Justice Watch Discussion Board "MW returns w/Mame, part II" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... MW returns w/Mame, part II, Seashell, 10:16:21, 5/17/2000 Autumnborn, Sioux, 10:31:42, 5/17/2000, (#1) About the FBI -- , Holly, 10:40:26, 5/17/2000, (#2) Fly, Sioux, 10:49:03, 5/17/2000, (#4) Gemini, BusDriver, 10:44:52, 5/17/2000, (#3) LOL BD, Gemini, 10:55:12, 5/17/2000, (#5) Just trying to let Seashell know..., Dr. Who, 11:02:44, 5/17/2000, (#6) Dr. Who, Seashell, 11:20:37, 5/17/2000, (#7) Sioux,, AutumnBorn, 11:42:02, 5/17/2000, (#8) WHERE, Phantom, 11:59:08, 5/17/2000, (#9) Fly, Real Stormy, 12:25:43, 5/17/2000, (#11) Wow, gaiabetsy, 12:16:06, 5/17/2000, (#10) gaiabetsy,, listener, 12:31:35, 5/17/2000, (#12) Somehow listener, momo, 13:58:58, 5/17/2000, (#14) I know I said..., Luvsbeagles, 13:50:38, 5/17/2000, (#13) Luvsbeagles, Chris, 14:03:45, 5/17/2000, (#16) Luvs,, AutumnBorn, 13:59:02, 5/17/2000, (#15) Did anyone see , momo, 14:58:23, 5/17/2000, (#17) RealStormy & momo, fly, 15:17:46, 5/17/2000, (#19) Fly, momo, 16:06:27, 5/17/2000, (#26) Fleet Oil, becky, 15:13:36, 5/17/2000, (#18) Chris...you just reminded me..., Cassandra, 15:22:59, 5/17/2000, (#21) Momo, Edie Pratt, 15:22:16, 5/17/2000, (#20) Edie, sarah, 15:56:34, 5/17/2000, (#25) Hiya back, Sarah!, Edie Pratt, 16:14:25, 5/17/2000, (#27) Maybe I watch too much Law & Order.....but, Country Girl, 15:49:33, 5/17/2000, (#23) CG, you're right, Edie Pratt, 15:55:06, 5/17/2000, (#24) Mame, Bridget, Toppcat, Mary 99, sarah, 15:33:35, 5/17/2000, (#22) The squeeze, lake, 16:36:53, 5/17/2000, (#28) hummm, dixie, 16:53:24, 5/17/2000, (#30) Fleet Oil, Ribaldone, 16:49:49, 5/17/2000, (#29) not Fleet Oil?, chebrock, 19:15:25, 5/17/2000, (#39) Point to ponder, lake, 17:31:13, 5/17/2000, (#32) ***BROADCAST BACK UP***, ToppCat, 17:29:55, 5/17/2000, (#31) Two things, janphi, 17:56:58, 5/17/2000, (#35) And, lake, 17:43:28, 5/17/2000, (#33) And, lake, 17:53:38, 5/17/2000, (#34) But lake,, mary99, 06:58:24, 5/18/2000, (#42) Transcript/Part One, mame, 18:15:11, 5/17/2000, (#36) Lake, Househazard, 18:31:48, 5/17/2000, (#37) My view ,H/H, lake, 19:07:26, 5/17/2000, (#38) But, lake, 21:02:34, 5/17/2000, (#40) Like it or don't like it, Watching you, 06:24:02, 5/18/2000, (#41) WY strikes a nerve.., rico, 10:40:53, 5/18/2000, (#71) Critical thinking, mary99, 07:50:42, 5/18/2000, (#52) MW, Sioux, 07:13:31, 5/18/2000, (#45) WY, fly, 07:12:32, 5/18/2000, (#44) watching you..., mame, 07:09:19, 5/18/2000, (#43) Mame I think WY,fly..., Dr. Who, 07:53:35, 5/18/2000, (#53) Oh, okay, mame, Watching you, 07:24:02, 5/18/2000, (#47) WY, Ribaldone, 08:39:27, 5/18/2000, (#59) WY, Lacey, 07:17:46, 5/18/2000, (#46) litigate my little bleeding heart ass..., mame, 08:32:11, 5/18/2000, (#56) Why can't you all be somewhat right?, becky, 08:10:36, 5/18/2000, (#54) Lacey, Morgan, 07:30:39, 5/18/2000, (#48) Thanks for the transcript, Mame!, Cassandra, 07:47:11, 5/18/2000, (#50) I Agree With Watching You, CommonSense, 07:44:54, 5/18/2000, (#49) WY, Lacey, CommonSense, mary99, 08:26:35, 5/18/2000, (#55) Thank You Mary99!, IndyAnna, 10:08:07, 5/18/2000, (#66) WOW !, 1000Sparks, 08:49:05, 5/18/2000, (#62) Ha!, Sioux, 08:37:44, 5/18/2000, (#58) Mame, Househazard, 08:33:14, 5/18/2000, (#57) Mary 99 and other Ram defenders, becky, 08:43:14, 5/18/2000, (#60) Becky, Sioux... :), mary99, 09:02:32, 5/18/2000, (#65) mary99, Sioux, 10:20:49, 5/18/2000, (#67) All Doubters, darby, 08:48:52, 5/18/2000, (#61) darby, Sioux, 10:24:41, 5/18/2000, (#69) Divide and conquer, becky, 08:52:29, 5/18/2000, (#63) darby, FT, 09:00:12, 5/18/2000, (#64) What th ... ???, Gemini, 10:48:47, 5/18/2000, (#72) I agree, WitchyWoman, 10:23:32, 5/18/2000, (#68) It's all about, saryan, 10:39:33, 5/18/2000, (#70) Targeting the Innocent, Lacey, 10:52:48, 5/18/2000, (#74) FT, darby, 10:52:46, 5/18/2000, (#73) ................................................................... "MW returns w/Mame, part II" Posted by Seashell on 10:16:21 5/17/2000 Let's go! [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "Autumnborn" Posted by Sioux on 10:31:42 5/17/2000 **I think the reason Bridget hasn't gone public is that there is still an investigation going on and she doesn't want to mess that up. Until the FBI is done, she's kinda in between a Boulder and a hard place.** Well maybe I don't know enough about how the FBI works. I had the idea that people with such a HUGE accusations had to be :1)Completely protected while investigating those claims.2)completely ANNONIMUS, in which case the connection mame/MW would have never been possible.(Or any interview , transcripts and or copying, pasting, etc.) Bottom line , we wouldn't even have heard about her. Do I overate the FBI then? Sioux [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "About the FBI -- " Posted by Holly on 10:40:26 5/17/2000 prolly. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "Fly" Posted by Sioux on 10:49:03 5/17/2000 **Question 1: Why the heck didn't MW at least go the anonymous tip route sometime that first year (if not immediately) concerning the information her mother passed along?** EXACTLY!!!! **Questions 2 & 3: Was her mother present when JBR was killed? Does she supposedly have any direct knowledge, or is all this her conclusion based on speculation or partial facts?** And: Was MW's mother tested with truth serum? why isn't she in JAIL? Isn't proved that she was part of Mw's acusations at least concerning HER and independently of JBenet? **If truly involved, she would have had information not publically released at the time that would have gone a long way toward showing her story's validity.** Yes. Why this has come up so late is something I just don't get.I understand she is trying to protect future victims those victims were alredy such before JonBenet's death, no? **Questions 4 & 5: What is this "now destroyed" evidence that MW's mother supposedly had?** Yes. If it's already destroyed I don't know what the problem is in telling us what it was. **Question 6 - They watched child porn out on the patio? Were there no neighbors to get a glimpse at or an earfull of what was playing at this drive-in theater?** Well,they could have had a HUGE patio.Aren't all these people supposed to be truly wealthy? Sioux [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "Gemini" Posted by BusDriver on 10:44:52 5/17/2000 Having follwed JW for a couple of months, I am pretty sure that I understand what a "troll" is. But, I am having a hard time understanding the origin of the term. Having consulted the dictionary, I am wondering if the term "troll" is derived from: 1. a dwarf or giant in Scandinavian folklore inhabiting caves or hills, OR 2. a lure or a line with its lure and hook used in trolling Can you help? BD [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "LOL BD" Posted by Gemini on 10:55:12 5/17/2000 There's so little to smile about on these threads connected with mame's interview that it's kind of nice to see something lighter injected :-) ... just for a moment and not intended to distract from the very serious subject matter. #2 is the correct definition, but #1 is so nice and descriptive that the term, as it applies to forum people, has become a kind of combination of both. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "Just trying to let Seashell know..." Posted by Dr. Who on 11:02:44 5/17/2000 Deepak Chopra will appear on LKL/CNN tonight... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "Dr. Who" Posted by Seashell on 11:20:37 5/17/2000 >Deepak Chopra will appear on LKL/CNN tonight... > Oh you wonderful man/woman, thank you! I'll be glued. Everybody would enjoy watching him and then applying what he says to this case! BTW, in my excitable haste, the subject line of my last post was that MW didn't name FW SR. That should have read JR. She certainly did point at Senior. Whenever I think of FW Sr., GPP pops up. I wonder why. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "Sioux," Posted by AutumnBorn on 11:42:02 5/17/2000 "I had the idea that people with such a HUGE accusations had to be :1)Completely protected while investigating those claims." Not necessarily. I was a federal witness once. While it is against the law to tamper with or threaten a federal witness, I was given no protection. Not that I needed any, but it wasn't offered. "2)completely ANNONIMUS, in which case the connection mame/MW would have never been possible.(Or any interview , transcripts and or copying, pasting, etc.) Bottom line , we wouldn't even have heard about her. Well, we could hear from her, but not from the FBI. (I don't know that the FBI was involved when she hooked up with Mame anyway.) Her identity is still officially being kept confidential. Working with the FBI is kind of like confessing to your priest. He's not allowed to tell what you said, but you're certainly free to make your confessions public. I think she's waiting for the investigation to close, then she may decide on whether to go public or not. The FBI undoubtedly is recommending that she doesn't, but they can't control her. If she opens up completely, she could screw things up for them. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "WHERE" Posted by Phantom on 11:59:08 5/17/2000 is the MW latest interview? Phantom [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "Fly" Posted by Real Stormy on 12:25:43 5/17/2000 I wanted to comment on the mother's "evidence" which you mentioned in your post. I am confident you know this, but it appears that a number of people do not. Apparently many people are faulting the BPD for making an appointment in advance with MW's mother. California is far out of the jurisdiction of the Boulder police. They couldn't just show up at this woman's home and make a raid. In fact, this woman didn't have to talk to them at all. (They couldn't have done this even if she lived in Boulder.) In order to search her home for evidence, first the BPD would have had to contact the local police, lay out probable cause, then go with the local police and/or the local DA to a judge to get a search warrant. We live in the United States of America, folks. Police can't bash our door in in the middle of the night without legal justification. Some may not like that, but it has served us well for over 200 years. Fly, I think your posts are well-thought out and reasonable. I enjoy reading them. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "Wow" Posted by gaiabetsy on 12:16:06 5/17/2000 that Mame/MW interview really blew me away. While I find some of her story hard to swallow, I gotta say she is so very "small voiced" (suggesting someone who has been dominated a lot) but very sincere and quite credible. Did you notice the difference between the strong, forceful voice Mame has and MW? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "gaiabetsy," Posted by listener on 12:31:35 5/17/2000 maybe they garrotted her so much that they broke her vocal cords. \ just kidding [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "Somehow listener" Posted by momo on 13:58:58 5/17/2000 I failed to find the humor in your post. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "I know I said..." Posted by Luvsbeagles on 13:50:38 5/17/2000 I only had one question...but I have a few more. (Be nice..its my birthday). Ok..here goes....Do we now know everything there is to know about MW? I assume that since the investigation is over (it is over isnt it?) that she can now tell everything she has told the police. I realize we still dont know at least one thing, that being what is the evidence that was destroyed...but beyond that has she told us everything? The second question is...is MW married at the moment? And does she have any children? And is Mr MW if there is one, implicated in the abuse? Finally...what prompted MW to come forward now? I have heard vague references to JR's deposition, but I have never really understood what prompted her to break her silence after all this time. Thats it...thanks. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "Luvsbeagles" Posted by Chris on 14:03:45 5/17/2000 I believe that MW's therapist saw Lee Hill when he was interviewed by Carol McKinley on Fox after the deposition became public. From there, I think she (MW's therapist) read the deposition and noted the strange references John Ramsey made to and about Fleet White in there. (I could be wrong, I know I've heard or read the story but may not be doing a good job of remembering...I am 35 you know - LOL) (Ever read that depo? It's long and tedious but interesting how John sidesteps questions and gives vague responses to his relationship to Fleet White...someone who has been called his "best friend." Funny that he claims to have hardly known the man yet he sent his son to Fleet's house when he "thought" his daughter was kidnapped...ah, but that's for another thread) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "Luvs," Posted by AutumnBorn on 13:59:02 5/17/2000 Happy Birthday! The investigation is only over as far as BPD goes. The FBI still seems to be investigating. She doesn't have children - she's had physical problems from the years of abuse. I don't know about the rest. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "Did anyone see " Posted by momo on 14:58:23 5/17/2000 the pictures at Toppcats web page? The ones of Bridget when she was a little girl? The top left one is a calendar. The top of the calendar says "Quality you can trust" while a little down and to the left it says "Fleet Oil". Am I seeing this right? That would give her story some more credibility. Very interesting. Here is the URL. http://www.holoworld.com/ramseyreports [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "RealStormy & momo" Posted by fly on 15:17:46 5/17/2000 momo - Where are those pictures? I don't see them on the location you linked. Assistance, please? Few of even the most skeptical here are disputing that her family had links to the Whites. The fact that she appeared on a calendar shows she is not lying about everything (but tale tellers rarely do), but unless the calendar is porn, it doesn't prove or disprove anything of signficance, IMO. (It would still be interesting to see the photo, of course.) RealStormy - Thanks, and I enjoy your posts too. I agree about dissing BPD for making an appointment being rather unfair, for all the reasons you cited. BPD could have just shown up and asked to talk to her mother, of course, and had she refused to talk or to show them the evidence, that might have been "interesting." But you're right that it would not have been a simple task to get a warrant to let them walk in and actually seize the evidence. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 26. "Fly" Posted by momo on 16:06:27 5/17/2000 when you link to the page you may have to refresh. I know that the May 10th interview with Mame and BJ was still up until this morning. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "Fleet Oil" Posted by becky on 15:13:36 5/17/2000 Wow! Either the White's are being framed in a big way or this woman is becoming more credible by the second. Those pictures of her as a child make me sad. Especially since we know for a fact she was sexually abused. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. "Chris...you just reminded me..." Posted by Cassandra on 15:22:59 5/17/2000 What was that remark JR made about stun guns, in his answer, was it to police??? Something about CA people using stun guns... Cassie [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "Momo" Posted by Edie Pratt on 15:22:16 5/17/2000 I can't make it out, is there a way to blow the pics up? I do remember, however, Fleet Oil Co., and my granddad might have had a calender in the garage. This story is coming into focus, isn't it? Could JR have befriended FWSr. before Jr.? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. "Edie" Posted by sarah on 15:56:34 5/17/2000 Hey yeah Edie,...remember back a few weeks ago we were trying to place JR with FW prior to Boulder. The threads were called The Coastal Connection, (meaning California) More sleuthing into Infinity, etc. JR for sure was in California, that much we do know. Given our limitations, not having the sleuth power of the police department, there is only so much we can do. But we HAVE found some connections. The FBI or SOMEBODY with investigative powers needs to get off the dime and get sleuthin'! FBI- FBI - hire us and give us your tools with which to work; - we would LOVE nothing better than to make those connections for you. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 27. "Hiya back, Sarah!" Posted by Edie Pratt on 16:14:25 5/17/2000 you just gave me a thought, girl. What you said about the ability to sleuth and have access to police and FBI knowledge. It dawned on me then--- is it likely that JR, in his powerful position, investigated Fleet Oil and it's founders FIRST? The comment he made about FW owning "a couple of gas stations" could be from the fact that JR did a little research of his own.(or he's terribly jealous) What for, I'm not sure, but JR and Patsy seem to be class conscious, and very impressed with title$. Perhaps JR wanted to know if FW was worthy of rubbing JR's imperial elbow? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. "Maybe I watch too much Law & Order.....but" Posted by Country Girl on 15:49:33 5/17/2000 The BPD could have gone unannounced to MW's mother's house to talk to her. Since they obviously didn't have a warrant anyway, why give her the advance notice? She didn't have to talk to them, period. So why not at least have the element of surprise? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "CG, you're right" Posted by Edie Pratt on 15:55:06 5/17/2000 and I don't recall reading here that the BPD made an appt. w/Mame when they popped in on her. Why are they soooooo inconsistant? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. " Mame, Bridget, Toppcat, Mary 99" Posted by sarah on 15:33:35 5/17/2000 Geesh, I am away from the board a few days and look what happens. { Private note to Bridget:} Bridgit, I applaud you and bow low to your integrity. Hang in there girl; there are many of us on this forum who never doubted you or your story. I hope you take it as far as you can. I am Sarah- did you get what was sent to you via Mr. Hill? Mame and Toppcat: Thank you for going the distance. Is it o.k. to place some little red stars above your names like they do in grade school? I don't have that facility on my confuser at this time, but as soon as I do, I will put some stars over your names. They will be red and kind of twinkly. Mame, may I make a request ? Can you or B.J. find the names of the detectives who interviewed Bridget and do a little investigative scooping on that angle? Mary 99 - thank you for the 'transcript'. I am sharing a glimmer and a smile with you now, as I have picked up from your posts some of your feelings about Bridget and her story . For the life of me, I can not fathom the Boulder P.D. After all the heat they have taken, nation-wide no less, for botching this case, [which they undeniably did] because they were so myopic and provincial, you'd think by now they'd chit-can all that pompous crap and start playing real life detectives with a case to solve. I guess you can take the small-minded detectives out of Boulder, but you can't take the small minds out of the Boulder detectives . [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 28. "The squeeze" Posted by lake on 16:37:24 5/17/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 16:37:24, 5/17/2000 Seems to me that you can try to squeeze JR and/or PR into the MW connection from now until the end of time and you will never accomplish it. You can spin your wheels for another three years and you will come up with only wild speculation. But if you follow the evidence and what it suggests, rather than wild speculation, you get an entirely different and plausable conclusion to the mystery. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 30. "hummm" Posted by dixie on 16:53:24 5/17/2000 Are these photos suppose to be clues? I see a pic with Santa, was this Santa one of the abusers? I thought I read that the children would 'sit on Santas lap'as part of the ritual. Also It looks like the doll has something in her hand,? of course my eyes are terrible any more and when i tried to zoom it made it fuzzy. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 29. "Fleet Oil" Posted by Ribaldone on 16:49:49 5/17/2000 I have a 17" monitor, but still can't quite make out what it says. If you say it says Fleet Oil, I believe you. Either way, I fail to understand how that goes toward proving sexual abuse by FW Sr. It goes toward proving that she and her family know FW Sr. (that's not a surprise considering that he is said to be her mother's godfather), but it is a VERY long way from proving that FW Sr. is one of her abusers. I think of it like this. If I had been abused all my life by, say, my father. Could I then, as an adult, successfully place the blame on, say, my father's best friend just because I could prove that I knew him (as well as prove that I had been abused all my life)? I sure hope not. I know MW has made all kinds of statements about the use of garrottes, hearts, bears, Christmas parties, etc., but anyone who has read about the JB case would know that as well. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 39. "not Fleet Oil?" Posted by chebrock on 19:15:25 5/17/2000 I don't believe it says Fleet Oil. The ad is somehow related to the telephone the little girl is talking on. The text above the picture says "________ity You Can Trust". Behind what some say is FleetOil is a picture of the receiver of a phone with a coiled cord attached to it. I don't think this has anything to do with "oil" much less Fleet Oil. I think the last 3 letters are IOL and not OIL. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 32. "Point to ponder" Posted by lake on 17:33:01 5/17/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 17:33:01, 5/17/2000 If the MW claims are indirectly connected to the murder of JBR (and there certainly seems to be a connection) females are abused in the MW senario. But what part if any do young males play in this "game". If they are not abused, when are the young males brought into the female abuse "ritual"? I would guess it would be at a very young age. Because the average persons learns more before the age of six than they do the rest of their lives as far a behavior and values are concerned. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 31. "***BROADCAST BACK UP***" Posted by ToppCat on 17:29:55 5/17/2000 Hi Everyone, The broadcast is back up. I received an Email from Mame giving the OK. I was leaving for New York and received several Emails this morning (right before walking out the door) that mentioned something that could have proven problematic in the interview. Rather than chance it, I pulled it -- since I wouldn't be here to do anything about it once I left (obviously). If you go to the page and do not see the interview link, just hit "reload" on your browser and the updated page should refresh. Thanks for your understanding on this. I was between a rock and hard place and needed to get out the door -- so I just went ahead and made the decision. Frank (TC) P.S. Thanks to the poster that sent the Email giving the exact time code where the "problem" was. If I had to make any changes, that would have really helped me out a lot and saved a lot of time. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 35. "Two things" Posted by janphi on 17:56:58 5/17/2000 You're welcome, Toppcat--I've spent a lot of time in studios and know how much a cue helps! To those who can't read the calendar sponsor, it's Pennzoil, Quality You Can Trust [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 33. "And" Posted by lake on 17:43:28 5/17/2000 I would think that if the MW calims are only 10% factual, any young male in such a family would be an at risk child as a potential abuser of females in this "ritual" sex abuse scheme. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 34. "And" Posted by lake on 17:53:38 5/17/2000 The police and child protective services can crack the case. They have the foot in the door with the MW claims, they just need the have professionals who know what they are doing to talk to the right juveniles. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 42. "But lake," Posted by mary99 on 06:58:24 5/18/2000 Do they want to crack the case is the $118,000 question? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 36. "Transcript/Part One" Posted by mame on 18:15:11 5/17/2000 Damn, it's taken all day to type this first 15 minute section. Lots of important interruptions. I will keep typing this evening. I need to spend some time with my kiddos for dinner. When I return, I'll keep at it. I included the "fluff" first section in honor of Frank's newest job with Estee Lauder. He does so much to help us bring you news and information...I take every opportunity to toot his horn! INTRO Mame: Hi, Frank Frank: Hi Mary, how are you? Mame: Good. How is the sound today? Frank: Sounds great. Mame: Does it? I've been spending time around Lee Hill lately and he whispers a lot...so I was laughing with someone the other day, (telling them) I left his office and I was whispering and I went "whoa" what am I whispering for! He has this very low tone of voice when you talk to him. So.... Do tell me about your trip to New York and your work with Elizabeth Hurley. Frank: Oh well... Mame: You didn't even know who she was?!?! Frank: I still don't know who she is. I was going to go on the web to find a picture of her. Mame: I saw that someone posted one for you Frank: Oh, they did? Must have been when I was away. Mame: I think it was. I'll have to point that out to you. Frank: Well, she's a spokeswoman, or whatever it is for Estee Lauder. Estee Lauder is looking to open a store in Bloomingdales...not just a sales counter...they are going to have a store in there. So, I'm going to do a holographic portrait of her splashing water into her face. That will be a central part of the main display there. Mame: Really? So you're the guy they picked to do the holography? Frank: yeah (sheepishly) Mame: I picked you too pal! So don't give me up for Elizabeth! Frank: Yeah, allright. (still embarrassed) Mame: Well, if you HAVE to! INTERVIEW BEGINS Mame: Boy, it's been busy lately...around ol' Pleasantville. Frank: It's good to be back and log on and follow what's happening whenever I want to. Mame: Well, I'm glad you're there. Frank: It's good to be bacK Mame: It makes us all feel good. I'm sure Mrs. Brady is glad you're there...you always swoop in to save the day for the Divas. Frank: Well, we're going to get whoever did this. They think that we're not...but, they are going to be "gotten" Mame: Well, of all people the other day....Mr. Lou Smit, who I had the pleasure of meeting for the first time which my friend and I will talk about...He looked me in the eye and said "I will follow this everyday for the rest of my life...and I will find the culprit. So, I guess there are many people coming from different directions who feel the same way. Mame: We are going to bring my friend on. I am going to refer to her today as "Bridget". Frank: Bridget? Mame: That was the name we called her when she came to stay here. We knew that with fifth greaders you