Justice Watch Discussion Board "Mystery Woman:Times-Call 5-13" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... Mystery Woman:Times-Call 5-13, plasket, 09:33:23, 5/13/2000 No connection to the murder, Ginja, 10:04:57, 5/13/2000, (#1) Thank you, BJ., listener, 10:24:08, 5/13/2000, (#2) BJ, thanks for the great article!, Colorado-an, 10:55:47, 5/13/2000, (#8) Cop-think vs. Mind Control, mary99, 10:35:33, 5/13/2000, (#3) Ginja, Ruthee, 10:54:08, 5/13/2000, (#6) Because, mary99, one of my absolute fave posters --, Holly, 10:54:51, 5/13/2000, (#7) Ginja, Real Stormy, 10:49:58, 5/13/2000, (#5) Baloney., Holly, 10:49:20, 5/13/2000, (#4) another murder in Colorado, Edie Pratt, 11:06:04, 5/13/2000, (#9) There goes MW, Starling, 11:32:28, 5/13/2000, (#10) No Killer on the Loose, Leigh, 15:08:08, 5/13/2000, (#22) Mind control and triggers, Ginja, 11:33:35, 5/13/2000, (#11) Well, lake, 13:27:27, 5/13/2000, (#13) Holly -- , v_p, 13:14:05, 5/13/2000, (#12) Ok, Ginja, Real Stormy, 13:32:07, 5/13/2000, (#14) Jane Doe, lake, 14:02:06, 5/13/2000, (#15) And, lake, 14:11:20, 5/13/2000, (#16) We still don't know>>>>, ayelean, 14:52:58, 5/13/2000, (#20) Am I alone in my outrage?, Seashell, 14:41:10, 5/13/2000, (#18) I have to believe...., Ginja, 09:26:18, 5/14/2000, (#55) Not true about jurisdiction of heart note...., SJ, 22:40:49, 5/14/2000, (#65) Lakey, Reverse Speech..., Greenleaf, 14:35:42, 5/13/2000, (#17) GL, tinky, 22:43:00, 5/13/2000, (#41) Of Course your will, lake, 14:43:32, 5/13/2000, (#19) "Wrongheaded thinker" checking in..., Greenleaf, 15:09:49, 5/13/2000, (#23) Well, lake, 15:13:45, 5/13/2000, (#24) And, lake, 14:59:40, 5/13/2000, (#21) you know, lake, lecarl, 15:37:55, 5/13/2000, (#25) Brainless Wonder..., Greenleaf, 16:12:55, 5/13/2000, (#27) Plasket's remarks, dissected for innuendo , mary99, 15:49:29, 5/13/2000, (#26) Bored of this whole thing..., Cutter, 16:24:18, 5/13/2000, (#28) lecarl, lake, 16:30:05, 5/13/2000, (#29) Wrong, wrong, wrong..., mary99, 16:41:36, 5/13/2000, (#31) Cutter!, Holly, 04:43:38, 5/14/2000, (#50) Mary99, Greenleaf, 16:38:04, 5/13/2000, (#30) Not surprised but disappointed, darby, 17:01:22, 5/13/2000, (#32) I am preparing a statement..., mame, 17:19:23, 5/13/2000, (#33) Cutter,, LurkerXIV, 17:50:39, 5/13/2000, (#35) I wish the BPD would explain why, darby, 17:46:27, 5/13/2000, (#34) Cutter, Real Stormy, 17:51:08, 5/13/2000, (#36) lecarl>>, ayelean, 19:42:10, 5/13/2000, (#37) One Way thinking, lake, 20:13:52, 5/13/2000, (#38) Point by point: Real Stormy , mary99, 21:55:38, 5/13/2000, (#39) Where's the meat?, shadow, 22:04:48, 5/13/2000, (#40) Just a thought.., mary99, 23:02:43, 5/13/2000, (#42) Mary99, pip, 23:47:15, 5/13/2000, (#44) Pip and all, mary99, 00:05:36, 5/14/2000, (#45) IF, lake, 23:26:58, 5/13/2000, (#43) Please consider this, darby, 01:16:22, 5/14/2000, (#47) Darby, lee2, 23:30:00, 5/14/2000, (#67) Charges..., shadow, 01:08:41, 5/14/2000, (#46) No, lake, 02:01:45, 5/14/2000, (#48) Thank You BJ, starry, 02:56:04, 5/14/2000, (#49) I don't want to "dis" MW personally,, fiddler, 05:30:53, 5/14/2000, (#51) The Ramsey's , momo, 06:28:34, 5/14/2000, (#52) There you go again, Mary99, Real Stormy, 06:45:10, 5/14/2000, (#53) fiddler, darby, 07:48:03, 5/14/2000, (#54) Darby re your post 47>>>, ayelean, 09:31:02, 5/14/2000, (#56) MW and Fleet White, JR, 10:42:21, 5/14/2000, (#58) .I want to know, jonesy, 10:27:21, 5/14/2000, (#57) Just a comment.., Lupe, 11:46:18, 5/15/2000, (#81) Sorry, I don't want to hear it, sally denver, 12:34:22, 5/14/2000, (#59) Well of course, lake, 16:44:08, 5/14/2000, (#60) Sally Denver, fiddy, 19:46:15, 5/14/2000, (#61) Nothing, I repete nothing, Lake,, sally denver, 19:53:19, 5/14/2000, (#62) ya know Sally, , starry, 20:09:28, 5/14/2000, (#63) I agree, Seashell, 21:46:21, 5/14/2000, (#64) Well, lake, 22:47:35, 5/14/2000, (#66) Lake stayed away from MW discussions until . . . , CommonSense, 04:25:39, 5/15/2000, (#68) MW & Fleet White, Coolteach, 08:34:09, 5/15/2000, (#69) Whoa..., Holly, 10:22:31, 5/15/2000, (#73) nothing new, it seems, fly, 09:19:08, 5/15/2000, (#71) Thank you, Coolteach, Sioux, 09:02:15, 5/15/2000, (#70) fly, darby, 10:22:36, 5/15/2000, (#74) Darby, Sioux, 10:52:08, 5/15/2000, (#76) Sioux, mame, 10:10:09, 5/15/2000, (#72) mame, Sioux, 10:43:27, 5/15/2000, (#75) 2 cents, Seashell, 11:13:20, 5/15/2000, (#78) Sioux, mame, 10:59:26, 5/15/2000, (#77) mame & Sioux, fly, 11:19:45, 5/15/2000, (#79) darby, fly, 11:53:36, 5/15/2000, (#82) fly, Sioux, 11:45:03, 5/15/2000, (#80) mame & Thomas, shadow, 12:11:30, 5/15/2000, (#84) shadow, Sioux, 13:50:16, 5/15/2000, (#87) Interesting...and Jonesy..., Cassandra, 12:06:22, 5/15/2000, (#83) fly, darby, 12:38:39, 5/15/2000, (#86) Oh for heaven's sake, what IS this?, Gemini, 12:23:15, 5/15/2000, (#85) Thomas RE: 'a far-reaching conspiracy', mary99, 15:34:19, 5/15/2000, (#88) Lake re you #66 post>>>, ayelean, 15:56:17, 5/15/2000, (#89) I AM PREPARING A PART 2 OF THIS THREAD >>, ayelean, 16:14:56, 5/15/2000, (#90) ................................................................... "Mystery Woman:Times-Call 5-13" Posted by plasket on 09:33:23 5/13/2000 By B. J. Plasket The Daily Times-Call BOULDER -- A California woman who claims to have been sexually assaulted as a child by a group that included people connected to the JonBenet Ramsey murder case met with both Boulder police and investigators or the Ramsey family this week, but her allegations have apparently not changed the focus of the investigation. "The detectives told me they can't connect my story to the Ramsey murder," the so-called Mystery Woman told the Times-Call. The woman, who also met with Boulder authorities earlier this year, was interviewed by detectives Tom Trujillo and Jane Harmer on Wednesday afternoon and with Ramsey investigators Lou Smit and Ollie Gray on Thursday. The Mystery Woman, who remains in hiding because of alleged threats by her attackers, was accompanied to Boulder by two victim advocates. Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner refused to comment on the interviews, according to police spokeswoman Jennifer Bray. The woman said police told her they believe she is a victim of sexual assault, but provided her little information about their own investigation. "Trujillo said this is an ongoing murder investigation and they don't have tell me anything," she said. The woman said police were "cordial _ much nicer to me this time than they were last time." She said the victim advocates spoke to police before her interview. She received no victim assistance from local authorities when she came to Boulder earlier this year to speak to police. According to the Mystery Woman, detectives also said they didn't contact or investigate several people whose names she gave them and refused to say if they had interviewed others. Police also declined her offer to show them evidence, including a card sent to her the same week she came forward with her allegations. That card, sent to her by a relative, contains a large picture of a cartoon bear holding a pink heart. A pink heart as also reportedly found written on the back of 6-year-old JonBenet' Ramsey's hand when her body was found on Dec. 26, 1996. The only word written on the card is the first-name signature of the sender. The woman said offered Boulder detectives other evidence of alleged threats against her, but was told to give them to police in California. Some of those messages, according to documents shown to the Times-Call, invoke the names of people with "lots of money" and connections in the Boulder Police Department. Jeanne Adams, an Ogden, Utah-based advocate for survivors of ritual abuse who accompanied Mystery Woman to Boulder, called her story credible. "I have listened to her story and she has shared some information with me," Adams said. "As a ritual abuse survivor, she is very credible and her story is consistent with that of other survivors." The woman left Colorado early Friday without commenting on her meeting with Smit and Gray. Prior to that meeting she told the Times-Call he was at first reluctant to speak to Smit and Gray in fear of being labeled as a member of the Ramsey camp. "I'm at peace with whatever they say about me," she said. "The cause (of assault victims) is greater than anything they can say about me." [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "No connection to the murder" Posted by Ginja on 10:04:57 5/13/2000 This doesn't surprise me. MW doesn't have first-hand knowledge of what John and Patsy did to their daughter. That police "ignored" the card with the pink heart is also not surprising. Unless the card was signed by a Ramsey or Fleet, it's value is arguable. Pink hearts don't only connotate deviant sexual behavior. Hearts connotate love. Whether that love is from a sexual deviant, or one's significant other, is again arguable. That a heart was drawn in JonBenet's hand signifies her killer 'loved' her, even if he/she had to kill her. If it was a 'signature' card, we'd see more dead kids with hearts in their hands. > The woman said offered >Boulder detectives other evidence of alleged >threats against her, but was told >to give them to police in >California. Some of those messages, according >to documents shown to the Times-Call, >invoke the names of people with >"lots of money" and connections in >the Boulder Police Department. I'd have to see those "messages" before condemning the BPD. It's one thing if the messages were accusing so and so of being involved with ritual abuse or otherwise working towards its coverup and/or any connection to JonBenet's murder. But what if the writer merely accused a member of the BPD, for example, of being in cahoots with Fleet White? The writer(s) could have been simply using scare tactics against MW. She's upsetting the California abusers by going to Colorado and telling authorities about "their" sex ring. They could be empty threats, telling MW she's not going to get anywhere in this matter because so and so will cover it up. >Jeanne Adams, an Ogden, Utah-based advocate >for survivors of ritual abuse who >accompanied Mystery Woman to Boulder, called >her story credible. I don't doubt MW is a victim. But are her abusers directly involved in the sexual exploitation, abuse or murder of JonBenet? > The woman left Colorado >early Friday without commenting on her >meeting with Smit and Gray. > Prior to that meeting >she told the Times-Call he was >at first reluctant to speak to >Smit and Gray in fear of >being labeled as a member of >the Ramsey camp. This is an interesting aspect of this investigation. Clearly, MW's allegations 'connect' the Whites and Ramseys in sexual deviant behavior, where the Whites are dominant. IOW, this is the Ramseys' chance to cry foul and explain their silence was in fear of retribution. > "I'm at peace with whatever >they say about me," she said. >"The cause (of assault victims) is >greater than anything they can say >about me." I agree here that if nothing else, MW has brought to the attention of the public and officials that sexual deviant behavior exists in the best homes. Something Thomas seems to ignore. All in all, I don't think the direction of the investigation has changed that drastically. IOW, the Ramseys are the only two prime suspects. What MW points out is that the Ramseys are capable of sexual abuse, and therefore, have motive to kill. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "Thank you, BJ." Posted by listener on 10:24:08 5/13/2000 It's slightly comforting to know that at least there is one person interested in searching for the truth. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "BJ, thanks for the great article!" Posted by Colorado-an on 10:55:47 5/13/2000 In this day and age when true journalists are hard to find how did the Times-Call and JW get so darn lucky? It is good to know when we want facts we can look to our own journalists for the truth. I loved your last "live" with mame! I am still laughing about the comparison of the story about the kid who threatened the Columbine student to JFK. My heart goes out to "the witness" and I hope her story is heard by someone who will try and make a difference, and I don't think that someone is the BPD. Keep showing them in Colorado that we do have some who care about JfJBR! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "Cop-think vs. Mind Control" Posted by mary99 on 10:37:53 5/13/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 10:37:53, 5/13/2000 The first thing about the article that made me feel MW has received less than a fair shake was her comment that the BPD hadn't interviewed certain people whom she identified. How can an investigation be 'full and complete' if basic investigative procedures aren't followed? The second thing I didn't like the sound of was the BPD's dismissal of the card MW received and the messages which referred to people with 'a lot of money'. Survivors of ritual abuse know when their abusers are threatening them. Of course the threats will seem harmless and not be overt. Ginja is right that hearts are commonly used as symbols of affection, but the BPD seems to be intentionally in the dark about the implied threat behind a message sent from a former abuser to the victim in the week she came forward. If hearts were used in programming her as a child to trigger her disassociative processes, why can't the BPD understand that the heart message on the card was a programming trigger, also known as a threat? Geeze, these guys have a lot to learn. Do they really think a group which has been practicing physical, mental, emotional and sexual abuse on children for generations will send an overt threat? Like "Shut up or die"? That's exactly what the card means to me, and I'm no so-called expert. It's designed to raise one's anxiety level beyond endurance and to trigger memories of the heart, the abuser, and the punishments inflicted when the victim resisted or didn't act as expected. Thank God she is being helped by advocates who understand her situation. I hope this is the first step she takes in releasing the full story to the public. I'm also disgusted with police departments that can't get their act together and investigate claims properly. Let me guess, she indicated some names who have power in politics were involved in her abuse, and the police decided unilaterally they wouldn't question such people in connection with such a sordid tale. Remember the French case of Laurianne?? Do Americans care enough to expose this or will we be only too willing to forget it, dismmiss it and move on? If this article was intended to provoke an outcry, it worked for me. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "Ginja" Posted by Ruthee on 10:54:08 5/13/2000 Well all I can say is that I wouldn't want you investigating any card I received with a picture of a bear and a red heart. The last thing in the world I would do is call up the sender and thank them for their love. The card must have been mailed from Boulder. Someone chose a very special card. They chose to sign their first name. Very interesting. Now when push comes to shove there must be more than one person who can write the first name of someone on a card no matter what the name may be. The Ramseys accused Fleet White, and then decided for reasons unknown to me that they would keep quiet re Fleet White. I assure you he is not marked off of their "dead list." What to do? Well let's see maybe they knew of some hanky panky going on in California, and decided they would stir the pot a little. Susan Susan and Patsy love to play games with shot guns loom stun guns, and "I'm your husband's mistress" calls. I just wonder what else they may think of. any thoughts? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "Because, mary99, one of my absolute fave posters --" Posted by Holly on 10:54:51 5/13/2000 The BPD is stoopid! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "Ginja" Posted by Real Stormy on 10:49:58 5/13/2000 I agree with much of what you say about this woman, but how does it show that the Ramseys are capable of sexual abuse? I don't see that whatever her story is, it has anything at all to do with the Ramseys and/or what they might be capable of. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "Baloney." Posted by Holly on 10:49:20 5/13/2000 If they were no longer interested in her claims, why did they ask her back? They couldn't wait to sprint to a microphone to call her a "fruit loop", 4 months ago. So how come they don't want to make any comments now --when they were strikingly cordial, mildly informative, but ultimately dismissive of any connection. I do agree that it is not interesting to the BPD what crimes occurred in CA. They are only mildly interested in the crimes occurring in their own jurisdiction, for God's sake. Is the BPD actaully stating that the Whites have never been involved with abuse and this woman? That's what was alluded to in the CAMERA. Are they further assuring the public that Fleet White has no connection to the homicide of JonBenet Ramsey? The elements of MW's abuse and the elements of JB's murder are merely coincidental? Why aren't they clarifying just what is resolved and what isn't? So now she has shared her story with the Ramseys via Smit and his sidekick. That's not necessarily a bad thing. If they truly seek the truth, they should follow the evidence, no matter where the trail leads. Thanks, Tom, we KNOW it is an ongoing investigation. However, these were extraordinary claims that Hunter took seriously. Now who did you talk to and who didn't you talk to? How did you arrive at the decision to move past the claims. And what rich people are tight with the BPD? Hmmmmm Let me see if I can figure that one out... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "another murder in Colorado" Posted by Edie Pratt on 11:06:04 5/13/2000 I was just over at the Steamboat Pilot reading of another murder that occured Thursday. The police there did the same thing as LAaholm, and said there's no "whacko killer on the loose", yet they haven't a clue who the perp is at this time! A young woman had been attacked in a playground last week, but they say that one has nothing to do with this one. They still have not caught the attacker, but somehow can say for sure the murderer isn't he. Groannnnnn. They have the CBI on it, and are communicating with the FBI by phone. I will keep my eye on this and see what, if any, lessons were learned by the BPD's colosal screw ups. So far, they look as stupid as ever, but this is only the sixth murder in 20 some years. Sorry, I realize this has nothing to do with JB, or this thread really, but felt compelled to mention it:-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "There goes MW" Posted by Starling on 11:32:28 5/13/2000 ....riding off into the sunset. Sweep it all under the rug? Unfortunatley it is not that simple. Is my mind full of chit now or have I gained insight? I have gained insight. Starling [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "No Killer on the Loose" Posted by Leigh on 15:08:08 5/13/2000 What's with the State of Colorado and criminals? Does it have anything to do with a carry-over of the gold bust years, or can it be attributed to new age modern thinking? I will never forget Colorado let the most famous seriel killer of this century escape, twice. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "Mind control and triggers" Posted by Ginja on 11:33:35 5/13/2000 BTW, thanks for posting the story, BJ. I often get so focused on the topic that I neglect to thank the poster for bringing it to our attention. RS, I think it was you who couldn't see the (my) connection between MW telling her story to how that showed the Ramseys capable. My reasoning is, that before MW, no one -- not us, not the officials, not the public nor former cops who've published -- willingly or in good faith acknowledge and look into the sexual exploitation and molestation of JonBenet. The family retorts went from, "we're a good Christian family" to a disgusted "I found that very hurtful" when asked about the sexual abuse. Wecht published a book detailing in layman's terms the autopsy report, and yet, people wouldn't discuss it. Now they are, and I think it has a lot to do with MW coming out to tell her story. But there's a chasm between MW's experiences and JonBenet's, with no bridge to link the two. MW's experience may have been that an abuser would trigger fear or whatever by sending her a pink heart message. No where is there any indication that JonBenet received pink heart messages as a trigger from either MW's connections or JBR's family. That's not to say there were no triggers in JBR's experiences. Who's to say she didn't know what was going on when her abuser pulled out the long cord with the stick attached to the end? So who's to say the investigators aren't properly investigating MW's claims? Where's the link(s) between MW's abuse/abusers and JBR? An introduction between the two families several years ago might be a bridge, but it's not a link between crimes/criminals. The only thing any of these people have in common -- to which no linkage is necessary -- is that they all partake in deviant sexual behavior. They are not participating together. Each is in their own 'world' -- MW and her abusers in CA and JBR and hers in CO. Is Fleet White the link? or a high ranking BPD or official? Only if MW has first hand knowledge that one or both were involved in JonBenet's murder and/or its coverup. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "Well" Posted by lake on 13:27:27 5/13/2000 It is understandable that the BPD cannot connect the Jane Doe allegations to the murder of JBR. The only reason the BPD could connect the Ramseys to the murder is because they were asleep in the house where her body was found, it was their house, and JBR was the daughter of the Ramseys. Surprise, surprise! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "Holly -- " Posted by v_p on 13:14:05 5/13/2000 >>I do agree that it is not interesting to the BPD what crimes occurred in CA. They are only mildly interested in the crimes occurring in their own jurisdiction, for God's sake<< LMAO Holly -- probably one of the most amusing and accurate statements thus far... V. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "Ok, Ginja" Posted by Real Stormy on 13:32:07 5/13/2000 You are right. It is I who cannot see that there is any connection between MW's story, whatever it is (that is still unclear to me too as it should be to anyone who demands more than rumor and innuendo) and whether or not the Ramseys are capable of sexual abuse. I suppose if one took the generic route in that because MW claims that this happened to her, it could happen to or by anyone, that's a possibility, remote but possible. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "Jane Doe" Posted by lake on 14:06:50 5/13/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 14:06:50, 5/13/2000 Tells the BPD. As a child she was sexually abused by the father of the man with whom JBR and her family had dinner just hours before she was murdered. Also present (she says) at that dinner was one of her abusers and her young female neice. JBR was strangled with a cord. Strangulation with devices was part of the sexual abuse she experienced as a child and as a young adult. She has have been offered money not to come forward with her allegations. She has photographic proof of her continued association over the years with people who were at the dinner party just prior to the murder of JBR. She and her psychiatrist maintain that her family (who also know people at that dinner party) tried to keep her from making any pulbic alligations about her past and ongoing physical, sexual and mental abuse. And the BPD and presumed guilty posters response is: Now how can that be even remotely connected to the murder of JBR? How could such claims be connected to the murder of JBR in any way? Well of course, I see the problem of the BPD and I also see the problem with the reasoning process of the presumed guilty posters on this and other internet forums. People usually never see the light as long as the keep their eyes and minds closed to the light. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "And" Posted by lake on 14:31:43 5/13/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 14:31:43, 5/13/2000 Why pay any attention to the Jane Doe when it is clear that PR killed her daughter over some silly disagreement about the bleaching of JBR's hair at about 10pm on 12/25/96? Good greef! Everyone knows moms kill their daughters every day of the week over disputes over bleaching of their hair. But if the Jane Doe claims are considered there must be an absurd attempt to shoehorn the Ramesy parents into the senario no matter how absurd of convoluted the attempt to include the parents becomes. Because it is the darkness and not the light the many seem to be searching for in their attempt to resolve this case. The darkness of biased, prejudiced, convoluted thinking. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "We still don't know>>>>" Posted by ayelean on 14:52:58 5/13/2000 the degree of familiarity of either or both of the Rams to the MW. It's ok if we don't know but I hope the BPD is not overlooking it. Maybe the BPD did find out that MW and PR had their heads together and shared some 'heart'felt sordid details, and that is why they don't need to hear more about the other abusers? If they did uncover this though, would they send MW away without making sure she would be available later if needed for testimony? Now that we hear about the bear and the heart card, it makes me wonder if the heart drawn on JBR's palm* wasn't more fingerpointing staging instead of the loving gesture I was giving PR credit for before. So far I haven't seen anything that changes my mind about PR using this info to set the stage. * Was that erroneously stated that the heart was drawn on the back of the hand? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "Am I alone in my outrage?" Posted by Seashell on 14:41:10 5/13/2000 "The woman said offered Boulder detectives other evidence of alleged threats against her, but was told to give them to police in California. Some of those messages, according to documents shown to the Times-Call, invoke the names of people with "lots of money" and connections in the Boulder Police Department." The little ol' BPD doesn't want to go and investigate itself now, does it? The fact that they wouldn't even look at what she had tells me that we may have some pay-offs going on in the BPD, which is always the case in child porn/abuse/rings. The sickos need protection inside the law. That carpet in the DA/BPD office must be 10 feet tall with all that "unimportant/non-case related" debris swept under it. I don't know if there's a connection, but what makes my angry is that "certain" areas of her evidence were ignored as being unworthy of looking at or into. The quotes in the article range from ambiguous to stoooopid! Somebody's paying a lot of money to cover up the horrific torture and murder of JonBenet Ramsey. I wonder why she met with Smit. How very very intriguing and it requires some digestion. Mary99, I'm with you. And ginja, I'm surprised that you aren't yelling about the cops being so dismissive. If MW has to remain in hiding all her life, maybe she'll go public with those names of wealthy people and those connections to the BPD. I'm not convinced that there's a connection. I'm not convinced that there's NO connection. Thank you BJ, thank you very much. I wonder if Lee Hill would make a public statement now. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 55. "I have to believe...." Posted by Ginja on 09:26:18 5/14/2000 ...in the justice system as well as those who swear to serve and protect. >"The woman said offered Boulder detectives other >evidence of alleged threats against her, >but was told to give them >to police in California. Some of >those messages, according to documents >shown to the Times-Call, invoke the names >of people with "lots of money" >and connections in the Boulder Police >Department." If the Boulder people told MW to take her allegations to CA, then I have to assume/believe it's only because all elements of those allegations can only be served by CA. Boulder is only interested, and can only work with, information that deals directly with citizens of its jurisdiction and/or an open murder investigation. So with that said, it's "apparent" that when MW's abusers threaten her, and include in those threats the names of Boulder citizens, the abuser is more likely than not threatening MW. The implication could have been they would expose MW to Beckner or Hunter as a liar or whatever. Maybe it could have been that as members of the 'family', someone like Beckner or Hunter will see that she's returned home to them. Your cite could mean all kinds of different things, none of them having anything to do with linking anyone in Boulder to murder. For example, the pink heart message is from one of MW's abusers from CA. Boulder can't do anything about that, it's out of their jurisdiction. Only CA can investigate the threat, the abuser, or MW's allegations as regards the message. It would be true suicide, not to mention illegal, if Boulder were ignoring or refusing to investigate charges of any kind against any citizen of Boulder. It would eventually catch up with them, regardless of whether anyone is ever charged in JonBenet's murder. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 65. "Not true about jurisdiction of heart note...." Posted by SJ on 22:40:49 5/14/2000 Your cite could mean all kinds of different things, none of them having anything to do with linking anyone in Boulder to murder. For example, the pink heart message is from one of MW's abusers from CA. Boulder can't do anything about that, it's out of their jurisdiction. Only CA can investigate the threat, the abuser, or MW's allegations as regards the message.>> If this was mailed to MW, it becomes a federal offense if it is a threat. That would have to involve Boulder as well. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "Lakey, Reverse Speech..." Posted by Greenleaf on 14:35:42 5/13/2000 >>>>>"Why pay any attention to the Jane Doe when it is clear that PR killed her daughter over some silly disagreement about the bleaching of JBR's hair at about 10pm on 12/25/96? Good greef!" Reverse: "Geeze, they're getting too close for comfort. How did they know about the bleaching job? >>>> "Everyone knows moms kill their daughters every day of the week over disputes over bleaching of their hair." Reverse: How am I going to worm my way out of this? I'll just continue to make fun of everything they say! SO THERE! Greenleaf [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 41. "GL" Posted by tinky on 22:43:00 5/13/2000 Good one...Love the lake logic. She sure does get whipped into a frenzy, doesn't she? LOL [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "Of Course your will" Posted by lake on 14:53:58 5/13/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 14:53:58, 5/13/2000 Greeny. Because your reasoning process has clearly been taken over by prejudice, biase and convoluted thinking to protect yourself from the truth about how wrong you are in your conclusions about this case. Much like the DA that convicts an innocent man and refuses to admit the mistakes and errors that led to the conviction of the innocent. Although, it this case, the conviction of the accused is only in your mind. And it is you and those like you, that are the prisoner, not the Ramseys. Prisoner of biased, prejudiced wronghead thinking. You mind taken over by rumor, inuendo and lies. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. ""Wrongheaded thinker" checking in..." Posted by Greenleaf on 15:09:49 5/13/2000 Ah, Lakey, it's coming down the wire, now. All us "wrongheaded thinkers" have been so wrong; all along, we have been wrong. I'm going to write a new song. "And it is you and those like you, that are the prisoner, not the Ramseys. Prisoner of biased, prejudicted wronghead thinking. You mind taken over by rumor, inuendo and lies." Ah, my poor old mind; so biased; so prejudiced. What to do? What to do? Is "wrongheaded thinking" a chronic condition? Oh, please tell me it's not contagious. Forgive me, folks, but rumor, inuendo and lies have just invaded my feeble mind. BooHoo. Sob, sob. Broken down Greenleaf p.s. LakeyPatsyPooPoo, you are barking up the wrong tree. Get thee to a mental institution before it is too late. I cannot converse any longer with a door knob. Sorry. GL [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "Well" Posted by lake on 15:20:37 5/13/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 15:20:37, 5/13/2000 Another brain dead post for Greeny. Forget to put your brain in this morning when you put your false teeth in? Because any objective person knows that you have no interest in the killer of JBR being brought to justice if that person happens not to be Patsy or John Ramsey. And that, I think is the same sickness that Steve Thomas has. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. "And" Posted by lake on 15:09:08 5/13/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 15:09:08, 5/13/2000 The BPD and the DA no longer care about bringing the killer of JBR to justice. Their mission now is to pretend to work the case, keep it open and active, to avoid being sued by Lin Wood and the Ramseys. But it is not going to work. Because what we are seeing now is the soft underbelly of a badly flawed investigation and justice system. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. "you know, lake" Posted by lecarl on 15:37:55 5/13/2000 if I were you I wouldn't be trying to insinuate the MW or her family had anything to do with the murder of JBR. Once, because I live so close to the place where these people live, I offered to do a little sleuthing & find out something about them. No one took me up on my offer but by then I was curious. I made a total of three phone calls and confirmed that the family MW mentioned is an African American family (very well respected, too) Not only that, but coincidentally, I happened to see a couple of them on local tv a few days later--it had something to do with some charity they were sponsoring--and believe me, Ca. black people will sue you in a heartbeat for daring to implicate them in something as awful as this murder, and NO ONE WOULD BLAME THEM. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 27. "Brainless Wonder..." Posted by Greenleaf on 16:12:55 5/13/2000 >>>"Another brain dead post for Greeny. Forget to put your brain in this morning..." Isn't it funny how both LakeyPatsyPooPoo and the writer of the ransom note keep on bringing up the "brain?" "Brain-dead; No brain." Compare that with "Don't try and grow a brain.." Hummmm.... Greenleaf [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 26. "Plasket's remarks, dissected for innuendo " Posted by mary99 on 17:00:46 5/13/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 17:00:46, 5/13/2000 (My remarks are preceeded by ** throughout) >A California woman who claims to have been sexually assaulted as a child by a group that included people connected to the JonBenet Ramsey murder case...but her allegations have apparently not changed the focus of the investigation. **The people who assaulted her are connected to the JBR murder case, not relatives or friends of those connected to the JBR murder case. >"The detectives told me they can't connect my story to the Ramsey murder," the so-called Mystery Woman told the Times-Call. **If that is the case, why then did they also say: >"Trujillo said this is an ongoing murder investigation and they don't have tell me anything," she said. **Her story is either connected to the JBR murder investigation, or it's not. For the BPD to seek to sit on both sides of the fence, IMO, means what she has told them is pertinent, but her abusers are not the killers of JBR. Well, we kinda guessed that much. >According to the Mystery Woman, detectives also said they didn't contact or investigate several people whose names she gave them and refused to say if they had interviewed others. **Out-f'ing-rageous!! There's no excuse for not following any and all leads she gave them. Let's assume that the names they refused to comment on were indeed followed up. Typical cop-talk. **Why not the others, though? If there is a valid reason, such as being unable to locate them, such as being out of country, wouldn't a proper response have been, "We're working on that"? Not following up leads with investigation and interviews is the last thing the BPD can afford to be accused of. It smacks of cronyism, corruption and coverup. > Police also declined her offer to show them evidence, including a card sent to her the same week she came forward with her allegations. **Duh, it was a Valentine's Day card sent two weeks late. No matter what the message,that MW was contacted by her abusers while in hiding is an overt threat. That the BPD played a part in confirming the whereabouts of MW when she was reported missing by her family is damning in and of itself. >The woman said she offered Boulder detectives other evidence of alleged threats against her, but was told to give them to police in California. Some of those messages, according to documents shown to the Times-Call, invoke the names of people with "lots of money" and connections in the Boulder Police Department. ** The BPD reminds me of the Ramseys now. "Why check out our own department if we're innocent of all wrongdoing?" sounds a lot like, "Why should we have to prove we didn't kill our daughter?" >She was at first reluctant to speak to >Smit and Gray in fear of >being labeled as a member of >the Ramsey camp. **Has she been reading here at JW? > "I'm at peace with whatever they say about me," she said. "The cause (of assault victims) is greater than anything they can say about me." **More power to her! She has overcome the feeling of negation that comes from being dismissed. What she has to say is valid and applies to people, abusers and children everywhere. Her life does not hinge on being important to the resolution of the murder of JBR. Thank God. I wish you well, Mystery Woman, Mystery Witness, wherever you are and wherever you go. Thank you for coming forward. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 28. "Bored of this whole thing..." Posted by Cutter on 16:24:18 5/13/2000 I feel very sorry for this Mystery Woman since she is a victim of long term abuse. But since the woman's therapist has stated that she (MW) never made reference to anyone involved in the Ramsey case until AFTER the murder of JonBenet I see the Mystery Woman as being nothing but an opportunist. Why the BPD is even giving this woman the time of day is beyond me. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 29. "lecarl" Posted by lake on 16:35:08 5/13/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 16:35:08, 5/13/2000 Well Patsy and John Ramsey are not black and they are not from Ca., but if I were you I would watch out. They might sue you if they can work you in and you have more than two million dollars in assets. But I guess that puts you in the safe zone? You and that other idiot Peter Boyles? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 31. "Wrong, wrong, wrong..." Posted by mary99 on 16:41:36 5/13/2000 Sorry, Cutter, please correct me if I'm wrong, but MW has alleged that she is in fact a victim of abuse by people connected to the JBR murder case long before JBR was even born. And the above quote is from the Times-Call 5-13 article. Her abuse is a documented fact. We, at JW, are not privy at this time to the details, but suffice it to say that it was good enough for the editor of the Boulder Daily Camera, Lee Hill, Alex Hunter, and the investigators who followed it up in their own bumbling way. Those very investigators who in answer to questions about the status of the investigation issued a stock "No comment on an ongoing murder investigation". She has not insinuated herself as much as made herself and her story available to the ongoing investigation. Aside from commenting on how incredibly painful it must be to expose oneself to scrutiny, I have to admire her, MW, for herself and her character. The victim is always the one who is doubted. That anyone would seek to place themself under such scrutiny and subject themself to such a degree of negativism is ludicrous. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 50. "Cutter!" Posted by Holly on 04:43:38 5/14/2000 No! That info was given to her therapist years before the JB homicide and some possibly before JB was even born. She is not an opportunist. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 30. "Mary99" Posted by Greenleaf on 16:38:04 5/13/2000 You wrote: "Thank God. I wish you well, Mystery Woman, Mystery Witness, wherever you are and wherever you go. Thank you for coming forward." If Mystery Woman is legitimate, then I applaud her with my whole heart, mind and soul. If, on the other hand, she turns out to be a "plant," and/or just a "fluke," then I have no choice but to go on to other "sources." And, I believe that there are others out there who have vital information about this case, but are afraid to come forward. If Mystery Woman proves to be an honorable source, then I have nothing but disdain for those who have treated her so miserably. I hope and pray that a serious investigation is ongoing. She deserves it and we, the people, deserve it. God bless all who have helped get her story out. Greenleaf [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 32. "Not surprised but disappointed" Posted by darby on 17:01:22 5/13/2000 If this was a sexually motivated crime committed by John and/or Patsy Ramsey, which I believe, then MW might have provided the spark needed to look in that direction. Maybe the BPD won't "go there," but hopefully someone else will. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 33. "I am preparing a statement..." Posted by mame on 17:19:23 5/13/2000 i'll do so shortly. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 35. "Cutter," Posted by LurkerXIV on 17:50:39 5/13/2000 I am leaning more and more towards your POV on this Mystery Woman. She is cooperating with Lou Smit. That alone is enough to send up red flags for me. Looks like she has been pimped one more time. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 34. "I wish the BPD would explain why" Posted by darby on 17:46:27 5/13/2000 IS THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT NOT TRUE? MW told her therapist before JBR was born that key figures in the JBR case, possibly who were with JBR on the night of her murder, abused MW as a child by garroting her, whacking her on the head and sexually assaulting her. IS THIS NOT TRUE? JBR is a child who was found garroted, sexually assaulted and with a major head blow after an evening at the home of the the son of one of MW's documented abusers. AND IS THIS NOT TRUE? Children are murdered every day. But how many are garroted and sexually assaulted in conjunction with their murder? How common is this? IT'S VERY, VERY RARE FOR SUCH A THING TO HAPPEN TO AN ADULT MUCH LESS A CHILD. WAS THIS JUST A COINCIDENCE OR IS THERE IN FACT A CONNECTION BETWEEN MW'S EXPERIENCE AND THAT OF JBR? If the BPD can't imagine that there might be a connection, then they have put blinders on. I'm not entirely clear on why the BPD adopted a theory which ignores the possibility of incest at the same time it provides no reasonable explanation for the use of the ligature--a theory that has never gotten anyone indicted for lack of evidence. But since the police made their Patsy-in-rage choice early on, it seems that they simply cannot accept any other scenario at this late date. The similarities to MW's story and JBR's story certainly might all be just some fantastic coincidence. But to refuse to investigate further to determine whether this could be more than a coincidence is simply wrong. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 36. "Cutter" Posted by Real Stormy on 17:51:08 5/13/2000 I agree with you about MW. Further, it is my understanding that the "documentation" so frequently mentioned which was presented prior to JB's murder was her claim that she was sexually abused as a child and throughout her life up to the very recent past. It is my further understanding that her claim that FW Sr. was her mother's Godfather was made after JB's murder. It seems that she has a photo of FW Sr. Under what circumstances she was in possession of this photo is not public information, although it was once reported that her family was quite upset that she had the photo. It has been reported that she claims she was sexually abused as a child by Mr. White, Sr. and some say Mr. White, Jr. It is not public knowledge as to when she made the claim that the abuse she suffered resembled what was done to JB,i.e. the blow on the head, the strangulation, etc. She has been in some kind of therapy with the same therapist for 10 years. Someone on the internet checked the therapist's credentials and reported she has been licensed for only 8 years. She claims that she was sexually abused as recently as a couple of months ago, even though at the time she was living an independent life with her own apartment. The police in California say that she has filed false accusation (s) of rape in the past, the person she accused having been out of the state at the time she claimed the rape took place. It was the police in California, not the BPD, who referred to her as a "Fruitloop." When Mame took her in, she was suffering from various physical complaints such as veneral disease (s) and an injury to her lower back. She claimed the back injury was the result of a stun gun attack which occurred during her most recent sexual assault. She claims that a young child was taken to Boulder during the Christmas holidays in 1996 for the purpose of sexual assault. She claims this child is now in Europe, possibly Germany. She claims that the child was at the White home sometime during this period. It is not known when she made this claim, prior to or after JB's death. When she was a teenager, she was responsible for the prosecution of one Macky Boykin for raping her. It is not known if, at that time, she reported the sexual abuse to which she was subjected from childhood. It appears that she has claimed that she knows of other children who were sexually abused during her childhood sexual abuse. Whether or not she has named these children is unknown. Her therapist claims to have received two or three telephone messages which were left on her answering machine which she considers to be threats. They were played on Mame and BJ's internet broadcast. They did not sound threatening to me, but perhaps that's open to interpretation. The voices sounded to me as if they were very old people. It is my opinion that this unfortunate woman has interjected herself into the investigation of the murder of JBR and has no connection whatsoever with the Ramseys or the White, Jrs. I do not know what her motive is, but we all know that there are people who do this sort of thing all the time. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 37. "lecarl>>" Posted by ayelean on 19:42:10 5/13/2000 Glad to see you got into the forum. Did you get my email? Do we know the line of questioning that Smithead asked of MW? Mame do you know, even if you can't reveal it? I am sorry that she was questioned by him, but suppose it had to be. I wonder what the RAMifications of that will be? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 38. "One Way thinking" Posted by lake on 20:30:29 5/13/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 20:30:29, 5/13/2000 Some of you are so dug in on your insistance, without any proof, that the Rs are involved in the murder of their daughter that you make complete asses of yourselves dismissing the Jane Doe claims and attempting to shoehorn the Rs into any senario that might have its roots in the Jane Doe experiences. It is amusing watching some of you and your one way thinking, moulded by the tabloid media any your own biased prejudices. Much like Thomas, you really don't care where the evidence and circumstances appear to lead. And sadly, some of you people are not interested in JFJBR, you are only interested in trashing the Ramsey parents for your own small minded petty reasons. But fortunatley, those small minded, petty, baised followers of this case, really do not matter any more. And neither does Steve Thomas. The case has moved beyond you. So amuse yourselves. Talk among yourselves. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 39. "Point by point: Real Stormy " Posted by mary99 on 21:55:38 5/13/2000 Real Stormy, As you have detailed fairly well your points of contention surrounding 'MW', here's my answer to your points of contention: (my comments within quotes are denoted as [**]) RS: It is my understanding that the documentation so frequently mentioned which was presented prior to JB's murder was her claim that she was sexually abused as a child and throughout her life up to the very recent past. [**'Documentation so frequently mentioned ...was presented prior to JBR's murder'. Yes. MW was abused and used as a child, for the sexual gratification of a group of adults, some of whom are connected to the Ramsey murder investigation.] [That her mother is Fleet White, Sr's goddaughter is not an allegation as much as it is an admission; her mother's godfather was chosen at the time of her mother's christening and that was 50 or more years ago: it is not deniable after the fact and has been repeated by reputable sources as fact; therefore the 'documented evidence' probably includes baptismal records, christening announcements, photographic evidence with dated notations, etc. It's inconceivable and insulting that one would think that this would be repeated consistently if not factually proven.] RS: It has been reported that she claims she was sexually abused as a child by Mr. White, Sr. and some say Mr. White, Jr. [**Fair enough, Real Stormy, that's the gist of it.] RS: It is not public knowledge as to when she made the claim that the abuse she suffered resembled what was done to JB,i.e. the blow on the head, the strangulation, etc. [**Well, according to her therapist, reports were made about the exact nature of her abuse, meaning the head blow, the rope around the neck, etc. before JonBenet Ramsey was even born. That's right, she detailed this type of abuse before JonBenet ever lived, and well before she, JBR, died. >She has been in some kind of therapy with the same therapist for 10 years. Someone on the internet checked the therapist's credentials and reported she has been licensed for only 8 years. [**Real Stormy, welcome to the world of managed care. Most practicing therapists are licensed as social workers, psychotherapists, family counselling practicioners, interactive psychotherapists, etc.] [**A Master's Degree in family counselling or psychotherapy is the criteria upon which the achievement of one's license is based.] [**Many valid therapists are certified for psychotherapy but have not attained a Master's Degree. Just as many teachers are certified by the Board of Education but are not Professors and do not hold a Doctorate Degree. They are no less qualified to teach or practice therapy, they simply get less pay and are thus more frequently employed in budget-based systems.] >She claims that she was sexually abused as recently as a couple of months ago, even though at the time she was living an independent life with her own apartment. [** You obviously don't know the dangers of a woman living alone. A woman can be followed from her home to her work, and abducted in the parking lot of her workplace, or vice versa, followed from her work to her home and approached or abducted between her car and her apartment building.] [Don't presume to say a neighbor would notice and call for police; most people don't want to get involved and few would even notice or even react to a male/female 'incident', preferring to 'mind their business'. That's life in the 90's.] RS: The police in California say that she has filed false accusation (s) of rape in the past, the person she accused having been out of the state at the time she claimed the rape took place. [**I can't pretend to know the truth, but it's certainly possible that so-called 'false' allegations were in fact truthful and only deemed 'false' due to poor investigation, false witnesses, political influence, corruption, and/or police bias.] >It was the police in California, not the BPD, who referred to her as a "Fruitloop." [See above: it's called CYA and CYF: Cover Your A$$ and Cover Your Friends(in high places)] RS: When Mame took her in, she was suffering from various physical complaints such as veneral disease(s) and an injury to her lower back. She claimed the back injury was the result of a stun gun attack which occurred during her most recent sexual assault. [**There you go again, victimizing the victim. If she had Aids as a result of being raped, would you hold that against