Justice Watch Discussion Board "Deciphering the BPD PR and question for MW" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... Deciphering the BPD PR and question for MW, becky, 09:17:50, 5/19/2000 becky !, Sioux, 09:24:01, 5/19/2000, (#1) Becky, Real Stormy, 09:25:30, 5/19/2000, (#2) This just doesn't sound like a guilty man to me., becky, 11:28:11, 5/19/2000, (#3) Oops..I forgot his quote.., becky, 11:29:50, 5/19/2000, (#4) Not Sure If This Is Permitted..., 7kluz, 12:05:22, 5/19/2000, (#5) Wow, 7Klutz,, gaiabetsy, 12:17:10, 5/19/2000, (#6) gaiabetsy,, 7kluz, 12:30:52, 5/19/2000, (#7) Wow..great post!, becky, 12:55:56, 5/19/2000, (#8) That reminds me, becky, 13:02:44, 5/19/2000, (#9) 7klutz, Sioux, 13:15:04, 5/19/2000, (#10) O.K..., 7kluz, 13:19:44, 5/19/2000, (#11) Update on Mr. Ravitz..., 7kluz, 03:01:54, 5/22/2000, (#12) This should, starry, 03:57:09, 5/22/2000, (#13) Great invite!, Bobby, 06:00:13, 5/22/2000, (#14) Wow, momo, 07:05:18, 5/22/2000, (#15) caught in the web, maundy, 07:59:44, 5/22/2000, (#16) WOW, darby, 10:02:21, 5/22/2000, (#18) The Real World!, shadow, 09:43:22, 5/22/2000, (#17) shadow, darby, 10:10:25, 5/22/2000, (#19) FBI & the Ramsey case, Evan, 13:26:43, 5/22/2000, (#24) darby, shadow, 10:41:58, 5/22/2000, (#20) Clarify?, Seashell, 11:36:11, 5/22/2000, (#22) 7Kluz, listener, 11:23:14, 5/22/2000, (#21) Seashell, fly, 11:52:44, 5/22/2000, (#23) More likely, lake, 13:36:13, 5/22/2000, (#25) ................................................................... "Deciphering the BPD PR and question for MW" Posted by becky on 09:28:21 5/19/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 09:28:21, 5/19/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 09:23:58, 5/19/2000 Actually, I have to give the BPD a thumbs up on their press release. After reviewing the posts and getting some more insight, I think they did a dam n fine job of wording that. For those of you who haven't read it, what the BPD press release essentially DOESN'T say is that the Ramseys are clear of murder or that the Whites are clear from connections to those who run in the kiddie sex circles. And there have been no clarifications...even after relentless FW bashings to disprove the nasty negative either by the White house, the BPD or the press. What it does say is that they investigated the claims of MW and that they found no ADDITIONAL evidence to support the claim of a connection of FW to the murder of JBR. Additional being the key word since they apparently had previously found SOME evidence of a connection...but not enough to justify that the Whites were in anyway involved in the murder of jbr. So actually the BPD press release is pretty straight forward and clear stuff, thumbs up to the author. So....many Ramsey case watchers jumped up and down and immediately ass u me d that MW had all answers and FW and BPD suddenly became the evil bad guys ......OR that MW was a goofball worthy of humiliation and scorn, despite the credibility of her claims. But MW herself was the first to admit she didn't really know who killed jbr and though I acknowledge her credibility..her story really starts to break down when you get to the fine points of what happend on December 25th. In other words, her claim that she was abused by FW Sr (and Jr?) and that her mother told her FW Jr was the murderer (or innuendo to that effect)fails to explain a few some of the small details of the case..like why did Patsy write the ransom note as well as other nagging little details. Thus...the BPD press release is again straight forward..she doesn't provide any ADDITIONAL evidence to tie FW to the actual murder itself..along with some disclaimers such as (we make no judgements as to her claims) to prevent them from getting their ass sued by the Whites at some future point in time should some of her claims prove incorrect. But what the mystery woman did do, was take the mystery out of the case and let the cat out of the bag. No longer are we wondering ...how the hell did jbr wind up with a garrote around her neck to simply wondering WHO did it, and when. I just want to make two points before I go to work and ask MW a question. 1. Someone (I'll edit in the name later) made the point that Fleet White once said that there are those in Boulder who don't come forward because the don't connected to the case... This makes me think that he was saying, despite the kiddie connection, they should come forward to help solve the murder. 2. The BPD says there was no new evidence to support FW to the murder...because there is now only MW's verbal (and somewhat uneasy) claims that her mother told her that FW did it. My question for MW is this....It took you a long time to come forward with this claim. Is there ANY POSSIBILITY that your mother is being paid...or cohereced..or in anyway duping you into making this claim so that you would unwittingly help shine the light away from the real killer? And has it ever occurred to you, that if all is as you claim, that your own mother (or neice, depending on her age) could in fact be responsible for participating in activities leading up to death of jbr? And if FW did molest you as you claim...is it possible that you would protect your mother, whom you love, at the expense of someone who, perhaps didn't kill jbr..but you feel deserves punishment for wrongs he committed against you as a child? [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "becky !" Posted by Sioux on 09:24:01 5/19/2000 You go girl! THUMBS UP TO YOUR POST. Sioux [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "Becky" Posted by Real Stormy on 09:25:30 5/19/2000 I took the press release to mean that there was no evidence in addition to the claims made by MW. In other words, the only evidence is MW's claims. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "This just doesn't sound like a guilty man to me." Posted by becky on 11:28:11 5/19/2000 FW words below sound like the best synopsis of the case I have yet heard. Just doesn't sound like a guilty man to me. I am now of the thought that MW is indeed credible, but that she is being manipulated by AH and perhaps others (including her mother) to discredit the Whites who have cooperated in a case that will implicate someone in their circle. AH's use of the tabloids to discredit Steve Thomas says EVERYTHING we need to know about him and this seems like another sorry replay of his lack of character. But I think this will backfire...I think by MW letting the cat out of the bag regarding the kiddie porn connection between her and those present at White Family Holiday parties...it will eventually do less to discredit the Whites, more to discredit AH, and provided Ramsey Case watchers the insight they needed to figure out how jbr wound up with a garrotte around her neck that night. Seems like the most tightly held secrets are the most important...like for example the rumor (that was never squashed) that Patsy went out again that night with a "male friend". And that jbr was placed in the trunk of one of the other cars. Fleet's words..... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "Oops..I forgot his quote.." Posted by becky on 11:39:26 5/19/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 11:39:26, 5/19/2000 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. So there we have it...the Ramsey case in a nutshell. Eventually, the powerful, influential, threatening people will grow old and less powerful, influential and threatining and then the truth will come out. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "Not Sure If This Is Permitted..." Posted by 7kluz on 12:05:22 5/19/2000 but...I found this on a news group and wanted to pass it along. If it is unethical for this forum or has already been discussed, please remove and accept my apologies. 7kluz Subject: Ramsey DA silenced testimony on pedophilia From: Evan Ravitz evan@vote.org Date: 5/13/00 4:26 PM Central Daylight Time Message-id: <8fkh9c$jaj$1@nnrp1.deja.com> I have lived in Boulder 21 years, and my friend Bob McFarland for some 40. We tried to give testimony to the Ramsey grand jury but were thwarted by DA Alex Hunter, illegally. Here is my 4/29/00 guest editorial in the Boulder Daily Camera, with the paragraph they edited out, the 3rd to last. Note our web site at http://vote.org/ramsey 'Nothing is what it seems' in Ramsey case by Evan Ravitz When Ramsey case lead investigators Det. Cmdr. Tom Wickman and Det. Tom Trujillo interviewed myself and Robert McFarland, MD, co-founder of Boulder's Parenting Place for an hour at my home last May 5, Detective Wickman remarked "Nothing is what it seems in this case." Here are several examples that have not received media coverage, yet: DA Alex Hunter concluded his recent retirement statement by saying, regarding the Ramsey case: "I believe most people feel their district attorney has done right by the law." Mr. Hunter did not say he followed the law, only that people think he did. He did not follow this law: Colorado Revised Statute 16-5-204 (l) states "Any person may approach the prosecuting attorney or the grand jury and request to testify or retestify in an inquiry before a grand jury or to appear before a grand jury." Dr. McFarland and I, after discovering that Dr. McFarland's mailings to the jury foreman had been intercepted, sent material directly to jury members at their homes on June 28. For thus exercising our right under Colorado law to "approach" our fellow citizens the grand jury, we were threatened with prosecution for Contempt of Court! And ridiculed by editor Hartman of this newspaper. It was not until September 23rd that I read the above law myself. The Colorado ACLU Intake Director told me on October 8 that they would take our case, although this was too late to be of use, with the grand jury about to disband. Perhaps there will be another. But valuable time has been lost. The Denver Post reported on 3/15/00 that Hunter also tried to keep his own investigator Lou Smit away from the grand jury until Smit sought a court order to enforce the above law! Our evidence is similar to that which the woman from San Luis Obispo, California and her therapist have been giving Boulder police in recent weeks, featured in a long lead article (by editor Hartman) on February 25, and others since, relating to a pedophile ring having abused and killed JonBenet. At Hunter's press conference on October 14th, investigative journalist