Justice Watch Discussion Board "Mystery Woman" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] Table of Contents ................................................................... Mystery Woman, darby, 12:47:03, 6/01/2000 Thanks, Darby, janphi, 12:54:09, 6/01/2000, (#1) janphi, Sioux, 13:24:48, 6/01/2000, (#3) darby & janphi, fly, 13:32:28, 6/01/2000, (#6) Darby, Sioux, 13:15:45, 6/01/2000, (#2) luvsflowers, lake, 13:31:01, 6/01/2000, (#4) I just wish, gaiabetsy, 13:31:41, 6/01/2000, (#5) Cache anyone?, Chris, 13:34:47, 6/01/2000, (#7) Saved the thread as *.mht - here's a Paste, shana, 13:39:49, 6/01/2000, (#9) mini-rant for A.K., Gemini, 13:39:46, 6/01/2000, (#8) Hmm. Very well, Holly, 13:46:36, 6/01/2000, (#10) MW,, gaiabetsy, 13:56:28, 6/01/2000, (#11) Hats off to ..., mary99, 14:05:07, 6/01/2000, (#14) Sioux, darby, 13:57:09, 6/01/2000, (#12) Dare I suggest., Holly, 14:01:40, 6/01/2000, (#13) Mystery thread on MW, mary99, 14:13:06, 6/01/2000, (#15) Thanks, fly, darby, 14:19:58, 6/01/2000, (#16) I smell, lee2, 15:09:28, 6/01/2000, (#17) Questions,, Seeker, 15:23:35, 6/01/2000, (#18) darby, fly, 15:37:49, 6/01/2000, (#19) Here it is, janphi, 18:25:45, 6/01/2000, (#33) Janphi, Out In the Open, Paralegal, 18:51:07, 6/02/2000, (#97) Janphi, Seeker, 13:41:42, 6/02/2000, (#80) Gemini, darby, 15:40:10, 6/01/2000, (#20) fly, lake, 15:50:47, 6/01/2000, (#21) Back at you, Seeker , darby, 15:54:12, 6/01/2000, (#22) lake, darby, 16:12:06, 6/01/2000, (#23) Darby, lake, 16:24:51, 6/01/2000, (#26) does this mean AK didn't read, Edie Pratt, 16:16:10, 6/01/2000, (#24) Lake--read it again , luvsflowers, 16:16:34, 6/01/2000, (#25) so, leak, Edie Pratt, 16:28:35, 6/01/2000, (#27) Luvsflowers, lake, 16:29:13, 6/01/2000, (#28) Pratt, lake, 16:31:37, 6/01/2000, (#29) LOL leak, Edie Pratt, 16:36:27, 6/01/2000, (#31) A.K., Morgan, 16:33:21, 6/01/2000, (#30) The poster A.K, lake, 17:31:45, 6/01/2000, (#32) So, A.K., hareen, 18:49:49, 6/01/2000, (#34) Janphi - and all who hate being told what to think, mary99, 19:31:44, 6/01/2000, (#35) In essence, darby, 19:49:04, 6/01/2000, (#36) Bravo, short timer!!, maundy, 21:07:35, 6/01/2000, (#37) Goldie Hawn -- NO!!!!!, A.K., 02:27:28, 6/02/2000, (#38) AK., Holly, 06:27:05, 6/02/2000, (#42) Tiptoeing around the Truth, mary99, 04:10:34, 6/02/2000, (#39) Mary99, sarah, 07:39:14, 6/02/2000, (#50) A.K., short timer, 05:53:11, 6/02/2000, (#40) ACandyRose - New Mystery Woman info compilation, mary99, 06:05:51, 6/02/2000, (#41) I LOVE, Holly, 06:45:25, 6/02/2000, (#46) To be fair, AK doesn't owe us anything, Cassandra, 06:42:13, 6/02/2000, (#45) look to to..., mame, 06:33:46, 6/02/2000, (#44) All right, A.K., hareen, 06:28:26, 6/02/2000, (#43) lake & Holly & mary99, fly, 08:26:10, 6/02/2000, (#54) fly. There is not a story change --, Holly, 11:58:17, 6/02/2000, (#69) Holly, fly, 12:52:15, 6/02/2000, (#74) Apparently, both factions have a piece of the puzzle, Cassandra, 06:59:07, 6/02/2000, (#48) :-) hareen, mary99, 06:57:14, 6/02/2000, (#47) fairness , darby, 07:51:22, 6/02/2000, (#52) Mary 99, sarah, 07:41:04, 6/02/2000, (#51) MW brings out the Dr. Jekell/Mr. Hyde in us., mary99, 12:49:20, 6/02/2000, (#73) Hareen,, WitchyWoman, 07:22:56, 6/02/2000, (#49) A.K. , darby, 08:13:15, 6/02/2000, (#53) Darby...Perhaps, Cassandra, 09:32:22, 6/02/2000, (#55) darby, fly, 10:22:04, 6/02/2000, (#57) Cassie and fly, darby, 10:18:27, 6/02/2000, (#56) darby, fly, 10:30:41, 6/02/2000, (#59) fly., Holly, 12:03:46, 6/02/2000, (#70) Holly, fly, 12:56:05, 6/02/2000, (#75) fly, darby, 10:29:38, 6/02/2000, (#58) RESPECT?, darby, 10:49:28, 6/02/2000, (#61) darby, fly, 10:34:36, 6/02/2000, (#60) Turning it over to the FBI, WitchyWoman, 11:13:16, 6/02/2000, (#63) fly, darby, 10:56:17, 6/02/2000, (#62) darby, fly, 11:31:35, 6/02/2000, (#65) well, hell, mame, 11:28:07, 6/02/2000, (#64) Hello, AK..., LurkerXIV, 12:27:10, 6/02/2000, (#72) Well, Miss mame marple., Holly, 12:06:15, 6/02/2000, (#71) Well, I'll be doggone, A.K., hareen, 11:49:01, 6/02/2000, (#68) mame, fly, 11:46:23, 