her, too? That she was sleezy, loose and probably a 'ho'?] [**Or would you prefer to blame Mame for exposing her family to 'that kind of person'? Is there such a thing as a social conscience or is that nullified if one has children?] RS: She claims that a young child was taken to Boulder during the Christmas holidays in 1996 for the purpose of sexual assault. [** Just to show you I'm not a rabid rumormonger, I'll disagree...MW said 'she was concerned for the well-being of her niece', leading one to infer that sexual abuse may be the nature of her concern. But she never stated, at least to my recollection, that the child was brought to Boulder for the purpose of sexual assault in Dec.1996.] RS: She claims this child is now in Europe, possibly Germany. She claims that the child was at the White home sometime during this period. It is not known when she made this claim, prior to or after JB's death. [**RS, you attribute rumors such as the reports of the niece's whereabouts (being in Germany) to MW. I don't think that came from MW; I believe that came from a BPD or FBI comment that allegations were being pursued 'abroad' with the help of 'international authorities', i.e. Interpol. But I may be wrong.] [**You question whether MW made the remarks about the nieces safety before before or after JB's murder. In this instance, the only time to make those allegations would be after JB's murder. If the child was 'taken to Boulder' for the purpose of sexual abuse at Christmas, 1996, how could MW make her concerns known for the child's safety before JB's murder, since that occurred at that exact time?] RS: When she was a teenager, she was responsible for the prosecution of one Macky Boykin for raping her. It is not known if, at that time, she reported the sexual abuse to which she was subjected from childhood. It appears that she has claimed that she knows of other children who were sexually abused during her childhood sexual abuse. Whether or not she has named these children is unknown. [** All we know is she testified against Boykin, it reportedly took three trials, but he was convicted and served short time on 64 or so counts of felonious and/or misdemeanor criminal offenses. What they were, we do not know. MW herself may not have reported him; a teacher, a physician, a friend's parent, or a social service agency may have befriended MW and urged her to confront her abuse. That she was able to provide enough evidence for 64 counts against Boykin, (and these were charges she, MW, substantiated) tells me that she was a very credible and intelligent witness who had excellent recall. That she did not implicate any other abusers at that time is simply, to me, a sign that she felt unsafe, and in fact, was unsafe, as evidenced by the fact her family gave Boykin her whereabouts when he was released at the end of his term in prison. RS: Her therapist claims to have received two or three telephone messages which were left on her answering machine which she considers to be threats. They were played on Mame and BJ's internet broadcast. They did not sound threatening to me, but perhaps that's open to interpretation. The voices sounded to me as if they were very old people. [Old or young, a voice which utters a threat aginst another person is still a threat. If there were 'enforcers' who would make good on these threats, you can bet they are not elderly. The point is, MW was warned not to continue to divulge secret 'family business'. The implication was that serious harm would come to her and those she relied on for support, if she continued to talk.] RS: It is my opinion that this unfortunate woman has interjected herself into the investigation of the murder of JBR and has no connection whatsoever with the Ramseys or the White, Jrs. I do not know what her motive is, but we all know that there are people who do this sort of thing all the time. [**You gave your opinion, now I'll give mine: this woman came forward after carrying a burden for years and years, a burden she carries to this day. She will never be free; she will never trust another man and be free to engage in a healthy sexual relationship. She has struggled for years to become a person who felt good about herself and had to overcome many obstacles of a re-occurring nature. In spite of her past, she persevered and found a life which brought her some measure of happiness and fullfillment. At some point in time, she became aware that the murder of JonBenet Ramsey, of Boulder, CO, had incidentally become a national scandal. She may have seen tabloids in the market where she shopped, but ignored the lurid covers and stories within. However, when she saw a TV news broadcast which featured John Ramsey answering questions posed by Lee Hill concerning a man named Fleet White, of Boulder, CO, she became agitated and anxious. She knew Fleet White's family! She had been discussing these issues for years with her therapist. She was riveted to the screen for the remainder of the interview and vowed to bring it up in her next therapy session. She discussed with her therapist what the impact of what she had suffered would mean to those interested in solving JBR's murder and wondered if she could trust Lee Hill to act as her spokesperson. Her therapist checked him out and told her to go ahead and contact him if she felt strong enough to withstand the police interrogation, which would be humiliating and emotionally painful. She contacted Hill and he met with her in CA and videotaped what she had assembled as 'proof' of her abuse along the way. He urged her to come to CO and made plans to meet with her and officials at the BPD or DA's office. She was attacked, assaulted, and tortured in yet another episode of horrendous physical, mental, emotional and sexual abuse. She was degraded and left for dead, but she survived. She crawled her way to a telephone and told Lee Hill she had been injured. He advised her to get on the next plane for CO and he would see that she was safe from that point on. Alas, it was not to be. She was met at the airport, but safety was not assured. Her abusers were in touch with the BPD within a day. Her therapist received threats. Her abusers mailed a card to her to let her know they knew where she was staying. Safe houses could not help her as the tabloids were tracking her. She went to the hospital and they admitted her to treat her for her recent injuries. She found safety and seclusion with a loving family but became disconcerted when police lights flashed outside the home and her protector was arrested. Although the charge was minor, the message was clear; leave Boulder now. She was abruptly transferred to a safe house in another state and found safety and a resemblance of security again. Still, her abusers tracked her down and threatened her. Again, she moved elsewhere. She found a place with people who understood her problems, and they found her credible. She came to Boulder again and gave more info to BPD detectives and Ramsey investigators. Although they say she has no connection to the Ramsey murder, they refuse to comment further as it is an ongoing investigation. They have not interviewed certain people she named, and she is feeling betrayed. Yet, she hopes that the information she gave will be investigated fully. She understands that she has made a choice which will be with her always; now that she has shared her darkest secrets she will never feel safe. Her abusers will not rest; they will always be tracking her, keeping her on the run. I wish her well, and may God keep her safe. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 40. "Where's the meat?" Posted by shadow on 22:06:47 5/13/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 22:06:47, 5/13/2000 I have little doubt that the MW was abused, and may even have a truly terrible story to tell. However, I have seen nothing forthcoming that is solid on the connection between MW and the JBR case since at least January. I know that Lake has thrown out "hints" on all kinds of "stuff" - there is just nothing there, folks. I know Holly and darby have "concerns" about FW and his family, but it's all questions - "where's the meat?" And, as much as I respect mame and BJ, they haven't given us anything to "sink-our-teeth-into" either. One has to wonder why Fleet White haters DA Hunter and his troops, and Beckner haven't gotten the goods on FW and his family in over 5 months of access to the MW. The BPD, who works for Beckner, apparently doesn't place much confidence in the possible link between MW and the JBR case. From what I've seen, nothing has been forthcoming from the FBI, and California and Colorado investigators who (we are told) checked out the MW. I have no doubt that none of these people will share anything they find with the Boulder DA's office, or Boulder reporters who have ties to Hunter and Wise. In other words, MW suddenly appeared on the JBR case scene on the forums and local Boulder media in January - since that time, not one word in the Tabs, TV Talk Shows, and mainstream media. You really believe these people are being nice? Someone said, "Is the MW just going to go away?" My question is when is she going to arrive anywhere other than the JBR forums and Daily Camera? shadow [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 42. "Just a thought.." Posted by mary99 on 23:02:43 5/13/2000 I don't think MW knows who killed JBR. I don't think she ever pretended to know. Therefore, it's not fair to blame her if she doesn't solve this case by coming forward. I think what happened to her is real and has been substantiated. That her abusers and the killer of JBR are one and the same would be an impossible stretch. She has given names, people, places, and details of her abuse. As painful as it is, it may not be enough. JBR's murderers killed her without witnesses; her killers may or may not be brought to trial. MW has come forward at her own risk and given information which may or may not be useful to the BPD. This has not been fun for her, nor profitable, regardless of what some may think. She has let go of all she ever had to go into hiding. I really hope that it was worth the risk and trauma she went through. If the BPD can't put it together, I hope she publicly exposes her abusers someday for what they are; at least she will have some kind of closure to what has been a very bad past. And if the 'people in high places' in the BPD are involved, let the cards fall where they may! If the underlying corruption in the BPD has stalled this investigation for three years and counting, let that be the light she shines on this case. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 44. "Mary99" Posted by pip on 23:47:15 5/13/2000 I agree. The Ramsey case inspired MW to come forward - she suspected a connection, and felt it was important to come forward with what she knew in order to protect other potential victims. I never heard any claims that she knew who killed JonBenet - only that there were people and circumstances common to both situations. I still feel that hers was a courageous act. Any expectations that her story would "solve the case" were borne of our own wishful thinking. MW's story, in my opinion, stands on its own. To the extent that certain parties are common to both cases is of interest, but not necessarily a direct connection. There does not have to be a "sex ring conspiracy" in order for these two things to be true; MW was sexually abused by friends and family members, and JonBenet was subjected to similiar sexual abuse. I wish the best for MW. I believe and respect her, and admire her willingness to put herself on the line to possibly help another victim. I hope she finds a way to escape her tormentors once and for all. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 45. "Pip and all" Posted by mary99 on 00:05:36 5/14/2000 I'm waiting on Mame to tell it like it is, and I'm glad you share my sentiments, Pip. She, MW, has been through much more than I could even imagine and yet she has survived and been able to come forward and put herself on the line. She's the only one with the guts to come forward so far. Whether we ever know the whole story, I'll always admire her. This wasn't her job, it was her life. I had a similar chance to testify once, but was too young and chickened out. I guess that haunts me. I know how hard it was to do what she did, and can't understand those who belittle her. I have learned a lot from her, and never even knew her. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 43. "IF" Posted by lake on 23:27:53 5/13/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 23:27:53, 5/13/2000 The investigation into the Jane Doe allegations being conducted by the FBI and Federal Marshalls is an effective one, I doubt that there will be a "blow by blow" account in the media that shadow seems to demand. Serious investigations are not conducted in the glare of the media. Especially not one of the potential nature of these crimes. The 2 1/2 year Ramsey case circus was not a serious investigtaion. It was a sham conducted by rank amatures. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 47. "Please consider this" Posted by darby on 01:16:22 5/14/2000 One of the following must be true: A) The Ramseys are completely innocent B) One or both of the Ramseys acted alone or were in cahoots with someone other than the Whites in the abuse and murder of JBR C) The Ramseys are inter-tangled with the Whites in the murder of JBR Let's examine these: CHOICE A: If the Ramseys were innocent, I would think that they would be all over the MW's claims, screaming to high heavens that the killer of their daughter must be a White or someone connected with the Whites. We'd be hearing from them and Lin Wood that the BPD's apparent decision to wash their hands of MW is one more example of how the BPD is out to lynch the Ramseys. CHOICE B: Now, let's say that the Ramseys absolutely know that the Whites were not involved in the murder. The only way for this to be true is if the Ramseys killed or know who killed JBR, and it had nothing to do with the Whites. I would think that in this case, the Ramseys and Lin Wood would be saying just about the same things that they would be saying if the Ramseys were innocent. They'd be citing this as yet another example of how the BPD has been out to pin the crime on the Ramseys, no matter where the evidence leads. The Rams certainly have been quite vocal about every person who might seem even remotely suspicious, regardless of whether or not they have been cleared. If the Ramseys acted alone, the MW would be a golden opportunity for them right now, especially given the recent polygraph fiasco, which has made them look guilty as hell. CHOICE C: Let's say that both the Ramseys and the Whites are somehow involved in the abuse and murder of JBR. I would think that the MW and her implications about the Whites would be something the Ramseys would NOT ever be publicly ranting about. The Ramseys would know that MW holds the key to the undoing of not only the Whites but themselves as well. They would be counting their lucky stars right now that the BPD apparently could find nothing connecting MW's experiences to the case. ****** So far, the Ramseys and their spokespeople have said nothing concerning MW. Let's wait and watch to see what the Ramseys do regarding BPD's rejection of her. My guess is that the Ramseys will continue to sue and threaten to sue, pretend that they want to take a lie detector test, and rant and rave about the media and the BPD's refusal to look at anyone besides the Ramseys. But I'll be surprised if we ever hear anything about MW from the Ramseys. They want her to go away, IMO. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 67. "Darby" Posted by lee2 on 23:30:00 5/14/2000 In the multiple choices you have presented (above) my vote is for "C" [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 46. "Charges..." Posted by shadow on 01:08:41 5/14/2000 I guess we can assume that in some point in time (maybe 2010) the results of the FBI and US Marshall's investigation will be made public and someone will be charged with a crime? Yeah, right!!! shadow [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 48. "No" Posted by lake on 02:01:45 5/14/2000 But you may see the Jane Doe and her alligations surface in one of the civil trials that the Rs file on their behalf if any of those sued have the bad judgemnet to not settle but take the case to trial. And I think it is the Whites and not the Rameys that fear the Jane Doe and her alligations. Someone is going to have to confess their knowledge of what happened to JBR for the JBR case to be criminally prosecuted. And that is the long and the short of that one. The physical evidence does not appear to be enough to charge a Ramsey or a non Ramsey. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 49. "Thank You BJ" Posted by starry on 02:56:04 5/14/2000 And good luck to Mystery Woman. You have an incredible amount of courage. I'm terribly disappointed in the BPD's callous handling of this potential witness. Why couldn't they investigate all leads? Why??? Probably because they'd eventually have to charge someone for the crime of murdering JonBenet and "you don't want to go there, Pal." Sure glad I don't live in Colorado. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 51. "I don't want to "dis" MW personally," Posted by fiddler on 05:30:53 5/14/2000 but maybe her claims have nothing--physically--to do with JBR's murder. The police KNOW, from physical evidence, the approximate time of JonBenet's death, and that would be enough IMO to rule out the White's involvement. Saying that "her claims don't change the focus of the investigation" means that the focus is still on the Ramseys. If JBR was sexually abused during the dinner party at FW's, well, unless that party actually lasted all night, she wasn't killed there. And she didn't receive the head blow there, either, not if she was still alive by 10 p.m. So, unless the Whites accompanied the Ramseys back to the Ramsey house, and stayed for several hours, I don't see their relevance to the actual murder. The things MW says may be true--and maybe JBR was abused in the way she claims to have been--but what relevance do they have to the known facts in this murder case? She may be the most wronged saint on the face of the earth, but if her information contradicts, or doesn't apply to, the physical evidence, what is her relevance to this case? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 52. "The Ramsey's " Posted by momo on 06:28:34 5/14/2000 haven't breathed a word about Mystery Woman. I would think if they were innocent they would be all over the MW story. There seems to be no passion involved in any story that surfaces that may point the finger away from the Ramsey's. What about the so called 30 leads that the Rams said they have recieved? If I were guilty of the crime and knew what happened I guess I would act disinterested as well. No sense in getting excited about some new lead when there is no substance to it. And Lake, the Rams make themselves look guilty all by themselves without the help of anyone here or elsewhere. It was them who all by their lonesome who threw the cops off with the ransom note. You have to hand it to them. They are smart, cunning people. They blame the BPD for falling for the kidnapping, when that is what they wanted to happen. Everything was a set up and when it all went down the Rams pointed the fingers. Like everyone is stupid for not being in the know. And as for the 2 million asset comment, are you making fun of people who don't have at least that kind of money? You(or I mean lake) never had money until..... You have revealed yourself missy! And don't go on and on about how there is no proof the Rams did it and that we all have gotten our information from the media. I base what I know on the autopsy and the search warrants,etc. etc. The only one BRAIN dead is you. You're the one obsessed with brains. Maybe that's cause yours consist of chit. And that you used the word some time ago in a rambling way on a looooooooooonnnnngggg note. Your subconcious BRAIN speaks louder than your typewritten words do. Go figure. momo [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 53. "There you go again, Mary99" Posted by Real Stormy on 09:27:47 5/14/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 09:27:47, 5/14/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 07:26:58, 5/14/2000 I have neither the time nor the inclination to answer your post point by point except in one regard. As an example of how you and others go to any extreme to defend the truthfulness of MW's story, when there is no known basis at all for either believing all of it or any of it, let's examine your comments about what my feelings might be as regards Mame giving this woman temporary shelter. I did not say and I do not believe that Mame was wrong in helping this woman. As a point of fact, when Mame disclosed that she had done this, my post stated that I hoped that, under the circumstances, I would have done the same. Nowhere did I say that I felt Mame was putting her family at risk by doing this. Mame is the best and only judge of that. It is obvious that you will believe only what you want to believe, and you are welcome to do so. I will have no further exchange with you. I don't live my life or make decisions based on "maybe" or "what if." I have never participated in group hysteria and I don't propose to do so now. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 54. "fiddler" Posted by darby on 07:53:10 5/14/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 07:53:10, 5/14/2000 I think that what you said is exactly why the BPD has decided to distance itself from MW. There is probably no physical evidence tying the Whites to the crime. I also agree that everything we know seems to point to the crime having occurred at the Ramseys' house. But I believe that investigators should try to think outside the box in which they have put themselves. There may be other victims who might potentially step forward at some point and shed more light on what happened to JBR. There may be people who have knowledge who might be willing to talk if granted immunity. Maybe the crime did occur at the Ramsey house AND there is still a White connection. Maybe the Ramseys acted alone but were practicing something they sometimes did with the Whites. Maybe JBR's injuries were, in fact, sexual in nature and had nothing to do with rough toilet training. Maybe the garrote had nothing to do with staging or taking JBR out of her misery. Maybe MW's experiences might help to determine the correct theory of what really happened to JBR. Maybe her murder had nothing to do with bedwetting. My point is that MW's experiences are just too similar to JBR's for anyone to take it upon themselves to dismiss them as mere coincidence. And so far, NOBODY has been able to prove that MW is a fraud. Until that happens, I say that there needs to be further investigation into MW's claims. At the very least, the door should be left open. If she's right, then other children in her circle are most certainly being abused right now. Will another child have to die before anyone takes notice? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 56. "Darby re your post 47>>>" Posted by ayelean on 09:31:02 5/14/2000 There should be a 4th choice: D. One of the Ram killed JBR and they copied what they knew about the MW's abuse. If that is the case, then the Rams will not want to say anything because it will come to light as to how the murderer knew about the method of abuse. Likewise the Whites will be hesitant to dive into the mess because it bares the scandel of his father to the whole world. If the Whites read here, I urged them to make it known if they or the MW covered this topic with one or both of the Rams. That is the missing link in this puzzle. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 58. "MW and Fleet White" Posted by JR on 10:42:21 5/14/2000 IMHO the BPD knows the White's could not have been involved in JonBenet' murder and the reason could be very simple - the White's were having a dinner party, the Ramsey's admittedly "left early" because they were either "catching a flight" the next morning or "going visiting." How many guests were at the White party? How many remained at the White's during the hours the BPD surely know the murder had to have been committed? IMHO, these guests have provided the White's with a solid alibi including, the time the guest left their house (and both were seen) and the fact that there was no pineapple served at their party, thus allowing them being publicly cleared by the BPD. It doesn't take much of Lake's "brain theories" to understand that certain people have been cleared because they have rock solid alibis. Conversely, Lake, it doesn't take much of a brain to understand why so many people including the BPD focus on the Ramsey's as the perps. They have done nothing to help clear themselves - plain and simple logic - and hence, they stay under the umbrella of suspicion by choice. Just MHO! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 57. ".I want to know" Posted by jonesy on 10:27:21 5/14/2000 ......what is the prize for writing the longest posts and who is in the lead ??????? hahaha....ya gotta just luv it - [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 81. "Just a comment.." Posted by Lupe on 11:46:18 5/15/2000 Why is this "Lake" person so very hateful and disgruntled all of the time?. She sends 'virtual' darts as her MO. I wish she would take a holiday or something... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL Lupe ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 59. "Sorry, I don't want to hear it" Posted by sally denver on 12:34:22 5/14/2000 The second I saw that MW would even CONSIDER talking to Smit -- I knew that: 1. She is crazy 2. She is a Ramsey plant. I truly believe, in my heart of hearts, that the Ramsey's and ONLY the Ramseys are guilty and I live for the day I see them do the perp walk (complete with handcuffs and foot chains) to jail period! Nothing, I repete, nothing else will convince me otherwise. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 60. "Well of course" Posted by lake on 16:44:08 5/14/2000 There are those who would trash the Jane Doe if she goes to Smit to further the probable truth when the BPD judged her experiences as not being related to the murder of JBR. The fact that Jane Doe claims that someone who abused her in the past was at the White's dinner on 12/25/96 cannot possibly be connected to the murder of JBR they say. Those who think that way are not interested in the probable truth of the killing of JBR, they are only interested in trashing the Ramseys for whatever their petty, biased reasons may be. And if the facts and circumstances point to the possibility of non Ramseys, they don't want to hear it. They could not care less about the probable truth. And in reality, they could not care less about JFJBR. Their agenda is to vent their hatred of the Ramseys. Well, that is their problem. They are the ones who are in prison. The prison of their own biased hate filled minds. Ignorant by choice. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 61. "Sally Denver" Posted by fiddy on 19:46:15 5/14/2000 I couldn't agree more. MW is a Ramsey spin to create further reasonable doubt. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 62. "Nothing, I repete nothing, Lake," Posted by sally denver on 19:53:19 5/14/2000 Will convince me otherwise. MW may have been abused as a child but it has zip to do with the Ramsey's absolute guilt. (Are we sure "Lake" is not Jamison?) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 63. "ya know Sally, " Posted by starry on 20:14:42 5/14/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 20:14:42, 5/14/2000 I was just thinking the exact same thing. Sure sounds like Hir, doesn't it? edited to xplain I meant the part about Hir, not MW. I do think there is a connection, although I'm not sure what or how much. Other than FW Sr and MW's mother, that is. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 64. "I agree" Posted by Seashell on 21:46:21 5/14/2000 MW talking with Smit sticks badly. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 66. "Well" Posted by lake on 22:50:33 5/14/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 22:50:33, 5/14/2000 I don't know about you turnip heads but it seems to me that there is a probability that the Jane Doe and JBR cases are connected by players that are connected. The elder White is suspose to have been a part of the molesting of Jane Doe. The elder White is susposed to have offered Jane Doe money after the murder of JBR to keep her mouth shut. The graddaughter of the elder White was a best friend playmate of JBR. Jane Doe says that one of her molesters along with her young female neice was at the White dinner party on 12/25/96 that JBR and her family attended. Now the elder FW was not at that party. He was said to be in Aspen, Co. with his wife who was in the hospital. So that would mean that there are at least two of the Jane Doe abusers that JBR may have had contact with. But we know one for sure. The one that was at the Whites dinner party. And since grandparents do visit sometimes, it is not unreasonable to think that JBR had contact with the elder White in the 2 years or so that the Ramseys and Whites were friends. And we should all know that men that sexually abuse kids don't change just because they get old. Sometimes that just get to be more profilic abusers of kids. More time on their hands, you know. And lord knows that there are some rather honest seeming people that think that Jane Doe is straight up on her allegations. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 68. "Lake stayed away from MW discussions until . . . " Posted by CommonSense on 04:25:39 5/15/2000 As I recall the posts to the forum, Lake did not discuss MW's allegations during the early days. Remember, her allegations came at about the same time as the Ramsey Alibiography Tour. But then, when it looked as if we'd forget about MW, Lake showed up to argue that she is clearly connected to the case. Now Lake is almost crazed with his/her believe that MW is most certainly connected. Red Herring, Red Herring, Send Some More "Reasonable Doubt" Right Over :) PS - MW if you're terrible story is not related to the Ramsey case, we're all very sorry if you were pulled into this terrible story just to point fingers at an innocent family - the Whites. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 69. "MW & Fleet White" Posted by Coolteach on 08:34:09 5/15/2000 I know this is going to fry certain people, but this is what Steve Thomas said about this subject today: " Re: the mystery woman -- I still hold Fleet White in the greatest regard, and can tell you he was in no way invovled in anything of the sort alleged. In fact, there have been rumors as to certain people being at his party the night of Dec 25, which just aren't true. I know who was there, and they were all interviewed. Again, unless there is this far reaching conspiracy and everyone is holding mute, the party did not involve anything inappropriate, and certainly not to the level alleged. Some have come forward in support of this MW, I will hold comment for now, other than to repeat what I have said earlier (the BPD is discounting a lot of this, although bound to investigate it. This was not unlike a number of other trails and twists and turns this case saw)." [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 73. "Whoa..." Posted by Holly on 10:22:31 5/15/2000 >I know this is going to fry >certain people, but this is what >Steve Thomas said about this subject >today:" Re: the mystery woman -- >I still hold Fleet White in >the greatest regard, and can tell >you he was in no way >invovled in anything of the sort >alleged. In fact, there have been >rumors as to certain people being >at his party the night of >Dec 25, which just aren't true. >I know who was there, and >they were all interviewed. Again, unless >there is this far reaching conspiracy >and everyone is holding mute, the >party did not involve anything inappropriate, >and certainly not to the level >alleged. Some have come forward in >support of this MW, I will >hold comment for now, other than >to repeat what I have said >earlier (the BPD is discounting a >lot of this, although bound to >investigate it. This was not unlike >a number of other trails and >twists and turns this case saw)." You mean there were other reports of a possible sex ring link? Or is ST generalizing? > [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 71. "nothing new, it seems" Posted by fly on 09:19:08 5/15/2000 CoolTeach - Thanks for bringing the Steve Thomas comment over here. I guess Thomas' standing with some folks will take a nosedive now that he has come out as a non-believer. darby - If the case evidence (at least as we know it) was at all consistent with the idea that the Whites were involved, the apparent lack of evidence really linking MW's story to JBR's murder might not be quite as problematic, and we might still be able to hang on to the low odds of coincidence. However, that is not the case, as I have pointed out several times in the past, and as fidder and JR have pointed out again now. It's time to start reminding ourselves of all the coincidences we've already encountered. I wish MW the best of luck in getting her mess of a life straightened out (whatever version of a mess it is). [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 70. "Thank you, Coolteach" Posted by Sioux on 09:02:15 5/15/2000 for that info, but you see, now I am COMPLETELY CONFUSED. I am reading Thomas' book and I think he is completely honest. I don't think he is GOD, but the closest human resemblance of God, which is a person who takes a stand for a just cause, whatever the consequences. That said, I turn around and there is MW, someone mame trusts. MAME TRUSTS. Enough to offer her housing, meals and love. Protection, care and hugs. SOOOOOO.....MW IS REAL. If she is, I infer her acusations are legitimate too. That implies FW Senior is in serious shit.So what does FW junior know about all this? Is he an inocent lamb who never ever had any idea what kind of character his dad was? Somehow the coincidence of JB's way of death and MW's claims are just too much AS COINCIDENCES.PLUS, don't we know for sure that the FBI was investigating her? Frankly, mame and Thomas contradict each other, and both are honest people who HAVE INFO. So my mind is spinning. Sioux [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 74. "fly" Posted by darby on 10:22:36 5/15/2000 I respect what (especially) you and others think who feel MW brings yet another intriguing but unrelated set of circumstances to the case. But I feel confident that we only know half of the story right now. Do keep in mind that MW could only go by what she was told about the Whites' party, and her source might have lied. But as far as I'm concerned, the point is to look at who John's best friend was and what sort of a man he was, according to MW's documentation PRIOR TO THE MURDER. I think it's quite probable that JBR was murdered at home by only her parents. But I think that if it can be shown that MW was correct about her abusers and the nature of that abuse, then this might in fact, have an indirect impact on JBR--and police need to look more closely at the incest/asphixiation angle. Even before MW came along, I concluded that the evidence fits the incest theory much better than the bedwetting/Patsy-in-a-rage theory. But the question that would need answering is, how could these parents have possibly done something as extreme as employing a garrote on their child? IF it can be shown that PR and JR were best friends with a guy who had done just that to a child--the same sort of horrendous and extremely rare abuse that was done to JBR, then maybe the answer is at hand. Steve Thomas wrote a book stating that he believed in the bedwetting theory, so I would guess he'd be reluctant to go with MW. But even HE said in his book that he had to treat the Whites like skittish thoroughbred horses. Wonder why? Did anyone else notice that the police did NOT say that MW's claims about her abuse by Fleet Sr. (and Jr., according to Carol McKinley) are untrue? While the main concern of the BPD is relevance to JBR, don't you all agree that the horrendous innuendoes regarding the Whites should have been addressed? Those issues are truly at the heart of MW's account, and they remain hanging with no official challenge. This is of extreme importance, and I think that we would all agree that the BPD needs to address this. If I ever hear that there really is no prior documentation concerning FW, then I, too, will say that MW's experiences are unrelated to JBR. Until then, there's no way I can feel certain that there's no connection. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 76. "Darby" Posted by Sioux on 10:52:08 5/15/2000 **Did anyone else notice that the police did NOT say that MW's claims about her abuse by Fleet Sr. (and Jr., according to Carol McKinley) are untrue? While the main concern of the BPD is relevance to JBR, don't you all agree that the horrendous innuendoes regarding the Whites should have been addressed? Those issues are truly at the heart of MW's account, and they remain hanging with no official challenge. This is of extreme importance, and I think that we would all agree that the BPD needs to address this. If I ever hear that there really is no prior documentation concerning FW, then I, too, will say that MW's experiences are unrelated to JBR. Until then, there's no way I can feel certain that there's no connection. ** I completely agree. IF the claims are not true FW senior should have been "cleared" somehow. IF they are true (or the evidence is still investigated or wahtever) then I understand the BPD's silence, but NOT THOMAS'. He does not belong to the PD . He is making his theory and opinions PUBLIC. WHY doesn't he address this in a more direct way? Sioux [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 72. "Sioux" Posted by mame on 10:10:09 5/15/2000 Great post. I too believe that Mr. Thomas and I are honest folks. We are seekers of truth. We each have an enormous amount of respect for each other. We both seek accountability for the death of a child. There's a big difference though... Thomas is a trained detective and INVESTIGATOR! I'm not! Yes, I care for and believe in The Witness. I also believe she may have information vital to solving this case. BUT, I have never, ever, EVER said that everything she says can be proven and documented. IT'S NOT THE TRUTH IT'S THE PROOF! It's not my job to do so. As a woman, I offered her shelter and respect when few would. As a journalist I saw INFORMATION being scorned and laughed at. I laughed at the original story too! Until I saw initial evidence, (long before meeting her) that was and IS well worth a FULL INVESTIGATION! I am practicing advocacy journalism...a touchy area. But, part of a journalist's job is to hear the cry of the underdog. It's all about a little thing called INFORMATION! Mr. Thomas and I both believe the road to truth and justice depends on fair minds and a free flow of information. No secrecy. No closed doors. No sacred cows. As a woman and a journalist I met a fellow human along the path who I feel, as others do, has information that should be brought to the table. Very compelling information. I only hope that she is heard. And that those hired and trained to solve a murder case, investigate every little single piece of information she has honestly presented. I hope they have the passion and skill that Thomas does. Only then can we determine if this courageous woman has a piece to the complicated twisted puzzle to a child's death... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 75. "mame" Posted by Sioux on 10:43:27 5/15/2000 Thank you for your prompt response. It came just in time to lift my self esteem.(I wrote a post regarding JB's ponytails that's completely dumb. Partly because I just downloaded the initial post and didn't see how long the thread already was). Anywhoooooo...Regarding our issue: **Thomas is a trained detective and INVESTIGATOR! I'm not! Yes, I care for and believe in The Witness. I also believe she may have information vital to solving this case. BUT, I have never, ever, EVER said that everything she says can be proven and documented. IT'S NOT THE TRUTH IT'S THE PROOF! It's not my job to do so. ** This is my point: Either MW was abused by FW Senior or she was not. Both can't be true(okey maybe in Oriental philosophy it can, but not here). Please notice I am talking about TRUTHS here, not about PROOF as for a court.If it's the truth, Thomas would have credited her and at least DOUBT about the Whites. But he is not only ignoring these claims but also persists in having the Whites in the highest of esteems. So maybe because THERE IS NO PROOF Thomas doesn't even blink in ignoring MW? Allrighty then, but WAIT! wasn't there A PICTURE with MW and the Whites, at least White senior? Isn't that a proof? Or at least evidence enough for Thomas to consider it? **I laughed at the original story too! Until I saw initial evidence, (long before meeting her) that was and IS well worth a FULL INVESTIGATION!** See what I mean? So THERE IS EVIDENCE. Has Thomas seen it? ** I am practicing advocacy journalism...a touchy area. But, part of a journalist's job is to hear the cry of the underdog.** Yes, yes. Granted that you are doing your best and my conflict resides precisly in the fact that I know it and that I respect you so much. **It's all about a little thing called INFORMATION! Mr. Thomas and I both believe the road to truth and justice depends on fair minds and a free flow of information. No secrecy. No closed doors. No sacred cows. ** My fear is that Thomas might be treating White as a sacred cow.I guess next step for me should be asking directly to Thomas what his opinion on this MW's evidence is. thanks again. sioux [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 78. "2 cents" Posted by Seashell on 11:13:20 5/15/2000 I think Mame and Thomas ought to get together with Lee Hill, and Thomas should be shown the evidence that Mame saw. Lordy, Lordy, is it impossible to get trustworthy people on the same page? I still want to know why MW talked with Lou Smit. Shall we start guessing? How can ST dis her without seeing her evidence or talking with her? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 77. "Sioux" Posted by mame on 10:59:26 5/15/2000 I would like to comment on some of the things you said. I'm running off to doggie court. Can't be late... I'll post later today. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 79. "mame & Sioux" Posted by fly on 11:20:25 5/15/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 11:20:25, 5/15/2000 mame - No offense, but you are a master of mixed messages. In some ways you seem to be stating your continued support, but in others you seem to be backing off (I'm not a trained investigator, etc.). Assuming your post indicated your continued belief in MW's potential contribution to the JBR case: When do you think it will be reasonable to put aside MW's accusations as irrelevant to the JBR case? No flame, no disrespect, just a very honest question intended. We have BPD essentially saying there's nothing there that they could find, if I'm reading BJ's article correctly. We have Steve Thomas, a highly respected person in the eyes of many here, saying that unless we have some vast conspiracy, there is no way the Whites were involved in anything evil that night (gee, that sounds familiar, doesn't it? :-) ). In other words, MW's tale won't work given the evidence. Of course, that vast conspiracy concept has major problems given the facts of the case, leaving us basically back to the party-guest-turned-sick-intruder idea. According to essentially everybody here, there is no good sign of any intruder. In spite of these significant difficulties in MW's story, and the apparent conclusion of the people who are the professional investigators that MW has nothing to contribute, you still seem to be saying MW's tale shouldn't be dismissed. What will it take? Sioux - Steve Thomas' statement seems to be more based on consideration of the evidence gathered by the BPD, rather than some sacred cow effect. BTW, pictures proving her family interacted with the Whites does essentially nothing to document her charges of sex abuse. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 82. "darby" Posted by fly on 11:53:36 5/15/2000 darby - Maybe MW's information about the White's party is a lie? Why would her inside source lie about who was there? By noting Thomas' comment about the likelihood of MW's allegations being true I was not necessarily accepting his scenario of the murder. Like you, I see problems with a bedwetting scenario. He has, however, been a part of the investigation of Fleet White and the party guests, I imagine, which gives him some insight as to the relevance of MW's information. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 80. "fly" Posted by Sioux on 11:45:03 5/15/2000 I agree with all the statemets/questions in your post. I also think I am a bit confused with the mame/MW issue, but she will probably claer our doubts later today. Now, about: ** Steve Thomas' statement seems to be more based on consideration of the evidence gathered by the BPD, rather than some sacred cow effect.** The sacred cow effect would be pertinent IF and only IF there is EVIDENCE from the MW and he disregard it.(And mame keeps saying she has seen evidence that needs to be investigated , right?) **BTW, pictures proving her family interacted with the Whites does essentially nothing to document her charges of sex abuse. ** But it does raise a couple of eyebrows, don't you think? Sioux [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 84. "mame & Thomas" Posted by shadow on 12:11:30 5/15/2000 I have no problem with what mame or Steve Thomas said... mame is right, MW's allegations (whatever they are) need to be investigated. My only question is who is doing the investigation? Certainly Lou Smit isn't an unbiased investigator, and neither, IMO, is the BPD - I'm interested in what the FBI has found-out... if anything. Information that "raises eyebrows" is one thing, evidence proving someone is a sex criminal is another. shadow [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 87. "shadow" Posted by Sioux on 13:50:16 5/15/2000 **Information that "raises eyebrows" is one thing, evidence proving someone is a sex criminal is another.** You are right of course.I'll put it in another way: 1-Let's say it's a fact that MW and the Whites know each other and are part of her extended family. 2-MW's relatives and part of her extended family have abused her in a way that resembles exactly how JB's was when found dead. 3-Fleet White junior was VERY CLOSE friend of the Ramseys. All this does not prove a thing, but it does raise my eyebrows and I don't get why Thomas' aren't raised too. Sioux [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 83. "Interesting...and Jonesy..." Posted by Cassandra on 12:06:22 5/15/2000 Ginja. Can there be any doubt? LOL Cassie [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 86. "fly" Posted by darby on 12:38:39 5/15/2000 I don't know why someone would lie about a guest list, but I'm assuming that it's possible. At any rate, there is no way right now to prove what was said, because the conversation probably wasn't recorded. THAT is why I think that the focus should be upon whether there is written documentation prior to the murder pertaining to the Whites which parallels what happened to JBR. That, to me, would be irrefutable evidence which would not rely on one person's word against another's. Of course, even if such documentation exists, it would prove nothing in court that MW's experiences are related to JBR's. But, it would be enough for me! And if I were an investigator working on the case, I would then know exactly which direction I'd want to start looking. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 85. "Oh for heaven's sake, what IS this?" Posted by Gemini on 12:23:15 5/15/2000 Again, unless there is this far reaching conspiracy and everyone is holding mute, the party did not involve anything inappropriate, and certainly not to the level alleged. uh ... what WAS Thomas thinking here? At best, it sounds like he really does not know and is trying to be cautious; at worst, like he's suggesting there may have been hanky-panky with the kids ... just not to the extent that would result in murder. The rest of his remarks were exactly what I'd have expected. Why on earth would he add this hedge? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 88. "Thomas RE: 'a far-reaching conspiracy'" Posted by mary99 on 15:34:19 5/15/2000 IF there is indeed a group who has long practiced physical, mental, sexual and emotional abusive of children, it is no wonder they would remain 'mute'. As MW has alleged, these are crime of the most repulsive nature, which are punishable by long prison sentences. MW's extended and immediate family raped her, exploited her, prostituted her to others, used her in pornographic movies and pictures, and tortured her. Those allegations, if true, describe a conspiracy of adults whose behavior is highly illegal and punishable under multiple counts of felony conduct. If the guests at the White party were aware of the nature of this 'family secret', isn't it to be expected they would remain 'mute' and not talk to the BPD? ST's 'far-reaching conspiracy' does not have to involve the CIA, black helicopters, aliens, or Janet Reno .... just a group of rich, morally corrupt people who may have derived considerable gain from a child porn and exploitation business which has been going on for years. Whether their incentives to use children this way are/were for financial gain, perverse pleasure or both, it's obvious that like the Mafia, one and all abide by the rule to keep the secret or die. Thomas's disclaimer that the only possible explanation for total silence on the part of White family and friends would be a 'far-reaching conspiracy' is entirely consistent with exactly what MW has alleged. Therefore, Thomas should consider that a coverup for a child sex and porn ring may indeed have been in place and he didn't catch it. It's never too late to admit you may have been wrong, ST, but to refuse to 'go there' because it may turn up some stones you neglected to look under is not serving justice; it's serving your ego. And with all respect to ST, I think if he could see just what MW brought forth, he might change his mind about her relevance. I would love to know he's looking into it further; I trust him and feel he is not as ego-driven as many others in the investigation seem to be. As far as MW showing her evidence to Smit, I can't agree with those who feel that makes her a paid Ramsey plant. If Smit does have a good record of solving homicides, which even Thomas admits, and MW wants to get the truth out, and the Ramseys claim to want to 'find the killer', it isn't for MW to decide who is sincere or not. By refusing to speak with the BPD, for instance, saying they are biased against her, does that further her cause to bring her abusers to justice, or to bring JBR's killers to justice? The sad fact is, if the BPD has failed to investigate properly, maybe Smit will do better, if only to exonerate the Ramseys. If only to throw mud on the BPD by exposing what passed for 'investigation' of her claims. Maybe Smit having the same info as the BPD will prompt the BPD to do a better job, to avoid the possible repurcussions if Smit turns up instances of political corruption, payoffs and favoritism., MW alluded to messages sent to MW indicating some 'people with money' and connections to the BPD may have influenced the so-called 'investigation.' Certainly Smit is on the Ramsey's side; but remember; The TRUTH is the TRUTH . How it is found and who uncovers it is irrelevent in the long run. Maybe competition between parties on opposite sides of the fence will stimulate better investigation. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 89. "Lake re you #66 post>>>" Posted by ayelean on 15:56:17 5/15/2000 The graddaughter of the elder White was a best friend playmate of JBR. And since grandparents do visit sometimes, it is not unreasonable to think that JBR had contact with the elder White in the 2 years or so that the Ramseys and Whites were friends. And we should all know that men that sexually abuse kids don't change just because they get old. Sometimes that just get to be more profilic abusers of kids. More time on their hands, you know. According to this statement you made re the Sr. White, would you say the same could be true of JonBenet's own grandfather? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 90. "I AM PREPARING A PART 2 OF THIS THREAD >>" Posted by ayelean on 16:14:56 5/15/2000 DON'T POST HERE. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]