could not give all the information, because it would be all around the playground the next day. Frank: And my little Doodlebug, my 11 year old daughter, last week, when Bridget was back said "Mom, I can't call her...her real name. So I said, that's fine. I am going to refer to her as that, so I don't have to call her friend...or Witness...or whatever. I am excluding the press release in the transcript in the need to save time. I have a copy of the press release I will post at the end of the typed transcript (Panscript) Mame: That is their statement. I am going to reach my friend at a pay phone. And I will be back... Frank: Allright. Do you need any change? Mame: No...I am on my phone! She might need some though. Frank: laughs... Mame: I think she might need a lot more than change. Anyway, I'll be right back with you. Thank you. Frank: Hello. Mame: OK, we're going to get my friend on and move along. Mame: Speak up, Frank! Frank: Yeah...I was over by the machine. Mame: Later, we'll tell how you just saved my butt...but, I'm not going into it now... Frank: Well, I've got two sets of headphones on. One with you in one ear. And another set of headphones with another conversation that's going on. Mame: Oh, what's the other one? Frank: It's with a friend of mine, Steve Michael.. Mame: Hmmmm. OK..I hope we're as interesting...Well, anyway, I've got my friend here, who I'm calling "Bridget" with us here today. And we are ready to talk, talk, talk...give some information...talk about her recent trip to Pleasantville...and all the news of the last few days. We welcome you "Bridget"...we called you "Bridget" when you stayed in my home, because it is a name that is VERY important in my family. And, it is also a name that a dear friend called you. Bridget: That's right. A very dear friend called me "Bridget" when I would help her with little dinner parties that she would have...I would help her clean up...So, she decided that I was "Bridget"... Mame: Yes, the Irish upstairs maid...or whatever. That was the old name they used to refer to the Irish "help". Frank: I just want to remind everyone to speak up. Mame: OK, so I have many "Bridget's" in my family...you came to me as "Bridget"...so we will call you "Bridget" today...We were going to start with "the journey"...but, my editor stepped in and said "na..na..na". So we're making you replay right now. I have such a good editor that he helped me. I have to mention that! Mame: So, you came back. We got to see each other. But, when you were here last week... And, we'll talk a little more in a few minutes about...how you got here...why you had to come...that you were called back to Pleasantville/Boulder by the BPD to answer questions. Correct? Bridget: That's right. They had some, they said a few questions that they wanted to ask me before they tied up loose ends. Mame: Right. And, when did you find out, has it been eleven weeks? It's been since the end of February, that you came to Boulder and met with them. At what point...In the beginning they never mentioned they wanted you back for questions. But, at a certain point you realized they wanted you back. Do you remember when that was? About half way through, right? Bridget: About half way through. I think that (it was) the first week of April that I spoke to one of the detectives there at the Boulder Police Department. And, he asked me about coming back to Boulder on the 25th of April. Mame: Right. And you received no calls from them, and maybe I'm wrong. Correct me if I'm wrong. But, you received no calls from any investigator during those weeks, asking a question or asking for a clarification on anything? Bridget: That's correct. Mame: But, you kept in contact. Your lawyer did, but you also called them directly...spoke with at least two different investigators on the JonBenet Ramsey case. Bridget: That's correct. Mame: Right. So you came back. They wanted you back at the end of April. The date they picked was your birthday. You originally said, sure I'll come. But, then you realized that might not be the best day to come. Can you tell us why? There are several reasons why... Bridget: I think the main reason for me was that, that was a date that a lot of my abuse had ocCurRed on. Mame: I might add that in my research birthdays and holidays are very significant in these sorts of long term abuse situations. Correct? Bridget: Right. So, I did not want to go back to Boulder on that day. I called and asked if I could come the next day, or the day after that. And at first I was told, yes. Then I was told, no, I wouldn't be able to do that. That I needed to reschedule. Mame: And, people close to you were receiving more frequent messages. Bridget: Right. And, they were about, that when I did go back to Boulder I was going to be arrested by The Boulder Police Department for filing false allegations. Mame: And, that was always a fear of yours? Bridget: And, I was told that I was going to be going to prison. Mame: And you were also told that, and we don't know if this is true or not, messages got to you, through other people close to you that you that they had an "in" with the Boulder PD. Bridget: Right. Mame: Now, we and I want to make that clear, we are not saying, and we have not verified that, but, that's what they were dishing out. Bridget: Right, and that one of the people close to this case, had hired a private detective/investigator to go after me. Mame: Right. And they went so far as to say, that, that detective, and the money behind it, were in town...were in Boulder. Bridget: That's true. And that was just a couple of days before I went back to Boulder. Mame: So, whether it was your birthday, or any day, coming back here, and knowing full well...at least from your initial discussions and interview with the police, and the few conversations you had over these weeks. You didn't think, none of us thought anything would come of this? Bridget: That's correct. I felt that more of their investigation, the Boulder Police Department's investigation, was centered around trying to discredit me, as opposed to looking at the information that I brought forward, in a non-judgmental way. Mame: Right. And, along the way, you started to feel more like a suspect, than a witness, didn't you? Bridget: Yes, I did. I think the way I was treated, especially the first time with the Boulder Police Department, I very much felt like a suspect. Mame: There wasn't a sense of respect and open-mindedness to you...kindness to hear your story. Regardless of how they felt about it, It was quite evident that they didn't want to hear what you had to say. And, it took a lot to get them to hear it. Bridget: That's correct. So the second...I felt very resident to come back to Boulder. Reticent...I meant to say, reticent. Mame: You knew that you wanted to answer any question. You knew that from day one. But, coming back into Boulder County...uhhhh...was scary. Bridget: It certainly was. Mame: So, you came, you saw, you certainly didn't conquer. But, you did come back. So tell us about last week. Bridget: I think that because two victim's advocates came forward for me. And were present in Boulder when I was there. One, a lady from California...another from Utah... Mame: Jeanne Adams, a victim advocate and criminologist from Utah. And Linda Redd, a victim's advocate and criminologist from California. So they stepped up to the plate, heard about you, contacted your attorney, your therapist and boom. They got a last minute call that you were going to come, and they said they would come with you. Incredible....great ladies. Bridget: They spoke to the Boulder Police Department, a couple hours before I went in there to try to educate them about ritual abuse. Mame: They train police departments about ritual abuse as well. Bridget: Yes, they do. And I went in there. I think it was after 1pm on Wednesday afternoon. Mame: So they paved the way. They were treated with respect. The met with the BPD's victim assistance person. Right? Bridget: And, one of the investigators. Mame: One of the investigators for the Ramsey case. Thenyousteppedin. We walked through the front doors, which I wrote about last weekend, with these fine women. Several of us, you and your attorney, and you went behind closed doors. How long were you in there? Bridget: For about two hours and fifteen minutes. Mame: uh..huh. And, it was a much different tone this time. Tell us. Do tell. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 37. "Lake" Posted by Househazard on 18:31:48 5/17/2000 I think it's possible that that night was part of an initiation for the new 'garrotter'. I think it could have been Burke and/or another young boy who was scared and unsure and things got out of hand. I do think the Ramsey's are involved though and I guess that's where we part ways. I think there were more than 2 adults in that house that night/morning. I think the note rings of more than 2 people as well. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 38. "My view ,H/H" Posted by lake on 19:07:26 5/17/2000 Is that there would have been no fake kidnapping note, no calling of the cops to investigate a kidnapping when JBR was dead, if this crime were done by mature adults who were involved at any level in an on going sexual abuse of childen "ring" of any shape or form. To do so would be an open invitation for the Feds. to become involved in the case. And the last thing a kiddy prono ring or generational child abuse group wants investigating the death of one of their victims is the Feds. It is good to try an apply a little common sense to this case. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 40. "But" Posted by lake on 21:07:28 5/17/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 21:07:28, 5/17/2000 Maybe the MW has loosened the lid of the Pandora's Box of the JBR murder that the authorities have been attempting to keep shut tight by only focusing on the Ramseys. And somtimes it is the initial pressure that loosens the tightly shut lid of Pandora's Box and the rest is not nearly as difficult. So, if justice is ever done for JBR, the credit will likely be due to MW and the efforts of those that supported her initially. And that would not be the BPD. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 41. "Like it or don't like it" Posted by Watching you on 06:24:02 5/18/2000 I will once again go on record to say I don't believe MW's experiences (if they are all true and I have no proof of that) have anything to do with JBR's murder. What I am seeing here is a subtle form of brainwashing, and I am amazed at those who have fallen under the spell. I guess I would not be a good candidate for brainwashing - well, I know I wouldn't be. Gemini - even the most skeptical Gemini, seems ready to lean off her perch on the fence a little, and that is real scary. Gem says anyone who can't see a connection...blah blah. What I see is posters who never believed the stun gun crap now buying into it, because of MW. I see posters who I thought were really critical thinkers believing someone (FW Sr.), who must be close to 90 years old, being capable of being involved in something like this. That has to do with the time element, of course - let's see, when MW was three years old, FW Sr. would have been something like 52? If he was one of those who sexually abused her then, and because of this people are trying to make a connection from him to the molestation and death of JBR some 35 years later, he must be some kind of a man. I don't know of any 90 year old who can even find that thing, much less get it up. Oh, he had help? Well, that's helpful. Let's see, he was the director of the sex club, right? I don't think I can stand much more of this, but I'll finish what I've started here, because this will really be my last word on it. Doesn't anyone find it the least bit strange that Lou Smit has suddenly become a freaking hero to some? Mame, God knows I think you are a fine woman, a compassionate, kind woman, a great mother, and I know you believe in what you are doing with all your heart. So, please do not take what I am about to say as critism as such - it is not - it is simply an observation that I'm not sure you are even aware of. This is my opinion, and y'all are welcome to come after me (heh, you won't be getting a cherry, afterall). Mame, dear heart, how can you be objective as a reporter when you have become an advocate for the MW? Please do not tell me you can be neutral in this anymore. I have seen your posts questioning those of us who don't agree as if we have tunnel vision. Rather, I think you have gotten too close to the fire and have lost a bit of your objectivity. That is just what I am seeing. Now, maybe that is because you *know* so much more about MW than the rest of us, but you have the respect of most on this forum, and posters will follow your lead. In your reporting, especially in this past interview, I see you leading the MW - putting the answers in the questions, if you will. Maybe this is for MW's benefit, but from your reading public, of which I am one, you appear to be her advocate. This in no way is an attack on you or your integrity or ability to sort out the news, perhaps we could call it constructive criticism. There is nothing wrong with that, being MW's advocate, that is, but this has gone from the JBR forum to the embrace MW and Lou Smit and hate the Whites forum, and I don't like it. I can't say it any differently than that. Yesterday I read a post by Holly who actually damned FW to hell, in so many words. Does everyone really think this is okay? I know what this post will bring, and I don't care. Those who believe there is a connection here will go on believing, and those who don't will just get sicker and sicker. I am sick of it. I don't ask anyone to believe as I believe; yet, every time I turn around I am reading some snide comment about how blind those of us who don't agree are. It doesn't matter to me. I have a strong sense of who I am and I have a bullshit meter that is highly developed. This story is off the scale. That's my opinion, that has been my gut feeling (oh my, that gut feeling again, can't believe in that, can we?) since MW came on the scene. I am not angry at anyone, I am not putting anyone down. I like almost everyone on this forum. I am simply discouraged and unhappy that the Weird One probably has just cause now for calling some here the lynch mob, only the ones being lynched are the Whites, not the Rams. This is just sick, and I'll have no part of it. Maybe someday we will know the truth. If I am wrong, I will admit I was wrong. Will you? Have at it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 71. "WY strikes a nerve.." Posted by rico on 10:40:53 5/18/2000 and it had to happen sooner or later. Why is mame acting like the lone, noble soul in a quest for the holy grail? And why does she find it so disagreeable that some disagree with MW's credibility? Your comments and opinions are welcome on this forum and you shouldn't toss in the towel because mame goes on the attack. Many agree with your line of reasoning, some may not but that's the whole purpose of the forum-an exchange of views. And if mame wants to compare her work with the Rosa Parks, Watergate, Holocaust, then accept it for the self-serving tripe it is. MW isn't the only one with a credibility problem now. WY, the story just doesn't have any legs and mame doesn't know how to save face; God forbid that anyone should think she didn't hang the moon! I think RS asked the right question: isn't there a chapter on objectivity in journalism 101? Don't walk away from this forum WY; keep posting. You have the right to your opinions. JfJBR [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 52. "Critical thinking" Posted by mary99 on 07:50:42 5/18/2000 It seems to me we are not judging all the players by the same standards. What the Ramseys do or say is open for discussion or interpretation of motive, and conclusions are drawn as to indications of guilt. And they are guilty! I'll never try to say the Ramseys are innocent and the Whites are guilty! Yet, as we judge the Ramseys so must we judge the Whites. What they did and said has assumed more importance in retrospect than before. As the pro-Rams can find a plausible excuse (which flies in the face of logic, BTW) for any and all Ramsey behavior we find suspicious, to our enternal frustration---so the pro-Whites are lately finding a plausible explanation (which also flies in the face of logic, IMHO) for any and all White behavior which appears suspicious given the recent Bridget allegations. Well, the pro-Whites counter, there are children involved here, small, innocent children whose parents motives are being questioned. Have we not always been concerned for Burke, and has our concern for him ever stopped us from calling his parents murderers? Well, that's because his parents Are Murderers, so that makes it ok. Now I am just saying it's time to look at the Whites without the rose-tinted glasses. For their children's sake, all the more reason to look carefully at what Bridget has alleged. If we have sat here and hoped that Burke is not in danger, so should we sit here and hope that the other two children in the referenced family are not in danger. As Seekers of Truth, the most dangerous trap is to become rigid in our beliefs to the point where we become Deniers of Truth so we may continue to believe what we wish to believe. Watching You, I have always admired your honesty and your fine-tuned BS Detector. You know when the Rams are spinning and you know something stinks to high heaven when they open their mouths. And you've never been afraid to say so, either! Now, for the sake of logic and critical thinking, put the Whites under to the same test. Look at everything they have done and said. Remember FW was right there with JR when JB was discovered. When you excuse the behavior post-crime of one but not the other, you have lost your objectivity. Bridget is not even part of this exercise. She is the reason to conduct the exercise, but forget what she said for a minute. Just look at what was done, what was said, what all the questions raised by the behavior might mean. As we might indict a ham sandwich, so may we indict a hero sandwich. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 45. "MW" Posted by Sioux on 07:13:31 5/18/2000 **Doesn't anyone find it the least bit strange that Lou Smit has suddenly become a freaking hero to some? ** Yes. I do, and this was my red flag when I was in the fence. About mame (Sorry mame), I think like you, she can't be objective in this issue.If she can't because she KNOWS things that we don't, fine, but we need to KNOW THOSE THINGS, and they (Mame/MW) aren't telling because of the FBI, whatever. Now how are we going to jump in the pot anti White if we still LACK THAT INFO????? And God Knows I've been trying hard to find the LINK between these people because the case would be SOLVED, at least in my head. Oh I don't know who to believe anymore. Sioux [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 44. "WY" Posted by fly on 07:12:32 5/18/2000 Bravo! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 43. "watching you..." Posted by mame on 07:09:19 5/18/2000 hold it with the "dear heart" "compassionate soul"... bring out the violin crap. it's condescending and demeaning. you're a great wit and a fine poster.but... if you are going to be a critic...be specific. refer to an exact post. a statement of pure tunnel vision. were woodward and bernstein suffering from tunnel vision? did the writer who stopped to notice rosa parks have a bleeding heart? did that writer appeal to the masses? hell no! look back at the stories that have shaped and changed our world, our towns, our lives. were they all tunnel vision? were they accepted immediately? hell no. seems to me it helps some to be critical of ol' mamie if they define me as susie cream cheese. well, ol'susie would have walked right by this story! the susie's of the world just want a fan club...they just want to be liked. to get that club they have to cover the stories and hear the voices that fit the going theory. all to make everyone happy and secure. la de da... most susie's never stray from cream cheese fiction to puff up their little worlds. they would run at threats to themselves, witnesses with dark twisted tales, interviews that might get them killed. the susies of the world don't stray from their "chicken soup for the soul" book collection. they never read the gutsy works of david mamet, saul bellow, sam shepard, jim harrison... they never step into the land of the underbelly... so WY, if you want to make comment..do so with specific examples of tunnel vision. i kindly ask you to hold with the violins and the "poor mame, the bleeding heart" crap until you can prove she's of that ilk... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 53. "Mame I think WY,fly..." Posted by Dr. Who on 07:53:35 5/18/2000 others are pointing out that without additional information you and few others obviously have about MW like say a direct tie-in with the Krebs serial killer fellow mentioned here and MW, and/or knowledge of (I'm sure)priviledged information of (perhaps) he boasted to her he did the crime, maybe showed evidence suggesting as much...the very excellent reportage you have shared with us doesn't change much as so much show people why this crime is such a hard one to prosecute. I'm still a bit fuzzy as to how MW's niece fits into lake/Ellis's proof of juvenile involvement as killers, maybe one day I will be enlightened? As someone watching behind the lines let me thank you for providing this infomation for us to digest...whether one agree or disagrees with MW's strategic importance, it has highlighted the abilities and talents of some of the poster's abilities. Ditto AuntieBJ and some of you others...keep up the good work ;-)! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 47. "Oh, okay, mame" Posted by Watching you on 07:24:02 5/18/2000 you want me to really lay it on the line? No dear heart shit? Okay. You have become an advocate for MW. You say you have not, but you have. Whenever someone says something you do not like, you go after them, like you just did me. My post was not intended to offend you, but, believe me, you are coming across as a bloodly bleeding heart. I don't think you are susie cream cheese, but your not Agent 007 either. You want kudos, you won't find them here, because I think you are chasing your tail. You did it with RonS, who is a professional who has dealt with people like this for years, you attacked him for questioning your motives. Well, add me to your list, because what you are doing is suspect to me, too. And, talk about demeaning, look to your own posts. I am not going to go back and dig up your little slams against those of us who are just too blind to conform to your opinions. You don't have to like me or my opinions. You are a reporter - you ought to be able to take criticism. Please do not seek to judge me as one of those chicken soup for the soul people, you don't know me, you don't know anything about what I know about the underbelly of the beast, so can it. I won't be back. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 59. "WY" Posted by Ribaldone on 08:39:27 5/18/2000 Excellent post! You said it all. Please don't disappear. If you don't like reading about MW (and you obviously don't), do like I am going to do from this point forward, ignore them. There are alot of other fine threads and posters on this forum. Don't leave. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 46. "WY" Posted by Lacey on 07:17:46 5/18/2000 Great post. My sentiments exactly. (I knew I brought you up right.) I have tried as I could to knock some sense into some of these people, LOL, but I'm sure they don't appreciate my obvious contempt for the way in which some formerly admirable posters have just plain.. runawaywild with this thing. It's difficult if not impossible to prove a negative. But if the White's are ever exonerated as they should be, there are a couple of perverted posters on this very forum who've left themselves wiiiiiiiiide open for libel litigation. Lace . [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 56. "litigate my little bleeding heart ass..." Posted by mame on 08:32:11 5/18/2000 please? I welcome it. Let's rock... I've been threatened bodily and professionally. Even by the BPD. Talk about an underbelly. Whoa baby. Sue me. Stalk me. Tap my phones. Threaten my kids. Here I am, you want me? Go for it. Just remember if you read my obit in the Pleasantville Times.... IT WAS NOT AN ACCIDENT! Those following and investigating this story were told if we continued, we'd be discredited, disbarred, and demeaned. Guess the games have begun. Gotta wonder why a little crazy woman can bring on such wrath. Now that's the $64,000 question. They murdered the information seekers in The Franklin Cover-up. Who is she shaking up? Guess the games have begun! Well, I'm one helluva ball player. I don't always win...but I always make it into extra innings! WY, you disappoint me. Why not respond as a thinking woman with real live intelligent examples of my tunnel vision? Wit to wit, example to example, mind to mind! Why run? Why play Sarah Bernhardt? Let's rock, WY! When a police chief calls a courageous witness a "fruitloop" before an investigation begins...when journalists are silenced...when a "fiber summit" is really a cover for a "Mystery Woman Summit"...when threats to a little grassroots journalist and her children emerge...when egos are shaken...YOU GOTTA WONDER WHY, WY? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 54. "Why can't you all be somewhat right?" Posted by becky on 08:10:36 5/18/2000 (begin violin music) You know, it seems to me that you are all working toward the same goal. So if you would drop the My theory is right and your theory is wrong competetion and work together you might actually figure out what it is we have all been looking at for the last several years but haven't been able to see. Forgive my intrusion but there is a BIG new development here. The BPD press release has left room for belief that the White family has some form of a connection to child porn rings. The Whites have not yet denied it and the BPD has not yet clarified it, knowing full well that these discussions are causing the Whites great humiliation. THAT'S HUGE. Gigantic. But does that mean that we suddenly have to ass-u-me that FW Jr. is the devil and FW Sr. was in Boulder that night? No...my friends...it does not. It could mean all kinds of things, the problem is we have NO IDEA what it means and we need to put our heads together and get a few more clues to figure it out. So before we denegrate or defend the Whites...lets hold off on judgement and try to figure out just exactly what this connection is. Those of you who want to believe in the Whites (myself included), perhaps it is a small and explainable one, but there IS a connection of some kind. Deal with it. As for the MW...I think anyone who hits on her credibility is a bad, bad person! To the closet you go. She has credibility from that BPD press release and the fact that her mother and niece were at the party. She is brave to come forward knowing she will get the crap she is receiving. But does that mean that we should just believe everything she says? No...it does not. She needs to provide the information that will prove these allegations that relate to the murder. My guess is, everyone is going to be somewhat right and somewhat wrong. The trick is to figure out who has the right parts. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 48. "Lacey" Posted by Morgan on 07:30:39 5/18/2000 You say the Whites should be exonerated. Do you know for a fact that they are not involved in a sex ring? Please explain the information you have. Give details. Otherwise your statement is groundless. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 50. "Thanks for the transcript, Mame!" Posted by Cassandra on 08:00:36 5/18/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 08:00:36, 5/18/2000 I'm waiting for more. I'll listen, too, even though very difficult with my sound problems, because I am very anxious to hear her voice. Thanks, Mame and Frank. Please recognize that Mame must know things that she cannot, and will not, mention on a public forum. After all, she has spent a lot of time with people involved in this investigation, and has had B. in her home for a time. If we knew all that Mame knows... But we don't, and we must wait and see, and hope that B. is in a safe place with people who care about her, and that she can salvage a happy life after all she has been through. Cassie [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 49. "I Agree With Watching You" Posted by CommonSense on 07:44:54 5/18/2000 I would never have been as "bold" as Watching You regarding the MW situation, but I do agree with what Watching You has said - manipulation and brainwashing. I'm sure the upcoming religious television appearance will be more of the same. Perhaps some of us have become bored with the simple facts of the case, and the intrigue and mystery is more interesting than the simple fact that four people went to bed that night and only three were alive the next morning. The one still wearing the same clothes from the night before claims to have found a three page ransom note that goes on for days, just like her mouth, but her fingerprints weren't on it as if she were wearing gloves when she handled it. This same person is the same person who can not be eliminated as the writer of the ransom. It was also her paint brush, her writing tablet, and the pen that was used was found right under the phone where she called 911. This case is simple. I don't plan on writing about the MW again. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 55. "WY, Lacey, CommonSense" Posted by mary99 on 08:26:35 5/18/2000 Gleeful White-bashing? Perverted posters who ask the hard questions? The anti-White lynch mob? We, the deluded 'lynch mob', the 'perverts', the 'gleeful bashers' have always been criticized by the swamp folk...when we criticized the Ramseys. In your hate-filled diatribes against those who question the White's behavior, you have become more like them and less like those who seek justice, no matter where the trail may lead. In your rush to defend the Whites, in the face of new and serious allegations, you have become more them them and less like those who care about justice for JonBenet and other children who may be at risk. And in your dogged refusal to consider the possibility that Bridget's allegations may have substance and relevance, you have become more like them...blinders in place and mind made up. As we have always criticized them for ignoring all the evidence so they could find their beloved heroes innocent, you have now met that standard in your deification of the Whites. It's not about the pro-Rams versus the pro-Whites, or the advocates versus the nonbelievers---it's about justice. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 66. "Thank You Mary99!" Posted by IndyAnna on 10:08:07 5/18/2000 Your post nailed it for me. In following the case since the beginning, I have looked at ALL evidence available to us outsiders. It has been my opinion that the Ramseys (one or both) is the murderer(s) and that the Whites, Stines, etc. were not involved in the murder. HOWEVER, I am not so determined to be RIGHT that I will not consider additional evidence or testimony to alter my opinion. I have not come to a judgment as to MW's evidence, mainly because I have not been privy to all the evidence. If it does come to light that the Whites are involved, I will not hesitate to say that my initial opinion was incorrect. Until that time, I will allow others their opinions, thoughts and suggestions in addition to conducting some sleuthing on my own. I do believe this forum is called JUSTICE Watch. It is not ANTI-Ramseys nor ANTI-Whites. JonBenet, I still have hope for justice! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 62. "WOW !" Posted by 1000Sparks on 08:49:05 5/18/2000 Some very good posts here for both sides. I'm sticking with Watching You! A child was brutally murdered and her mother did it (period)........ [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 58. "Ha!" Posted by Sioux on 08:37:44 5/18/2000 Ever since the MW's last interview with mame (which I believe was done FOR US so we the members of the forum had A BETTER IDEA of what in the heck is going on), many posters, some , the most insightful ones,have been in a civil war. Interesting. "Divide and you will reign" Sioux [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 57. "Mame" Posted by Househazard on 08:33:14 5/18/2000 I am curious to know what your stand on the case as a whole is now? Has it changed since MW's allegations? I don't see you respond a lot except to defend your objectives as a reporter. I am inclined to believe MW's story. It fits the theory I had in the beginning (for the most part). I understand you may not be willing to respond, lest you give away some of the 'secrets' involved with MW. I am curious if she ever met the Ramseys and if it was just a one time meeting or if they developed some sort of relationship. Thanks. HH [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 60. "Mary 99 and other Ram defenders" Posted by becky on 08:44:43 5/18/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 08:44:43, 5/18/2000 You know, you actually make a good point. But, don't forget that it is possible to believe the allegations by Bridget AND to believe that that Ramseys still have much to hide. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 65. "Becky, Sioux... :)" Posted by mary99 on 09:02:32 5/18/2000 Sioux, Good point. You perhaps think the long-term effect of Bridget's coming forward will be divide JW and thus destroy the integrity of our forum from within? What if her allegations do have that effect? The integrity of the forum will never be destroyed as long as Justice for JonBenet remains the primary goal. What I do see is a small group of posters whose defense of the Whites is similar to the swamp's defense of the Ramseys. I predict they will eventually find each other and unite to declaim the Justice Watch witches once again. Who knows, maybe the Whites will start their own forum and ask Ron S. to moderate! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 67. "mary99" Posted by Sioux on 10:20:49 5/18/2000 **What I do see is a small group of posters whose defense of the Whites is similar to the swamp's defense of the Ramseys.** I think the problem is (at least in my case), that Steve Thomas sounds credible and honest and HE is defending the Whites, at least Fleet Junior. I don't know MW and have no pre-concieved interest in believing her or not, but I do trust mame, just like I do Thomas, and I think she is also credible and Honest. The last interview didn't do a thing to solve this conflict I have. It even made it worse. Sioux [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 61. "All Doubters" Posted by darby on 08:48:52 5/18/2000 All of you who still think the Whites are pure as the driven snow, explain just one thing: How do you reconcile MW's written documentation--by a trained, professional therapist, PRIOR TO THE MURDER, of horrid abuse by the Whites? Forget everything else--just explain this one thing. Please. Lacey, your post to Morgan was uncalled for. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 69. "darby" Posted by Sioux on 10:24:41 5/18/2000 **How do you reconcile MW's written documentation--by a trained, professional therapist, PRIOR TO THE MURDER, of horrid abuse by the Whites?** Part of the issue here is if indeed the abuse was in plural:"The Whites", or just Fleet senior. As for the poster (I can't remember who it was ) who questioned the possibility of actual abuse by a senil man (FW Senior is like 90),let's remember that he didn't have to abuse JB that night to belong to a sex ring long ago. Sioux [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 63. "Divide and conquer" Posted by becky on 08:52:29 5/18/2000 They do it well, dont' they. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 64. "darby" Posted by FT on 09:00:12 5/18/2000 You asked, "How do you reconcile MW's written documentation--by a trained, professional therapist, PRIOR TO THE MURDER, of horrid abuse by the Whites?" Sorry if you have already explained this elsewhere, but could you please clarify exactly which "Whites" have been documented as abusers of MW? Thanks in advance. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 72. "What th ... ???" Posted by Gemini on 10:48:47 5/18/2000 Tempers flaring ... keyboards burning ... virtual ball bats swinging? Wrong WY ... I'm still fence-ridin' ... the only direction this subject pushes me toward is to suggest a greater possibility PR dunnit. Does that bother? It appears those of you who have operated from a stand point of heavy bias for a long time are now trying to advocate objectivity ... selective objectivity, of course. Some of you guys say you think this subject smacks of brain-washing ... much too slanted to suit you. But, wait a minute, haven't you, yourselves, been long time purveyors of slant? That's OK you say? It's the correct slant? Says who? OH! How silly of me. Guess that would be you ... and you ... and you. Nothing can fly like an eagle ... unless it's an ego ... and, from here, that's what this blah blah blah seems to be about. Some of you have had free reign for a long time when it comes to dictating the focus of this forum. And, don't get me wrong, I'm fond of most of you. But, objective, you ain't. Some of us have tried to say, "wait a minute ... let's not try to stifle a free range of ideas and opinions. Agree or disagree, but don't try to insist on a prevading group-think that serves to ostracize all but the 'faithful' ... that's just wrong. Without free exchange of ideas, JW isn't a discussion forum ... it's a cheerleading squad. I know full well some have come after me with steel toed boots because I've tried to point out there may be more than one possibility in regard to the solution to whodunnit. And, I've watched some go after Ginja the same way, just because she's had the guts to say "whoa ... some of your perceived heroes are not really golden boys". So, now it's mame and Mary99 and darby's turns I guess. Lookit, for three plus years, so many good and diligent sleuths have tried to piece together what happened on the night of 12/25/96. We've all been frustrated because so little information has been forthcoming about the players in this drama/tragedy that night. Now, it appears SOMEONE, who says she was THERE at the Whites' dinner party, has actually made mention of what may have happened. Should we rush to believe and embrace that possibility? IMO, no ... no more than it makes sense to assume the Ramseys MUST be guilty because they obviously were in the house and had opportunity. So then, should we dismiss what she says ... automatically and out of hand? Again, IMO, no ... no more than we should sweep the reasons we suspect Ramsey involvement under the virtual carpet. For what it's worth, I have grave doubts a sex-ring is the key to solving this case. As I told RS on the origin thread ... I needed some time to think things through. But, just because I don't see it that way, I'm damned if I'm going to fall in with you who are so determined no other train of thought but your own should be considered and weighed ... even ALLOWED here. The media/forum spin (aka brainwashing) has been going on for a long time ... from both sides of the fence. Some of you are very vulnerable to that ... some of you are actually part of that. To me, it looks as if it's just pricking your egos to see yours is not the only good mind and some other good minds see things differently. So, for goodness sake ... relax. Let other opinions and ideas be heard. Control your CONTROL ISSUES. People here are not stupid (except maybe becky, who claims she may be and who am I to dis her self-analysis). If this, or any, speculative opinion has no merit, we'll figure it out. The very last thing a discussion forum needs is a totalitarian effort to partition off informational content (tq Bill). WY, m'luv, (and I do love you as a person, tho some of your POV amazes me) I think I've read a number of your posts saying " ... this is the last thing I'm going to say on this topic", and "I'm not going to get involved in this discussion" ... or words to that effect. Yet, the need to suppress is apparently so strong, it keeps drawing you back. I've learned to be an old hand at avoiding threads I disdain or find offensive ... believe me that's involved a lot of skipping around over the long haul. You can do it! Hell, you've helped me learn to be tougher and fairer and more tolerant. I know you can do it. Lacey ... chill out fer goodness sake. There's no way your theory's going to fly if you keep insisting PR did the cover-up. From everything we've seen, she's a very emotion driven person. The head blow ... possibly. A cool, neat cover-up ... no way, no matter how motivated by selfishness and fear. Nopers, she'd have had help. MAYBE, this topic provides a clue to where help could have come from. Get outta my face and let me investigate it if I choose to. Last of all, mame, I think you were kind of all wound up yesterday and misread what I was trying to say to you. My thought is that you might want to gear yourself to expect some kind of negative reaction to the Bridget interview from local sources. My concerns about Mr. White don't really come from your friend's information. They come from Mr. White's actions and words, and have bothered me for some time now. Just be wary and look after you and yours. all this ... jmo, of course. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 68. "I agree" Posted by WitchyWoman on 10:23:32 5/18/2000 with WY for the most part. Mame I didn't read WY attacking you, I read what I thought was as she said, constructive critizism. I really did hear you ask leading questions of Briget on the tape. I heard you protect her. I don't feel this is wrong, you are obviously close to her and care very much about her. Again, that isn't wrong, it is compassionate to say the least. However, since you do care so much about her I don't think you can be objective where she is concerned. I don't think this is a bad thing. As far as I know 'we', the forum members, do not have proof that what Briget says is fact, we haven't seen any proof of her allegations. Therefore, I cannot just do a 180 flip and believe the White's are low life scum into torturing children. We do have proof that leans toward PR as the murderer, lots of proof. Yes, it might be circumstancial, but when so many things point to the same direction circumstantial becomes proof beyond a REASONABLE doubt. I have only been on this forum for a few months, but really am surprised how easily some of the seasoned posters turned on the White's without proof of a thing. WW [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 70. "It's all about" Posted by saryan on 10:39:33 5/18/2000 Trust, there is no way a stand-up woman like Mame would lead the people who are trying to bring justice for JonBenet, astray, I have been mostly lurking, some posting here for well over a couple of years now, and know the posters who are sincere in bringing the truth forward. For the people who are questioning (Bridget's)claims, or Mame's reporting skills, I have one question for you, what are you doing to bring justice in this case? Mame, Darby, Ruthee, Mrs. B, Chris, Greenleaf, and a few others that hat's escape me right now, you all have my trust. You are highly intelligent people who have put an enormous amount of time into this case. So when Mame believes, I believe, she is no dummy, and we are very lucky that she has given us this information. Forgot to include B.J, Toppcat, kudos to all, and kudos to Bridget for trying to bring justice in this case. Enogh said. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 74. "Targeting the Innocent" Posted by Lacey on 10:52:48 5/18/2000 Darby? Who died and left you hall monitor. I have kept quiet to Morgan for too long. Mary99, You are mistaken. There is substantial lack of evidence to propel this MW thing into the fiasco you and your ilk have created. Some of you, your perverted posting prefs belie your insistence that you are here just for justice. You couldn't sleuth your way out of a wet paper bag and there's proof to back it. Your endless disgusting threads are a tribute only to that title of fanatic fringe that has been coined to describe some of the endless groundless speculation that goes on on the Internet. You're a disgrace to the truth. Your active imaginations have become so twisted and warped that the ringleader has even demanded that I PROVE that the Whites aren't involved! How silly and stupid, particularly when your own so-called PROOF that they ARE is based purely on the speculative nature of your own warped minds, fueled by the inconsistent insistences of one miserable mystery woman's moving tales of abuse. Hmm, how to reconcile all this and remain on the forum. How will I handle this? Simple. Resetting my preferences.. C:\>/ignore idiots Lacey . [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 73. "FT" Posted by darby on 10:52:46 5/18/2000 My interpretation of what I've heard is both Fleets. I may be wrong. I'd like to clear this up RIGHT NOW. mame--have you seen or has Lee Hill seen, documentation written prior to the murder of MW's abuse by BOTH Fleets? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]