Justice Watch Discussion Board "MW & Mame, Part III" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... MW & Mame, Part III, Chris, 17:41:57, 5/18/2000 Lie Detector Test, Chris, 17:45:05, 5/18/2000, (#1) ..no doubt, Nikki, 18:23:15, 5/18/2000, (#2) Nik, Lacey, 18:33:46, 5/18/2000, (#4) Oy vey, maundy, 18:29:42, 5/18/2000, (#3) Maundy, Househazard, 18:46:57, 5/18/2000, (#5) ..yes it is Lacey, Nikki, 18:58:27, 5/18/2000, (#6) Maundy, Seashell, 19:11:47, 5/18/2000, (#7) Seashell, frankg, 19:36:13, 5/18/2000, (#10) Final Transcript, mame, 19:26:49, 5/18/2000, (#9) mame, Sioux, 20:22:59, 5/18/2000, (#11) Thanks mame, Bobby, 19:24:47, 5/18/2000, (#8) frankg, seashell, hh, maundy, 00:00:39, 5/19/2000, (#12) Continuing from my post on the last thread..., darby, 04:02:24, 5/19/2000, (#15) MW, You think?, Gram, 03:42:41, 5/19/2000, (#13) btw, maundy, 03:52:25, 5/19/2000, (#14) Darby, you posted, Gram, 04:32:59, 5/19/2000, (#17) Too Much Doubt, Lacey, 04:07:36, 5/19/2000, (#16) Gram and Lacey, darby, 06:09:59, 5/19/2000, (#18) Darby, Luvsbeagles, 06:30:57, 5/19/2000, (#19) OKAY, darby, 06:47:37, 5/19/2000, (#21) Darby, hareen, 06:46:02, 5/19/2000, (#20) Thanks hareen, darby, 07:07:05, 5/19/2000, (#22) Darby, Gram, 07:55:13, 5/19/2000, (#25) Darby, Real Stormy, 07:43:09, 5/19/2000, (#23) Why all of this emotion?, BusDriver, 07:47:55, 5/19/2000, (#24) Post 13 Above, Gram, 08:01:41, 5/19/2000, (#26) And, Gram, Real Stormy, 08:05:29, 5/19/2000, (#27) I think, dixie, 08:25:27, 5/19/2000, (#29) Full Moon, Dianne E., 08:06:43, 5/19/2000, (#28) Second that Emotion, Lacey, 08:32:55, 5/19/2000, (#30) Amen, Lacey!, LurkerXIV, 08:38:03, 5/19/2000, (#32) Dianne E., Sioux, 08:38:19, 5/19/2000, (#33) Busdriver, Sioux, 08:36:01, 5/19/2000, (#31) ENOUGH, sarah, 09:04:43, 5/19/2000, (#34) Good advice, Sarah, Real Stormy, 09:06:56, 5/19/2000, (#35) maybe if the people in disagreement, pat, 09:17:05, 5/19/2000, (#37) Real Stormy, darby, 09:08:48, 5/19/2000, (#36) darby, Sioux, 09:20:08, 5/19/2000, (#38) It's a Deal, Darby, Real Stormy, 09:21:55, 5/19/2000, (#39) FWIW, Seashell, 10:30:17, 5/19/2000, (#40) So, Has Everyone Already Seen This, CommonSense, 10:36:31, 5/19/2000, (#41) And, Let's Not Forget This, CommonSense, 10:47:34, 5/19/2000, (#42) You know, gaiabetsy, 11:15:46, 5/19/2000, (#45) by the letter, Edie Pratt, 10:57:47, 5/19/2000, (#43) such confusion, Seashell, 11:15:05, 5/19/2000, (#44) I think all will, Holly, 11:21:49, 5/19/2000, (#46) Marketing - It's All About Timing, CommonSense, 11:30:26, 5/19/2000, (#47) Darby...., Pedro, 12:13:48, 5/19/2000, (#48) Pedro, Sioux, 12:53:31, 5/19/2000, (#50) I've stated this, gaiabetsy, 12:36:29, 5/19/2000, (#49) The White's Letter, BusDriver, 14:06:43, 5/19/2000, (#51) busdriver, becky, 14:11:08, 5/19/2000, (#52) can someone here tell me about Boulder?, Edie Pratt, 15:17:24, 5/19/2000, (#53) ................................................................... "MW & Mame, Part III" Posted by Chris on 17:41:57 5/18/2000 . [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "Lie Detector Test" Posted by Chris on 17:47:09 5/18/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 17:47:09, 5/18/2000 When I spoke with 'Bridget' last week after her meeting with the BPD, one of the things she mentioned to me was about her offer to take a lie detector test. Since this wasn't part of the interview with Mame, I have asked 'Bridget' for permission to post this information and she has agreed. 'Bridget' indicated to me that she did, in fact, ask the BPD to give her a lie detector test. The BPD turned down her offer to do so. It should be duly noted that she didn't make any demands such as who should do it, when or where it should be done or what should happen with the results. Go figure... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "..no doubt" Posted by Nikki on 18:23:15 5/18/2000 ..as to bridget (the Irish maid?..what is that supposed to be all about :) ..being a terribly misused person.. ..but fleet could answer a question ..is there any way J Ramsey knew about the skeleton in the white closet? ..is there a link of knowledge somewhere in all of this? ..how did the california connection originate? ..and what can bridget do now? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "Nik" Posted by Lacey on 18:33:46 5/18/2000 As early as Spring '97 Hunter was trying to get Jeff Shapiro to run out to California to check-out Mr. White.. Hunter thought he was weird, that White man. Wanted to dig some dirt on him. His key witness! Apparently this was at the same time Hunter showed Shapiro John Eller's personnel file and suggested he run a story in The Globe to defame him. Shapiro didn't see the connection, wouldn't do it. He didn't have any problem trying to blackmail Steve Thomas, though. Go figure. The Frost-Hunter connection has always bothered me and I've often wondered what's up with that It's all very weird, eh? Lace . [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "Oy vey" Posted by maundy on 18:29:42 5/18/2000 I'm a JR-done-it theorist. I believe I am in the minority here. But I'm not beat up every time I mention it (ignored maybe). I do not feel any need to belittle or question the sanity or motives of MW. She came forward to help and got the WithHunt mentality thrown in her face. I don't understand the uproar here. Isn't this entire forum about speculation? Until Thomas's book and POS came out, there were many pieces of evidence being debated here that were not verified to exist. An example would be me questioning why a naval pilot only served three years. This fact was reported in every book and almost every paper, but turned out to be false. I repect Steve Thomas to the utmost, while disagreeing with his theory. I don't need to bash him. As far as mame's objectivity, I'd say she's infintely more objective than the majority of the media (anybody who dislikes Clinton would agree with me). But what I really don't understand is why she's being bashed for making herself present in this forum. She is giving us the greatest gift of herself and her time. Isn't there a word for ppl who sit in front of football games and question the referees calls? Since none of us know the absolute truth, and even those of us who believe it was one of the ramseys are not in agreement, shouldn't every of us then be considered guilty of defamation? I, for one, do not believe that, but think the standard should be applied fairly across the board of all opinions. Was Fleet White involved? Posters here are not the first to wonder, so I hardly think anyone can be accused of sullying the Whites reputations. Last year, after PMPT came out, I tried discussing the case. Not one of my friends were following it. We are in a fishbowl. Our opinions are important to us here on the forum, but I sincerely doubt the world is holding its collective breath waiting for our conclusions. Quickly, before I forget, [MW II] Gemini post #72 and Seashell post #75: VOR, IMHO. Darby, I see the RA aspects, also. Good book called "Cult and Ritual Abuse" by Noblitt. In no way sensationalistic, extremely rational discussion about the prevalence of RA. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "Maundy" Posted by Househazard on 18:46:57 5/18/2000 I believe the term is "armchair quarterback". All we can do with this case is speculate. We believe the BPD didn't do their jobs when it came (comes) to investigating the Ramseys further. When the BPD says MW case is closed, we believe them. The FBI still has a hold of it though and when they say MW is a no-go, I'll believe it. If we are to belive the DA, there isn't enough to indict the Ramseys, yet the public (most anyway) still find them guilty. This theory, that theory; it doesn't matter. We are all here for the same reason. If we were to go by solid proof, the only thing we have pointing to the Ramseys is the fibers "consistent" with Patsy's jacket. On the other hand, we have DNA that doesn't belong to a Ramsey (allegedly). I thank Mame for all she's done and I believe in time, we'll find out what she knows and can make our judgements from there. Househazard [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "..yes it is Lacey" Posted by Nikki on 18:58:27 5/18/2000 ..very weird ..and in my eagerness to make some sense of it I have forgotten most of the early Hunter-Shapiro 'facts' ..I have never kept notes and at this stage of the 'game' I regret that... .. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "Maundy" Posted by Seashell on 19:11:47 5/18/2000 Quickly, before I forget, [MW II] Gemini post #72 and Seashell post #75: VOR, IMHO. Darby, I see the RA aspects, also. Good book called "Cult and Ritual Abuse" by Noblitt. In no way sensationalistic, extremely rational discussion about the prevalence of RA." Humor me, please, What does VOR mean? Very ordinary rants? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "Seashell" Posted by frankg on 19:36:13 5/18/2000 VOR = Voice of Reason [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "Final Transcript" Posted by mame on 19:26:49 5/18/2000 Lovely Pigeon at Jameson's forum has kindly transcribed the remaining portion of my interview with "Bridget". Her transcript can be found at: http://161.58.21.56/dcf/jams/1830.html A special thanks to her for taking the time to type it, and share it with us. It is much appreciated. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "mame" Posted by Sioux on 20:22:59 5/18/2000 Thanks so much for that interview. This is the first time I listen to it complete. I'm still very confused....but....Aren't we all? Sioux [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "Thanks mame" Posted by Bobby on 19:24:47 5/18/2000 TC& MW the audio was awesome andvery enlightening. I wish MW the best as she begins a new phase of her life. Whatever comes of all this mame you are commended for reprting and bringing pleasantville into focus. If the people of Boulder elect another AH clone than it is what they deserve. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "frankg, seashell, hh" Posted by maundy on 00:00:39 5/19/2000 frankg - thanks for clarifying for me. seashell - sorry for the confusion. hh - armchair quarterback, thanks. liked the rest of your post, too. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "Continuing from my post on the last thread..." Posted by darby on 04:02:24 5/19/2000 I want to address all of you who claim to think that MW brings a tale of BS to this case. Most of you are probably married to whatever theory you already have. Some of you are being led like sheep. A few of you are just plain--I won't say it. But when I start seeing otherwise rational posters beginning to sound irrational whenever MW is mentioned, when I start seeing blanket statements without ANY explanation that any theory which incorporates things that MW has brought forward is wrong, when I start seeing people who I have NEVER seen argue with emotion rather than intellect begin to do so... Then I have to wonder what is going on. ANY of you who CLAIM to think she is a fraud, tell me this much--MW has all but said outright that she was abused by FW Sr. and Jr. and that this was documented WELL BEFORE THE MURDER OF JBR--and this must be true or Lee Hill and AH would never have looked twice at her. I'm asking you---I'M BEGGING YOU--to address that issue. I don't want to LOLs or claims that believers are akin to Kennedy conspirists (and that includes those who of you tend to simply applaud those who say such things)--NO! I want to hear you address the issue of PRIOR-TO-THE-MURDER accounts incriminating the Whites. AGAIN, the issue is that MW chronicled ritual sex abuse by the Whites BEFORE THE MURDER. Address that before you go any further! I have never seen more emotional reaction on this forum than since MW stepped forward. Some of the biggest Burke theorists are sh!tting bricks over this. Some of the most rational posters have failed to address ANY of the FACTS that we have heard concerning MW. And I have heard NO good arguments about these things--only blanket dismissals of anyone who raises these issues. WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON? I know that I said I'm done talking about MW, but I had to get this out. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "MW, You think?" Posted by Gram on 03:42:41 5/19/2000 m: And the garnet ring was ...seemed to be signficant. ANYWAY...so...let's get back to the connect up to the Ramsey case, the garotting. And that was done to you how many years, until you were how old? c: Well, I think the garotting has gone into the present date. MW, this is very puzzling! Were you garotted on the day of this interview? What is going on in your life that you are still being abused? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "btw" Posted by maundy on 03:52:25 5/19/2000 i musta read thru MWII pretty fast, cuz when i went back and reread 72 and 75 and quite a few others, i realized i plagarized from quite a few posts. so if you recognize your words, you know i admired them. and i always admire mame and maw and chris for going far, far, far above the call of duty. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "Darby, you posted" Posted by Gram on 04:32:59 5/19/2000 Most of you are probably married to whatever theory you already have. Some of you are being led like sheep. A few of you are just plain--I won't say it. Darby, It Takes One To Know One! Your post is highly emotional, never mind how emotional others seem to be. It is so wrong and unfair to toss out a families name for endless speculation and gossip. There is no evidence against this family. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "Too Much Doubt" Posted by Lacey on 04:07:36 5/19/2000 >this must be true or Lee Hill and AH would never have looked twice at her. LOL, sorry. You just don't get it Just because someone says it with conviction, does not make it so. She has nothing, nada, to back this up. I don't care what somebody SAYS. Show me the money Lace . [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "Gram and Lacey" Posted by darby on 06:09:59 5/19/2000 Again. Address the issue I raised. If there is documentation prior to the murder about FW abuse, how can you say that MW retro-fitted her story to JBR's murder? If there is documentation prior to the murder about FW abuse, how can you say that MW retro-fitted her story to JBR's murder? If there is documentation prior to the murder about FW abuse, how can you say that MW retro-fitted her story to JBR's murder? If there is documentation prior to the murder about FW abuse, how can you say that MW retro-fitted her story to JBR's murder? Why won't you answer that???? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "Darby" Posted by Luvsbeagles on 06:30:57 5/19/2000 I dont mean to speak for Lacey....but isnt the answer to the problem right in your post? ...i.e.."If there is ..." That seems to be a lot of the trouble, no one knows what type of documentation there is. There are so many "ifs". No one has seen anything that documents any of this. I am not saying that the documentation isnt there...far from it, but no one here to my knowledge has seen any of it. It is hard to base convictions just on something someone says. I always get the feeling listening to Mame and her interviews (and I enjoy them..thanks Mame!) that she perhaps HAS seen some of this evidence but cant talk about it. If so, (theres that if word again) then I feel for her as it must be frustrating as she views the skepticism of others, but I am sure she would agree that it is normal, even perhaps imperative to be skeptical about serious claims such as this without evidence. I dont think being skeptical and reserving judgment about something before evidence is shown is in any way not compassionate. I know that I feel genuine concern for this woman, whatever her situation, while still reserving my opinion for when or "if" all the facts become known. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. "OKAY" Posted by darby on 06:47:37 5/19/2000 That's all I ask. IF there is such documentation, and this is proven to doubting posters' satisfaction, will this THEN be enough for y'all to start at least considering the possibility of a JBR connection? I will appreciate an answer from the rest of you. Thank you, LB. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "Darby" Posted by hareen on 06:46:02 5/19/2000 I absolutely agree that it would be impossible for me to write off MW's claims as unrelated to this case IF it's PROVEN that she mentioned similar abuse by the Whites BEFORE the murder. But I want to address the question you keep asking about what her critics would say if that is shown to be the case. They will say the therapist is in on the ruse. And that's one possibility, I'll admit. I just wish people could discuss this without such emotion and that each side would allow the other to voice what they feel without attacking the person for being uncaring (about MW or the Whites). For example, someone might have information that would prove this isn't a plot concocted by MW, her therapist and others. Maybe Mame does. If there could be an honest, logical, unemotional discussion involving both sides, I really think some progress could be made here. Luvsbeagles post #90 on the MW and Mame part 2 thread would be a good starting place. I believe there are a lot of us who don't know what to think, but are afraid to ask questions for fear of being attacked. A question might be taken as accusatory when it is genuinely just a plea for information so we know how to progress with our theorizing. One more thing. To those of you who claim to have information discounting MW's story, don't you have an obligation to the Whites to lay it out for us? Why are you keeping it to yourselves? I just don't get that. And Darby, I have the greatest admiration for your insights and logic. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "Thanks hareen" Posted by darby on 07:07:05 5/19/2000 And I, too, would like to hear from White supporters, even though I know it's tough to prove a negative. Maybe there is information out there which might help to show that the Whites could not be who MW says they are. All I'm after is the truth. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. "Darby" Posted by Gram on 07:55:13 5/19/2000 >And I, too, would like to hear >from White supporters, even though I >know it's tough to prove a >negative. Maybe there is information >out there which might help to >show that the Whites could not >be who MW says they are. > All I'm after is >the truth. Is there information out there that might help to show me just exactly what MW is charging the White family with? Is it in the audio tapes, transcribed tapes, where? Do a few select posters know the facts and the rest of us just spin our wheels? I will continue to support the Whites; I have never met them or had any communication with them. They may need as much support as MW is receiving from this forum. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. "Darby" Posted by Real Stormy on 07:44:54 5/19/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 07:44:54, 5/19/2000 In answer to your three questions about documentation. In a word, the answer is YES. Now, may I ask you--if the documentation you mention does not exist, will you have the grace to say you were wrong? I also want to make it clear that when the lawsuits for libel start flying, I have not been and will not be part of the feeding frenzy canibalizing the White family. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "Why all of this emotion?" Posted by BusDriver on 07:47:55 5/19/2000 Many are asking why there is all of this emotion in the debate over MW and her story. It occurs to me the difference between MW and other witnesses in this case is that MW is claiming sexual abuse. I think that most of us know that a major problem for victims of sexual abuse face is that their claims are often ignored or not taken seriously by people in authority. This is a major aspect of the crime of sexual abuse and one of the things that makes it so difficult for the victim to escape. So, whenever you doubt the story of a "victim" of sexual abuse, you are on a pretty slippery slope. Unless you are very careful in your comments and analysis, you are apt to be grouped in with the people who help to perpetuate sexual abuse. Contrast this with the act of doubting Patsy's story regarding the events on the morning of 26DEC. If you doubt her story, there is no danger that you are trapping her in a never-ending cycle of pathological lying. In fact, being a doubter is one of the things that can stop this cycle of pathological lying. Because of the nature of MW's allegations, I believe that we need to do our "doubting" of her story with utmost care. To be good sleuths, we do indeed need to face every new witness with healthy skepticism. However, we need to adjust the tone of that skepticism to the nature of the witness. I don't think that this is just being "politically correct." I think that it is being appropriate in a world were crimes like sexual abuse create a very difficult task for detection and reporting. I do think that MW's story ought to be examined for inconsistencies. I do feel that people ought to be able to ask (in an appropriately sensitive way) how MW could allow abuse to continue till the current time. We are all not fully informed about what happens to these abuse victims as adults. I know that I am not. I believe that this witness is a special case because of the nature of her allegations. So, I think that the doubting of this witness needs to take on a careful and professional form. To those who say that this witness should get the same treatment as everyone else, I have to disagree. To those who say that we cannot doubt this witness, I have to disagree as well. We need to open up a new box of surgical sleuthing tools and put them to work. I hope that JWers are up to the task. BD [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 26. "Post 13 Above" Posted by Gram on 08:01:41 5/19/2000 There was no response to this. MW "thinks" the garotting is going on at the present time. I do not understand this statement. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 27. "And, Gram" Posted by Real Stormy on 08:05:29 5/19/2000 It is likely you never will...... It puzzles me too. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 29. "I think" Posted by dixie on 08:25:27 5/19/2000 I got the feeling that she was talking about the children who are still being abused are still being garrotted. that just because 'the garrotter' has died that the act of garrotting is still going on. I assume she says "I think" is because she is not one of the abusers and has no reason to think that this form of abuse has stopped. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 28. "Full Moon" Posted by Dianne E. on 08:06:43 5/19/2000 I can only suppose part of yesterday was because of the full moon. I have been following the conversations and read with interest. Ritual Abuse has been my long held theory about JonBenet's murder. Of course I had not "envisioned" a pack of people standing around committing the crime. I believe Ritual Abuse happens. I believe in reading all sides. What I am seeing is hysteria IMO instead of conversation and a whole bunch of name calling. Somehow I cannot reconcile what appears to be such a violent attack on the Whites and such a presumption of guilt toward them. I do not know Lee Hill or the therapist and have a difficult time following their lead on this one. Then you throw in support from Hunter and what do you have, a BIG hinky in my book. All quite worthy of civilized discussion. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL Dianne E. ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 30. "Second that Emotion" Posted by Lacey on 08:32:55 5/19/2000 Darby. I am not getting you. It's like there's some kind of, short circuit, or something, hampering your reasoning prowess. Sorry, but your so-called issue is not an issue. You've made fact from factoid, taken a huge leap, and joined the faction in carelessly bashing reps with this foolish fanaticism. MWs story does not pan out and you and your kin WITH NO PROOF have run roughshod over a family's name. You leveled shocking accusations and sensational innuendo based on the word of one very disturbed woman. To have suspicions, that is one thing. But your little lynch mob went beyond reason and that's the problem I have with this. Emotional? Hardly. Don't go projecting your own anguish on me, 'cause there's nothing emotional about it except my disdain at you all for continuing. Look at it this way. Steve Thomas laid out a succinct scenario with evidence and backed by his own credentials and experience, awa the very case against a Ramsey, and you don't believe him. BUT. "Bridget" comes forward with lurid tales of abuse and sex-rings and you extend blanket authenticity, even though recent parts of her story are inconsistent and hindered by a history of histrionics which has been verified. Everyone cites her successful prosecution of a predator from twenty years ago, but why do you ignore her false claims and police reports of a more recent nature? Not to mention the result of an eleven-week investigation into her Boulder connection claims which didn't pan out either. So she's been discredited in CA and CO. And y'all scream conspiracy I agree this woman is suffering, but I also think she is pandering to your incessant need for the perverse and possibly her own desire for attention. She was investigated and proven unreliable. Her claims did not pan out. It's done. Let it go for chrissakes. Lacey . [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 32. "Amen, Lacey!" Posted by LurkerXIV on 08:38:03 5/19/2000 Meanwhile Patsy the Perpette goes merrily on her way, leaping on the religious evangelism bandwagon. What a master illusionist she is! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 33. "Dianne E." Posted by Sioux on 08:38:19 5/19/2000 **Then you throw in support from Hunter and what do you have, a BIG hinky in my book.** Here's another BIG hinky: Lou Smit and MW [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 31. "Busdriver" Posted by Sioux on 08:36:01 5/19/2000 Great post. I completely agree with you (100%). Sioux [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 34. "ENOUGH" Posted by sarah on 09:04:43 5/19/2000 ..Wasn't all this discussed yesterday ad nauseaum, with so many solemn vows from the doubters that THIS indeed would be their last post about MW? KINDLY DO AS YOU SAID: Ignore the threads and posts that reference MW, ritual abuse, sex rings, pedophilia, or ANYTHING ELSE you find personally offensive or that you consider off case... Leave the rest of us alone to sleuth to our own heart's content. It is not your right, your assignment, your place, to dictate to us what we care to sleuth. There are many of us, I repeat MANY of us, who are interested this aspect, and wish to be left alone to pursue it. Follow through with your own words; drop the subject and the provencial name calling NOW. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 35. "Good advice, Sarah" Posted by Real Stormy on 09:06:56 5/19/2000 And may I suggest you take it? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 37. "maybe if the people in disagreement" Posted by pat on 09:17:05 5/19/2000 would talk directly to each other via email it might tone things down here. Seems all we do is bash at each other when none of us know the truth of things. None know if the mystery woman's story pans out other than she was raped at age 17 and the details of that are vague. None know if she even accused anyone other than senior. None know about the alleged false accusations. The words we use are very accusatory,,perhaps if people talked privately and took a more analytical approach to what we hear, rumor, and speculate we might begin to sort this out. This is all so sickening. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 36. "Real Stormy" Posted by darby on 09:09:57 5/19/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 09:09:57, 5/19/2000 It's somewhat of a deal. I will freely admit that certain ideas I considered as possible concerning the Whites were wrong if they turn out to be wrong. But please understand that I would never have questioned the Whites if Hill, Hunter and McKinley, who presumably have seen evidence, hadn't questioned the Whites. These people saw evidence and made public statements based on that. I didn't just conjure this stuff up. And questions remain, as far as I'm concerned, because the BPD neither addressed the prior documentation claim nor did they exhonerate the Whites of all wrongdoing in their recent statement. My contention has always been that I think there's a possible connection only if there is prior documentation. Sounds like you feel the same way, right? If BPD has seen no such documents, then they owe it to the Whites to tell the public. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 38. "darby" Posted by Sioux on 09:20:08 5/19/2000 **My contention has always been that I think there's a possible connection only if there is prior documentation.If BPD has seen no such documents, then they owe it to the Whites to tell the public** My sentiments exactly. Sioux [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 39. "It's a Deal, Darby" Posted by Real Stormy on 09:21:55 5/19/2000 When I personally see documentation, I will freely and openly admit I was wrong and apologize to all concerned. Your post indicates to me, absent this documentation, you will do the same. As of now, I don't presume anything. I certainly don't presume to know whether or not Hill, McKinley, etc. have seen documentation. And I can't be a party to destroying anyone's reputation on a presumption, even if I did. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 40. "FWIW" Posted by Seashell on 10:30:17 5/19/2000 I think the reason that MW has caused such an uproar everywhere is that she points to the crime being SEXUAL - and that is a subject that JR has carefully made sure is not made public. Everything that has gone down in this case started early on and started with JR being innocent and PR being guilty. And here's where it started. Following is a quote from a mainstream newspaper which is the only documented writing that I know of, that "eliminates" JR as the note writer. "* The analysis of the handwriting samples obtained from John Ramsey showed `indications' that John Ramsey did not write the reported ransom note" What the hell does this mean and how the hell do you prove a negative. And why and how would this ridiculous piece of illogic eliminate him? If he hadn't be eliminated, I guarantee that MW would have been treated with more respect. Any piece of info or any witness that talks about sex is summarily dissed, dismissed, discredited. And now I'll post another tidbit from Boyles, again in July, or maybe June of '97. 7/1/97 - "I received a packet yesterday from Mississippi...it's too bizarre...it damns some people...he (?) had Eddie Edwards, the gov. of LA...it was an elaborate...this theory was evil pagan worship involving very high profile people." ATTN NEWBIES - Don't run with this. It might mean nothing! My point is the the sexual nature of this crime has been insinuating itself since the murder and people are very resistant to acknowledging it - even ST. But entertain calmly the notion that JR may have written the note, or at the very least helped, and the picture changes, doesn't it? "* The analysis of the handwriting samples obtained from John Ramsey showed `indications' that John Ramsey did not write the reported ransom note" YOU CANNOT PROVE A NEGATIVE. WHY WAS THIS MAN ELIMINATED AS THE WRITER? (A good shout in the morning feels good!) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 41. "So, Has Everyone Already Seen This" Posted by CommonSense on 10:36:31 5/19/2000 Dear chebrock, I cant remember where I saw you post (CyberSleuths? JW?) but thought you often had very insightful comments and reads on different issues in this case. A few people were polygraphed in this case, but I dont want to say who right now. When you ask if this was how we "cleared" people, that was but just one way of many. Alibis, handwriting, polys (in some cases), etc The Stines are a long story -- and to have an opinion and to offer it (talking to the detectives who dealt with her, for example), I would say they she certainly was not the epitome of cooepraiton in this case, (IMO). I cite one encounter in the book. The White's bent over backwards to help, until they were so wronged by Hutner and the Boulder justice system. These fine people, of the utmost integrity, could not have done more to seek jsutice for JB. There is no way in the world, and I would stake everything on this, that the Whites are invovled in any way whatsoever. Sorry we couldnt go on, but time and slow typing (on my part) keep me limited in response. keep up your good work! all my best, Steve T [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 42. "And, Let's Not Forget This" Posted by CommonSense on 10:47:34 5/19/2000 Fleet and Priscilla White's letter to the People of Colorado - August 17th, 1998 To the people of Colorado: On August 12, 1998, Boulder District Attorney Alex Hunter announced that he would be presenting the JonBenet Ramsey murder case to a Boulder grand jury at the expense of the State of Colorado. Colorado grand jury law requires that both jurors and witnesses take an oath of secrecy regarding grand jury proceedings and testimony. In anticipation of receiving a subpoena to appear before that grand jury, we wish at this time to address matters concerning the investigation which we feel are of great importance to the people of Colorado and the Boulder community. After JonBenet Ramsey was killed in Boulder nearly twenty months ago, her parents, John and Patsy Ramsey, immediately hired prominent Democrat criminal defense attorneys with the law firm of Haddon, Morgan and Foreman. This firm and its partners have close professional, political and personal ties to prosecutors, the Denver and Boulder legal and judicial communities, state legislators, and high-ranking members of Colorado government, including Governor Roy Romer. The investigation of her death has since been characterized by confusion and delays. The district attorney and Ramsey defense attorneys started early in the investigation to condition the public to believe that these delays and the lack of a prosecution have resulted almost entirely from initial police bungling of the case and the noncooperation of witnesses. This has continued to this day. Advising the district attorney since the early days of the investigation have been Denver metropolitan area district attorneys Bob Grant (Adams County), Bill Ritter (Denver County), Jim Peters (18th Judicial District), and Dave Thomas (1st Judicial District). Recently, Boulder police detective Steve Thomas, an investigator on the JonBenet Ramsey murder case, left the department in disgust. In his August 6 letter of resignation, he publicly accused the district attorney of obstructing the police investigation and allowing politics to "trump" justice. He asked that a special prosecutor be brought in to handle the case. We knew JonBenet and her parents very well and have been closely involved in the investigation as witnesses. During the past year, we have also come to know and respect Mr. Thomas and were saddened and discouraged by his departure from the investigation. We share Mr. Thomas' view regarding the district attorney and his contention that overwhelming pressure brought to bear on the district attorney and police leadership from various quarters has thwarted the investigation and delayed justice in the case. While it is unlikely that the district attorney has been corrupted by Ramsey defense attorneys, it is certain that the district attorney and his prosecutors have been greatly influenced by their metro area district attorney advisers and by defense attorneys' chummy persuasiveness and threats of reprisals for anyone daring to jeopardize the civil rights of their victim clients. Indeed, the district attorney and the Ramsey attorneys have simultaneously rebuked the police for "focusing" their investigation on the Ramseys when in fact police were simply following evidence. During the course of the investigation, district attorney has used inexplicable methods including the recruitment of magazine writers and tabloids to leak information concerning the case and to needle witnesses, "suspects", and police detectives. He has provided evidence to Ramsey defense attorneys at their request but denied reasonable requests by witnesses for their own statements to police. He has thoroughly alienated police detectives and key witnesses whose cooperation is vital to the investigation and prosecution. His public statements regarding the investigation have been erratic, evasive, and misleading. They have also been profoundly damaging to the case. Understandably, public confidence in the district attorney's handling of the investigation was low even before Mr. Thomas' letter. Notwithstanding what the public has been led to believe, Boulder police leadership and detectives have been under the effective control of the attorney and his advisers since the early days of the investigation. In December, 1997, we met with Governor Romer to request that the state intervene and appoint an independent special prosecutor to take over the investigation and prosecution of the case. Citing the growing conflict between police and prosecutors and the delay of any progress in the investigation, we expressed our view that Boulder authorities were incapable of seeking justice. We