6/02/2000, (#67) Mame,, WitchyWoman, 11:41:10, 6/02/2000, (#66) We have to be careful, Luvsbeagles, 13:42:50, 6/02/2000, (#82) Luvsbeagles, hareen, 14:02:19, 6/02/2000, (#86) Malicious Intent, Lacey, 13:22:53, 6/02/2000, (#76) Lacey, fly, 13:27:12, 6/02/2000, (#77) Mary99 no Cowardly Lion, RiverRat, 14:14:11, 6/02/2000, (#88) Yeh, fly, lake, 13:36:18, 6/02/2000, (#78) MT: Mystery Thread's fate?, maundy, 13:44:34, 6/02/2000, (#83) Lacey, Gemini, 13:42:24, 6/02/2000, (#81) yes, lake, fly, 13:41:01, 6/02/2000, (#79) fly, mame, 14:12:11, 6/02/2000, (#87) Well, fly, lake, 13:54:57, 6/02/2000, (#85) Fly, short timer, 13:53:49, 6/02/2000, (#84) HOLD ON JUST A DADBURNED MINUTE!!!, Cassandra, 15:10:34, 6/02/2000, (#90) lake, short timer, & mame, fly, 15:06:38, 6/02/2000, (#89) Thanks, Cassie, darby, 16:19:53, 6/02/2000, (#93) Fly, one more time, lake, 15:46:32, 6/02/2000, (#92) Lacy, short timer, 15:43:35, 6/02/2000, (#91) Don't mess with Texas!, Cassandra, 17:11:31, 6/02/2000, (#94) Back Atcha Baby, Lacey, 18:22:44, 6/02/2000, (#95) heheh, Gemini, 18:52:33, 6/02/2000, (#98) lacey, maundy, 18:46:06, 6/02/2000, (#96) ................................................................... "Mystery Woman" Posted by darby on 12:55:24 6/01/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 12:55:24, 6/01/2000 I can't seem to open "More MW" any more. But it's getting a bit long, anyway, and I happened to save my post. I didn't mean to add flames to a fire, so I'll take away anything I said directly to anyone and soften my post just a tad. Also, sorry for the confrontation on my OTHER post. I won't repeat that one. Modified again to "de-harshen" Anyway... I would think that ANYONE with an interest in the JBR case should want MW scrutinized to the max, including those who think she is a liar. I know that her claims of a conspiracy of adults involved in an adult/child sex ring might seem laughable. But let's face it, for MW to be a fraud, then she must be conspiring with her therapist, Lee Hill, a couple of esteemed victim's advocates, Alex Hunter, Bill Wise, mame, BJ Plasket, the Pulitzer-nominated guy from WestWord and Carol McKinley. Like it or not, we're dealing with a conspiracy. And someone needs to get to the bottom of this and expose it--wherever the truth may lead. Even if, and maybe especially if, Fleet White has nothing to hide, then anyone who feels certain that the Whites are blameless should WANT MW's claims to be fully investigated so that Fleet's good name can be restored--not the least of whom should be Fleet White himself. If MW is a liar, then Fleet, sadly, would seem to have no choice now but to use some of his vast wealth to investigate who or what is behind the fraudulent claims. If there is any hope of totally restoring the Whites' good name, then unfair as it is, there needs to be an accounting of who or what EXACTLY prompted this woman known to the Whites to come forward with claims about them. Furthermore, you would think that ALL of us would be interested in a complete investigation to that end! So even if there is nothing to MW's claims, one would think that in the interest of Fleet and Priscilla White, Fleet's father and Fleet's children, this woman needs to be investigated! Who could argue with that? I think that proof in this particular case can be easily found. I say that if MW has never produced any documentation prior to the murder about FW, then in the absence of something overwhelmingly compelling, she has no way of proving her claims. Simple as that! THIS NEEDS TO BE DETERMINED! I know that people have very good questions regarding MW--(Why did she wait so long to come forward? Why didn't her therapist report these abuses?, etc.) But the fact of the matter is, NONE OF THESE QUESTIONS MATTER IF THERE IS SOME KIND OF DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE WHICH WAS RECORDED PRIOR TO THE MURDER. On the flip side, if such documentation DOESN'T exist, then MW's claims can't be seriously considered. Plain and simple. Note that I strongly feel that