Justice Watch Discussion Board "Myst. Woman: Times-Call 5/13 part II" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... Myst. Woman: Times-Call 5/13 part II, ayelean, 16:21:21, 5/15/2000 IF, lake, 16:30:06, 5/15/2000, (#1) Lake , momo, 17:37:10, 5/15/2000, (#2) ................................................................... "Myst. Woman: Times-Call 5/13 part II" Posted by ayelean on 16:21:21 5/15/2000 These are the last 10 or so posts on the 1st part: 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. 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. 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 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 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 83. "Interesting...and Jonesy..." Posted by Cassandra on 12:06:22 5/15/2000 Ginja. Can there be any doubt? LOL Cassie 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. 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? 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. 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? [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "IF" Posted by lake on 16:30:06 5/15/2000 There is anyone that had access to JBR and there are substantial accusations that that person molested any child, that would and should be a big red flag. They should have or should be investigated. The BPD release of today said: "The investigation found no additional evidence to support this theory." Note the word additional. That is important and should not be dismissed. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "Lake " Posted by momo on 17:37:10 5/15/2000 would you please answer Ayeleans question concerning GrandPaPaugh? I'd be interested in your answer. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]