also pointed out specific circumstances which we felt could inhibit or restrict Governor Romer's willingness to intervene. In early January, 1998, we were advised that he had decided against intervention on the advice of Boulder Police Chief Tom Koby. Chief Koby, who has since left the department, had told Governor Romer that the investigation was incomplete and therefore had not been given to the district attorney for prosecution. In short, there had been no failure to prosecute and thus no basis for the state's intervention. Upon learning of his decision, we wrote a letter published January 16, 1998 in the Boulder Daily Camera expressing our views and requesting that Governor Romer reconsider his decision. Recently, Governor Romer publicly stated that he did not recall the letter. We hope that this letter will make a stronger impression. Since our meeting with Governor Romer eight months ago, the public has been shown the forced reconciliation of demoralized police detectives with the district attorney and his prosecutors and a sequence of odd and highly publicized milestones In the case. In March, 1998, police Chief Koby and lead investigator Mark Beckner (later to be appointed police chief), made an unusual public appeal to the district attorney for a grand jury investigation on the pro bono advice of three prominent Denver attorneys. In response, the district attorney requested a complete presentation by police of evidence. This presentation occurred over two days in early June, 1998, and was witnessed by prosecutors, representatives of the State Attorney General's office, prominent forensic scientists, and advisers of the district attorney and the police department. The public was then told that the investigation had been finally transferred to the district attorney from the police department and that the district attorney would now require some indeterminate length of time to review the case prior to making a decision concerning the police request for a grand jury investigation. Upon leaving the presentation, both Alex Hunter and Mark Beckner made inappropriate but tantalizing comments designed to give the public hope that the case may yet be "solved". They warned, however, that there was still a lot of work to do and that additional evidence was needed. Then, in late June, 1998, the public was once again brought in on a major development in the case. The Ramseys were interviewed by representatives of the district attorney in a carefully orchestrated demonstration of their willingness to cooperate in the investigation now that biased and incompetent police detectives were no longer involved. Most developments in the case brought to the public's attention throughout 1997 should be regarded as well-publicized but clumsy attempts by the district attorney and police leadership to look busy, follow long "task lists", and clean up investigative files while the district attorney killed time and spread-out responsibility for the case. On the other hand, "advances" in the case since early this year have been carefully planned to condition the public for a grand jury investigation. The district attorney's past indecision and the need for the police to ask him for a grand jury investigation were deliberate attempts to mislead the public. If based on nothing other than the district attorney's repeated public statements and leaks characterizing the case as "not prosecutable", there can be little doubt that, absent a confession, the people running the investigation had long ago decided against filing charges in the case. Instead, they manipulated public opinion to favor the use of the grand jury. There is compelling evidence, however, that their motivation for presenting the case to a grand jury has little or nothing to do with obtaining new evidence, grilling "reluctant" witnesses, or returning an indictment and everything to do with sealing away facts, circumstances and evidence gathered in the investigation in a grand jury transcript. It is our firm belief that the district attorney and others intend to use the grand jury and its secrecy in an attempt to protect their careers and also serve the conflicting interests of powerful, influential, and threatening people who have something to hide or protect or who simply don't want to be publicly linked to a dreadful murder investigation. Also weighing on the district attorney has been the matter of preserving and protecting the now "cooperative" and forthcoming Ramseys' rights as victims. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 45. "You know" Posted by gaiabetsy on 11:15:46 5/19/2000 the Whites speak the truth in that letter. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 43. "by the letter" Posted by Edie Pratt on 10:57:47 5/19/2000 it appears the White's believe in ST. Hence, they believe Patsy didit? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 44. "such confusion" Posted by Seashell on 11:15:05 5/19/2000 >"it appears the White's believe in ST. >Hence, they believe Patsy didit?" Good question. And here's one for FW. Why did you say to JR, "I'll see you in court." I don't believe that FW JR was involved and I never heard anyone say that. I did hear Carol mention Senior, and I'm waiting on that one. The name FW was bandied about a lot for awhile and I think there was confusion as to which White was being discussed. I've never read nor heard MW mention that she was abused by Junior. Darby, if you have something written or quoted on that, I'd like to read it. Don't quote the Boyles show, as I disagree with your take on it, altho I'll read it again slowly. But we've already been thru this I think. But Mr Godfather Senior and MW's mother, (who's a piece of work), interest me greatly. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 46. "I think all will" Posted by Holly on 11:21:49 5/19/2000 be revealed. It's not fair to muscle MW. No one wants the world to know more than she, IMO. But there are limitations. There are legitimate concerns for the safety of MW and others. Children are involved - her niece, maybe others. Even with powerful docs, I still think some will not be impressed. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 47. "Marketing - It's All About Timing" Posted by CommonSense on 11:30:26 5/19/2000 Dec. 25, 1996 Six-year old JonBenet Ramsey is last seen when being put to bed at 10 p.m., according to police reports. Years later - It is now the year 2000 and the Ramsey book is out. Here is a look backwards at the headlines from Rocky Mountain news articles since mid-March of this year. How many days between mid-Feb. and the release of the book? How many days since mid-Feb. of 2000 and the death of JonBenet? March 16 - Ramsey book excerpts Owens denies Ramseys' charge Ramseys cite 7 key pieces of evidence Hunter's move puzzles legal experts March 15 - Ramseys still critical of Boulder cops DAs tried to block testimony by Smit March 14 - Ramseys: Killer may be familiar with family Coroner examines JonBenet photos March 13 - New look for Boulder DA office New JonBenet evidence revealed March 10 - News chosen to interview the Ramseys Hunter decides to call it quits Ramseys' books put under armed guard March 9 - Boulder DA announces retirement Hunter's statement March 6 - Ramsey case detectives to interview therapist March 4 - Judge: Prosecutor to stay on Ramsey ransom note case February 28 - Ramsey tipster painted as unreliable February 27 - 'There's no escaping this deal,' ex-cop says of JonBenet case Therapist backs client who claims to have JonBenet murder information [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 48. "Darby...." Posted by Pedro on 12:13:48 5/19/2000 .....I am skeptical, but if evidence is shown that prove MW's storie is the true regarding its connection to the JBR murder, I'll be happy with such a big development in this case. If MW's storie is true with regards to her own abuse, that I believe she was a victim of, we'll have a new case to look at. By now, I know she was abused in 1979 and she complain and denounced several other abuses in the last 10 years and according to the California authorities these last ones were dismissed or faulse, even tho' I think she could had been abused in the last 10 years, still her connection to JBR is far from be even an *IF*, and if I am wrong and others have more info than we do, than wouldn't be my fault, but theirs for not sharing it, no one can be asked to believe just by faith, MW has given me nothing to believe her, the authorities had given me a lot not to, regarding her connection to the JBR case. Pedro/MidWest. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 50. "Pedro" Posted by Sioux on 12:53:31 5/19/2000 **and if I am wrong and others have more info than we do, than wouldn't be my fault, but theirs for not sharing it, no one can be asked to believe just by faith, MW has given me nothing to believe her, the authorities had given me a lot not to, regarding her connection to the JBR case.** That's my feeling too. I trust Chris and mame very much, but I don't see the evidence that they have seen and every piece of info we get is surrounded by hush hush because there is still an ongoing investigation.So it's wierd . If we are skeptical, we are said that "we don't want to SEE sexual abuse when IT EXISTS"..etc. etc. If we go the other way, we are BELIEVERS in the MW through Chris' and mame's experiences. We are "good" (paraphrasing lake , we "belong to the human race", he he he , boy do I love that , it cracks me up everytime).Soooo.... I keep thinking the most probable possibility (can I say that?) is that FW senior was an asshole long ago. Now he is old and doesn't even remember where he put his Altzheimer's pills, so who cares.Junior on the other hand, IS a WHITE KNIGHT for the JB cause because as it sometimes happens, you want to OVERCOME your parents, not to be like them. Sioux [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 49. "I've stated this" Posted by gaiabetsy on 12:36:29 5/19/2000 before but I must reiterate that (being a victim of childhood sexual abuse) more often than not the said victims of this kind of abuse "leave their bodies" when bad stuff is going on. In other words, they dissociate a lot. It becomes a habit - a way to deal with unpleasant situations. Sometimes sexual abuse victims get fact and fiction intermingled. This is not to say they haven't been wronged. I know better. I'm just trying to explain how a person who is trying to tell only the truth may not always do so. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 51. "The White's Letter" Posted by BusDriver on 14:06:43 5/19/2000 The White's letter that was posted by CommonSense is an interesting read. From my reading of this, it seems that the Whites are sincerely eager to see a prosecution in this case. I guess that this is why so many of us find it hard to believe that FW or PW were involved in JBR's death. I imagine that it is possible that the Whites saw JR and PR in the crosshairs of the investegation and wanted it to continue quickly before the crosshairs were shifted to themselves. But, given the propensity of defendants to rat out their co-conspirators, I think that this would be a risky tactic on the White's part. It seems to me that if the Whites were involved in JBR's death, then it would be in the White's interest for there to be no Grand Jury and no prosecution. Once these things get started, they can easily draw in co-conspirators. So, in my mind, the White's behavior (as embodied in this letter) is really inconsistent with them being involved in JBR's death. I will admit the possibility that the Whites may have been involved in other unsavory activities. And, perhaps their sense of urgency was motivated by a desire to see the case closed before their unsavory activities were exposed. But, I find it very hard to believe that they were actually involved in JBR's death, and yet they pushed so hard for a more active pursuit of the case. In my opinion, it would just be too risky of a tactic. BD [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 52. "busdriver" Posted by becky on 14:16:39 5/19/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 14:16:39, 5/19/2000 good post...wish I'd said it myself. Sioux...you expressed my sentiments as well re: MW. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 53. "can someone here tell me about Boulder?" Posted by Edie Pratt on 15:17:24 5/19/2000 is it an incestuous little town? Does everyone know everyone there? Is FW well known, enough to be recognized in the grocery store, etc.? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]