does not even have one leg, much less 2. And if you know anything about this case you know that PR gave 5 handwriting samples. The last one in June or July of 1997. They never asked for any more. And although many people in the public seem to think the the note was written with the left hand, they only took one left hand sample from PR. And that was the last sample. PR very likely did not write that note, and that is reality. And anyway, that ransom note sounds more like Bill McReynolds than it does PR. But so what? Does that mean he killed JBR? I think not. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 91. "But" Posted by lake on 01:47:10 5/12/2000 What about Rat White and the charge by the Jane Doe that has proof that she is a long time "friend" of the White family and claims that the senior White molested her as a child? Like father like son, do you think? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 92. "Excuse me Lake" Posted by JR on 10:13:42 5/12/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 10:13:42, 5/12/2000 You state: After all, the police have handwriting samples from people (other than PR) in this case who cannot be excluded as the writer of the ransom note based exclusively on their handwriting sample alone. Would you please post a link or state where you got this information since you state it as fact? Based on everything I have read, Patsy is the only person who has not been totally excluded as the writer of the ransom note based on the 75 (I believe that is the number I read - or so different samples that were taken.) Edited for typo. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]