unless there is some other convincing evidence, EVERYTHING MW might have said AFTER the murder regarding FW is meaningless for our purposes, even if true, because such information might be considered to simply be a mentally-ill woman's creation of false memories in reaction to hearing about the murder. But my one and only question has never been answered to my satisfaction one way or the other: Is there documentation written or something filmed, or something else otherwise recorded PRIOR to the murder about FW? Or is there anything else that might be unquestionably convincing? I simply can't begin to formulate a decision until I know the answer to that. How can ANYBODY make a decision about MW until that is known? The only reason I even expend any energy at all on MW is because the existence of this kind of evidence has been strongly implied. Anyone who criticizes people who simply wonder about this is being unfair. Based on the public information at hand, anyone would be crazy not to wonder. Given the limited information that we have right now, please give those of us who continue to wonder about MW a break! The entire story is on the brink of coming out, IMO. When it does, we'll have some answers. Until then, I'll be patiently waiting for these answers. I do know these things take time. In any event, I'm ONLY after the truth. Instead of pretending as if MW doesn't exist, let's WORK TOGETHER to try to find out if there is anything to her claims. And if there is nothing-let's find out who is behind the false allegations. Wherever the truth may lead on this issue, we might possibly learn something meaningful to the case. [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 1. "Thanks, Darby" Posted by janphi on 12:54:09 6/01/2000 I saved mine that wouldn't post on that thread, too. It sounds pretty ranting when you can't read the particular post I'm responding to, but I guess people will just have to use their imaginations. Here's what I tried to post: "What a Confusing Thread" Posted by janphi on 11:52:11 6/01/2000 I'm at a loss to understand why we are supposed to be posting professional, journalistically researched information on a protected discussion/opinion forum. Like I said, I'm fairly new on-line, but I was not aware that I had to come to work here (unpaid, at that!)--I thought it was sort of like a hobby or something. That's how I was treating it. It's relaxing to me to read and post here, most of the time. But this is the second time in a couple of weeks that I have been told "how to post" and "what to believe." How strange. From what I've seen, I'm the only poster I've noticed in the 60 days I've been registered here that has stuck my neck out far enough to post my own personal info that could conceivably get me called into one or more of these myriad trials as a character witness--and there's more of this stuff coming up all the time (no, I'm not DID, the case is!). You would think that would mean something to people who say they want JfJBR, but apparently it doesn't. (I'm not considered one of the "contributors.") It has also been confusing to me why some people treat this forum/message board system like a chat room (especially when there is an adjoining chat room), with tiny little tidbits back and forth, or posts that are written simply to get a response from other posters (other than questioning-type posts). I mean, it's OK with me, but why waste other people's time so blatantly? I thought we were here to dig up, look up, find out, theorize about, re-hash, wonder about and generally discuss items of information that seem to have some connection to the death of JonBenet Ramsey. I thought all the personally directed stuff was supposed to either go on the Daily thread or in the Workout Room. I just really don't get this long diatribe from a poster whose hat I've only seen twice, telling us that we aren't coming up with good enough information for the media. What? What is that supposed to mean? I assume this poster is part of that "media" and is trolling here? I'm