Joe Calhoun (who shares in an Academy award for the documentary The Panama Deception) asked why Dr. McFarland and I had been repeatedly prevented from contacting the grand jury, in spite of the law. Hunter replied that a judge's order (Daniel Hale's) forbade us, which seemed to satisfy the media. Yet, every lawyer knows that even judges and DAs must obey state laws. Why would these leaders of Boulder's justice system deem it so important to keep us from the grand jury that they would repeatedly violate this law? The substance of our testimony to the police and what we still want investigated is what it seems Hunter most wanted to avoid: the possibility that accused pedophiles in very high places in Boulder -we suggested two names- had both motive and means to de-rail the investigation in the first hours, possibly by calling off the FBI. The motive would be to keep the wide-ranging spotlight of a media case like this away from people like themselves, whether they were involved or not. Normally, the FBI would immediately assume jurisdiction over an apparent kidnapping by "a small foreign faction" (so read the "ransom note") of the child of a Defense contractor executive. (Lockheed-Martin owned Access Graphics.) Detective Linda Arndt has stated that she asked for the FBI and police backup before she even arrived at the Ramsey home and was told no. This left her unable to control a crime scene filled with suspects and their friends. When she repeated her request she was told everyone was in a meeting. Why would police administration repeatedly refuse to provide backup and FBI assistance in such circumstances? Tom Wickman made another curious comment to Dr. McFarland and I, and independently to Stephen Singular, author of "Presumed Guilty: An Investigation into the JonBenet Ramsey Case, the Media, and the Culture of Pornography" (on page 217). Tom said that once he was "getting close" to arresting a Boulder City Council member, but had been told to "back off." Since Tom was legally prohibited from giving us any clues about the Ramsey investigation, I feel he was repeatedly drawing an analogy, by way of saying that he'd heard the pedophile-coverup story before and had been told to back off from investigating that. Hunter made a little Freudian slip under the pressure of the October 14 press conference, in the first 2 minutes. He referred to "grand secrecy," apparently meaning to say "grand jury secrecy." In this case the grand jury didn't have to keep the secrets Dr. McFarland and I had to relate. Hunter and his assistants kept those secrets from the grand jury. They also prevented Cina Wong, Vice-President of the National Board of Document Examiners, from testifying. Why the "grand secrecy," Mr. Hunter? What makes the case important is not that JonBenet was cute and her parents rich, but what it says about the legal system in our town and beyond. My attorney David Lane calls it the "just us" system. You can read most of our documents and related material at vote.org/ramsey. Evan Ravitz Evan was voted "Best Activist" by readers of the Daily Camera -- Evan Ravitz (303)440-6838 evan (you know) vote.org Voted "Best Activist" by Boulder Daily Camera readers The Direct Democracy Initiative: http://vote.org Home (Boulder, Colorado USA): http://vote.org/ravitz -- Evan Ravitz (303)440-6838 evan (you know) vote.org Voted "Best Activist" by Boulder Daily Camera readers The Direct Democracy Initiative: http://vote.org Home (Boulder, Colorado USA): http://vote.org/ravitz [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "Wow, 7Klutz," Posted by gaiabetsy on 12:17:10 5/19/2000 how could these people be kept away from the GJ? AH just stinks!! I'd love to get this Ravitz guy to come onto the forum so we could interview him! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "gaiabetsy," Posted by 7kluz on 12:30:52 5/19/2000 yep, we could have a field day with him ! I am going to try to contact him, if no one else has. He just might be up to a discussion...wouldn't hurt to try. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "Wow..great post!" Posted by becky on 12:58:37 5/19/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 12:58:37, 5/19/2000 Thanks for sharing that, it was insightful. This case is starting to shape up nicely now, isn't it. Finally all the little comments and loose ends seem to be tying up into the nice neat little knot that wound up around jbr's neck. Great idea to invite him....here is a big giant, please, please, please I would like you to pass onto him....how about letting those two names just kinda...you know...slip out here onto the forum.....it will be our little secret...promise. Bears repeating... "the possibility that accused pedophiles in very high places in Boulder -we suggested two names- had both motive and means to de-rail the investigation in the first hours, possibly by calling off the FBI. " Who has that kind of power. Where was Roy that night? Who else has that kind of power to call off the FBI? Wow. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "That reminds me" Posted by becky on 13:02:44 5/19/2000 Remember that one of the first calls that JR made was to the offices where the FBI was located. Gosh...I forget now, but he called his friend to get money and he just so happened to work in the FBI building...someone help me remember...he yelled at him and demanded him to do something that his friend could not do.... I'd wager to guess the recipients of those first phone calls are our biggest clue. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "7klutz" Posted by Sioux on 13:15:04 5/19/2000 Thank you so much. This case has so many ramifications it seems it will never get solved. Oh I'm so sad and down with all this. sioux [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "O.K..." Posted by 7kluz on 13:19:44 5/19/2000 The invitation to Mr.Ravitz to come to JW has been extended...we'll wait and see. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "Update on Mr. Ravitz..." Posted by 7kluz on 03:01:54 5/22/2000 Has responded and said he would be delighted to enter the discussion. He's waiting for a password in order to be able to post. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "This should" Posted by starry on 03:57:09 5/22/2000 be interesting and hopefully, enlightening! Good sleuthing! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "Great invite!" Posted by Bobby on 06:00:13 5/22/2000 Thanks so much for asking Ravitz here. Hi to you starry. Hope your garden is geting into top shape this week. To the Rams -keep talking because there are those who listen and analyze every misspoken word and gesture. Talk, talk, talk. To there dear guv; please clean house of the low life dead wood soon Thank you. Boulder is a joke but CO needn't be. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "Wow" Posted by momo on 07:05:18 5/22/2000 All I can say is this is very interesting. I ablolutely can not wait for Mr. Ravitz to make his debut on JW. He'll probably be bombarded and overwhelmed with our questions. There are some great minds and cybersleuths at this forum. We should feel priveleged he is choosing JW. Says alot about him, dosen't it? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "caught in the web" Posted by maundy on 08:04:06 5/22/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 08:04:06, 5/22/2000 interesting. anybody who thinks organized child-molestation rings and coverups by higherups are fairy tales needs to read http://vote.org/ramsey i asked about mcfarland in another post, cuz i just ran across his name in the journal of psychohistory. they use to have a website. on a weird note, i woke up from a dream this morning because two spiders were flying my way. one was on the other's...um, do spiders have shoulders?...anyway, they looked like little trapeze artists. i didn't stick around in dreamland to see what they wanted. i only mention it cuz ravitz' bio says he's a trapeze artist. synchronicity. i am trying to become friends with the little eight-legged beasties. they certainly get my attention when they're around. the other day i rescued one from my sink, set it outside (with a cup and much trepidation) and lo and behold! his brother (looked like him anyway) was now in the sink awaitin his turn. i swear i could hear him, "please free me, too!" just what i wanted to be: godmother to spiders. i think this is what they mean when they say be careful what you pray for. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "WOW" Posted by darby on 10:02:21 5/22/2000 How did I miss this thread? becky--you got the thing down to its essence. MW has pointed us in the correct direction for discovering how JBR got a garrote around her neck. At this point, MW's info sounds like the truest thing I've heard yet. Are the Whites involved? I await the release of more information before deciding one way or another. And 7kluz--Thank you! I await for Chris to admit the guy to this forum for Q & A. (lots of awaiting...) Who, exactly, told the FBI to go home on 12/26? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "The Real World!" Posted by shadow on 09:43:22 5/22/2000 I have spent the past week working in Florida - during this time, I "casually" quizzed 12 people about the JBR case. Results? 2 knew nothing about it; 2 saw the CNN interview and PMPT on TV and felt the "mother and father are being persecuted by the police and media"; the other 8 have seen various "things on TV about the case" - all 8 think one or both parents were involved in JBR's death. Only 1 of the 12 people ever heard of Fleet White, and none knew of the MW. Point is - while it might be "fun" and very interesting for JW Forum posters to question Mr. Ravitz, the effect on the JBR murder investigation will be virtually nill. There is a great big world out there that knows nothing of "Bridget" (aka MW) or Mr. Ravitz... if there really is some kind of conspiracy and cover-up going on in Boulder (and with the FBI - I don't believe this for a minute), until the mainstream media, TV Talk Shows, and Tabs decide to bring the alledgations of these people to the attention of the public at large, not much is going to happen in Boulder. IMO, our efforts on the JW Forum to bring attention to these things are like a flea on an elphant's back yelling "rape." shadow [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "shadow" Posted by darby on 10:10:25 5/22/2000 All of that may change. And just because nobody has heard about it doesn't make it false. Who said the FBI is part of a conspiracy? They were told to go home. They were told that it was a domestic homicide and nothing more. My question is, who decided such a thing on day one? How could anyone have known on day one that it was just a run-of-the-mill domestic homicide? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "FBI & the Ramsey case" Posted by Evan on 13:26:43 5/22/2000 Greetings and thanks for inviting me to participate here. But I ask that people read what I write carefully so this stays fact-based. In a previous post someone who read my bio at http://vote.org/evan.htm said I was a trapeze artist. But I'm a tightrope artist, as the bio says. >Who said the FBI is part of >a conspiracy? They were told to >go home. They were told >that it was a domestic homicide >and nothing more. How do we know what they were told? The case was first reported as a kidnapping, and Det. Linda Arndt asked for FBI and other backup before she even arrived at the house, and several times after. She was refused. Who knows if the FBI was even contacted that morning or what they were told? They were not told to go home, they never came except as consultants days or weeks later. I take it that MW is "Main Witness" or ? And that "Bridget" is what folks here suspect is her real name? I'm VERY intrigued by a previous post which says that JR phoned a friend that morning about money who worked in the same building as the Boulder FBI. Who knows the details? As for the general topic about the FBI and pedophiles in high places, required reading should be former Nebraska State Senator John DeCamp's book "The Franklin Coverup." This started as a Nebraska investigation into the failure of the Franklin S&L but uncovered that Franklin's president, a black Republican named Larry King (now in prison for the S&L ripoff) was transporting kids all over America for sex with prominent politicians of both parties. One MO was to set up a pol with a kid and video the sex and then use the video as blackmail to get the pol to vote a certain way or to involve others. You can buy or check out the book at http://amazon.com. The FBI actively protected the pedophiles and persecuted the kids who bravely gave evidence: FBI agents intimidated the kids into recanting their testimony, then prosecuted them for perjury and put several in prison! _______________________________________________ Evan Ravitz (303)440-6838 evan@vote.org Voted "Best Activist" by Boulder Daily Camera readers The Direct Democracy Initiative: http://vote.org Home (Boulder, Colorado USA): http://vote.org/ravitz To the Ramsey Grand Jury: http://vote.org/ramsey [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL Evan ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "darby" Posted by shadow on 10:41:58 5/22/2000 I certainly didn't mean that "it's false because nobody heard about it?" My point was quite simple... reporting by the mainstream media, TV Talk Shows and even the Tabs on the allegations of the MW and others is long past due, and will have much more influence on any investigation than internet forums will. As far as the FBI is concerned - it would be nice to know the answers to your questions... shadow [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "Clarify?" Posted by Seashell on 11:36:11 5/22/2000 I'm not sure if the 3rd to last paragraph was the one about the FBI being called off or the one about the suspected molester in the city gov't that was referred to. I'm eager to hear Ravitz when he arrives. I've often wondered why this MW story is being treated like a hot potato by the mainstream TV and press. Here are some thoughts on that. 1. Fear of lawsuits 2. Widespread intimidation 3. Widespread threats 4. General disbelief that this can really happen in clean little Boulder. 5. Subject matter too distasteful 6. Subject matter too taboo 7. EVERYBODY HAS HIS/HER HEAD IN THE SAND [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. "7Kluz" Posted by listener on 11:23:14 5/22/2000 First,..i can't believe missing this thread either. Thank you for bringing this to our attention, and for asking him to participate with this forum. I welcome anyone with possible insight, and willing to reveal it. Personally, I'm highly suspicious of most anything that is kept secret. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. "Seashell" Posted by fly on 11:52:44 5/22/2000 Might want to add one further possibility: Good journalistic ethics - no verification/truth, no story. :-) Of course, that is implied by your #1 reasons. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. "More likely" Posted by lake on 13:36:41 5/22/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 13:36:41, 5/22/2000 To avoid civil suits by Lin Wood on behalf of the Ramseys. After all, it was Tony Frost and Richard Gooding that said they would all be in deep trouble if the Ramseys were not indicted. I doubt the media wants to pitch in and help Lin Wood by persuing the MW angle. Sort of like cutting off your own head to spoil the executioners fun. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]