insulted. How, pray tell, do you investigate a person or a situation without asking questions and sleuthing? (I mean other than stealing info from protected forums.) And what makes anyone think that an e-mail correspondence about these subjects is any more private than posting here, knowing the past eavesdropping proclivities of our forum enemies? The big thing when I came here was that "daylight" was the "best antiseptic." But asking someone who is in danger to reveal their identity (like mine was on JW, but I'm not referencing myself here) just to satisfy your curiosity is bizarre, if you ask me. You're gonna personally stand at the person's front door and guard it from stray bullets that you think aren't going to be shot because this person has gone on the radio or something? That's weirdest thing I've ever heard. I've had several negative experiences here that have made me want to quit posting and leave--and I have some realtime pressures to do so, also. But "what if,"--"what if" I just happened to have read that one tiny item that corroborated that other item that proved the origin of that whatever that tied it to a critical piece of evidence in this case? What if? I'm sorry there is so much animosity toward "newbies" and our supposed lack of understanding of "case" lore. There's nothing I can do about the 3.5-year lead time y'all have on me, but there's nothing you can do to get my life experiences, either. I just feel like all should be welcomed. JW will die if you treat all newbies this way. Nearly all of my case questions I've posted have gone unanswered, but I've persisted in reading and studying literally around the clock to find the answers. I doubt if other newbies can take the same amount of time to do so. But please, just because we're newbies (and have announced same) on JW and maybe even on-line, it does not mean we're newbies in life or even in knowledge of the case details. Anyhoo, if for some reason I have to start writing my posts as a professional, to please a certain few other posters, I will of course expect to be paid my normal rate of $125/hour and have you sign a client contract with me, or we can work out a retainer. And please spare me the "newbie" welcome again, I've put almost 300 posts on this board--none of which was specifically fashioned to get a response from other posters, but to post information. I can only assume the person who took it upon themselves to critique my posting "presentation" doesn't have to do such work every day as your livelihood, or you wouldn't insist on having it that way on here--or my having to participate. Thanks for letting me have my first rant! [Ha ha--or not letting me have it!] [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 3. "janphi" Posted by Sioux on 13:24:48 6/01/2000 we might not agree in the significance of barbie doll, or maybe on anything at all, but THAT was a great post. I don't know what triggered it ( I haven't been reading all the threads lately), but you sure have the necessary stuff to make this Forum proud. Sioux [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 6. "darby & janphi" Posted by fly on 13:34:03 6/01/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 13:34:03, 6/01/2000 darby - Welcome back! I don't think many, if any, people (even the most ardent MW-is-crock ones) are saying that MW shouldn't be investigated. The point being made concerns some people's continued, unabated belief in MW's story and importance even after BPD's investigation of her yielded no evidence of any relevance to the JBR case. Also, I don't think a conspiracy is required if MW is bogus. All that is really needed is for a few people to be a bit too trusting and get duped. It happens, even to very bright folks. I don't know if that is, indeed, what has happened, but it is all that would be necessary. janphi - I consider you a contributor, even though I might not buy into everything you post. Actually, I've seen more bashing of old souls here recently than of newbies, but I'll admit that newbies are favored targets at times (and that is unfortunate). I guess I missed the post about needing professional investigative posts and all the your personal information you provided (very risky for several reasons). I don't expect posts here to be professional, but I always hope the person posting information has taken pains to ensure the information is accurate, not misleading, and is really relevant - especially when personal information or accusations are involved. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 2. "Darby" Posted by Sioux on 13:15:45 6/01/2000 Great Post. I agree with many of your points , especially: **But my one and only question has never been answered to my satisfaction one way or the other: Is there documentation written or something filmed, or something else otherwise recorded PRIOR to the murder about FW? Or is there anything else that might be unquestionably convincing? I simply can't begin to formulate a decision until I know the answer to that.** Yes, yes, YES.You are so right. ** How can ANYBODY make a decision about MW until that is known? The only reason I even expend any energy at all on MW is because the existence of this kind of evidence has been strongly implied.** Exactly. That's why I had quit with the MW issue. I makes me mad that there HUGE accusations IMPLIED but "we can't talk about it yet". Well, then, let's just forget about it.WHENEVER MW and her accolites decide "it's time" I'll be here to listen. **In any event, I'm ONLY after the truth. Instead of pretending as if MW doesn't exist, let's WORK TOGETHER to try to find out if there is anything to her claims.** But, what are you talking about? How in the world are "WE" going to work this out? Together or separetly, I don't see how "we" can go beyond the FBI secrecy.Obviously not even mame can, and she has hosted MW in her home!! ** And if there is nothing-let's find out who is behind the false allegations. Wherever the truth may lead on this issue, we might possibly learn something meaningful to the case** Soooooo...Do you have a plan? I'll be happy to hear about it, because it sounds like you know it's possible to find out what the mistery is. Sioux [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 4. "luvsflowers" Posted by lake on 13:32:35 6/01/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 13:32:35, 6/01/2000 Concerning your post on the other MW thread. You have a way of creating your own reality. I have never implied that someone who did not know the Ramseys and JBR killed JBR. You must dream that stuff up. And I think you can rest assured that the Ramsey investigators know what I know about this case before I knew it. The Ramsey investigators are not Steve Thomas and the BPD. And only an moron would buy the A.K. "line". If the tabloids could discredit this woman, you can bet your @$$ they would. Because it is those same tabs that the Ramseys are taking legal action against in civil court. I am sure that the tabs would just love to be able to expose the MW as a fraud. But the tabloids don't deal in the truth. They deal in fiction and misrepresentation of turth that sells. And A.K. knows that all too well. The truth will set you free. That tabloid press has no interest in your mind being free of the rumor, inuendo, theory and other trash that they feed their readers. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 5. "I just wish" Posted by gaiabetsy on 13:31:41 6/01/2000 I could get past all this ranting and raving and just communicate directly with MW. I know she (unfortunately) has to worry about EVERYTHING. Really, I actually do know that, but I wish I could talk with her anyway. Talking like this makes me wonder about why others mess around with the worry of being "misunderstood" or "not liking the set-up on the web". I used to hate being raped by my brother. Are we now going to compare problems? Yet, I haven't died of some horrible disease from Africa. Get it? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 7. "Cache anyone?" Posted by Chris on 13:34:47 6/01/2000 If anyone has that old thread in their cache (or even part of it) could you please repost it? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 9. "Saved the thread as *.mht - here's a Paste" Posted by shana on 13:39:49 6/01/2000 Justice Watch Discussion Board "More MW" [ Main ] [ Post New Thread ] [ Help ] [ Search ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table of Contents ................................................................... More MW, lake, 17:34:01, 5/31/2000 Lake, becky, 17:54:39, 5/31/2000, (#1) fogging, Kelly, 18:04:35, 5/31/2000, (#2) MW info, Shaggy, 18:26:40, 5/31/2000, (#3) Looks like, lake, 21:47:41, 5/31/2000, (#4) But, sally denver, 21:53:32, 5/31/2000, (#5) Lake has Initialitis>>>, ayelean, 22:34:52, 5/31/2000, (#7) Not likely, SD, lake, 22:24:55, 5/31/2000, (#6) Well, lake, 22:38:25, 5/31/2000, (#8) Morons, short timer, 22:59:47, 5/31/2000, (#9) alphabet soup, maundy, 23:12:53, 5/31/2000, (#10) Here we go again!, A.K., 02:32:42, 6/01/2000, (#11) Who in the sam hell, Holly, 10:43:53, 6/01/2000, (#37) AK, Watching you, 05:47:39, 6/01/2000, (#13) A.K., Greenleaf, 05:41:30, 6/01/2000, (#12) Thank you both, A.K., 06:39:33, 6/01/2000, (#16) Interesting, AK, Cassandra, 06:25:01, 6/01/2000, (#15) AK, Luvsbeagles, 06:24:04, 6/01/2000, (#14) Hypocrisy strikes again, mary99, 06:53:12, 6/01/2000, (#17) Well, AK., Holly, 08:16:27, 6/01/2000, (#22) glad to see you back AK, luvsflowers, 07:03:56, 6/01/2000, (#18) A.K., hareen, 07:20:33, 6/01/2000, (#20) And if tabloids know, Holly, 10:39:53, 6/01/2000, (#36) Well, well..., A.K., 07:15:05, 6/01/2000, (#19) I'm trying to think of a , Holly, 08:21:51, 6/01/2000, (#23) Hareen, A.K., 07:42:17, 6/01/2000, (#21) Holly & AK, fly, 08:36:15, 6/01/2000, (#28) fly., Holly, 08:46:56, 6/01/2000, (#29) A.K., mary99, 08:28:23, 6/01/2000, (#25) I agree with that observation, AK., Holly, 08:23:19, 6/01/2000, (#24) Good point, Holly, mary99, 08:34:44, 6/01/2000, (#27) Betsy talked about an actress..., Cassandra, 08:32:47, 6/01/2000, (#26) Who the hell is, Holly, 08:47:34, 6/01/2000, (#30) MW and Warped Minds, Lacey, 08:53:43, 6/01/2000, (#31) Holly, fly, 09:00:01, 6/01/2000, (#32) Fly is absolutely right!, Cassandra, 09:13:52, 6/01/2000, (#33) Yes, Betsy DID mention a , fiddler, 09:55:27, 6/01/2000, (#34) A.K., short timer, 10:53:12, 6/01/2000, (#39) Hinky connections, mary99, 10:15:47, 6/01/2000, (#35) I thought, Holly, 10:49:05, 6/01/2000, (#38) ................................................................... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "More MW" Posted by lake on 17:34:01 5/31/2000 The claims of the woman from Ca. is the closest thing to date that makes the loose ends of this case tie together. Now this woman has a brother and a sister that are are alive and well. Her sister is two years younger than she, and her brother is 4 years younger than she. It seems to me that her stories of abuse and the long time connection to the White family could be cooberated by her siblings if they were willing to talk. But quite often, siblings do not come forward when this type of abuse and criminal activity is involved. But the kicker to me is the long time association with the White family if there is no biological connection between the two families. Especially since the mother of the MW confirms that she and a MW neice have been in the company of the Whites in Boulder Co. in 1996. Of course the mother says it was a Haloween party in 1996 and not the Christmas party that MW says the mother told her of. But is one to believe a long time abuser of children or a former child that was abused? [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. "Lake" Posted by becky on 17:54:39 5/31/2000 A big yawn to all this mystery woman stuff. If you can't tell us who she is and what her claim is, it just makes me think that you are trying to damage FW's credibility by rumor and innuendo. So poop or get off the pot. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. "fogging" Posted by Kelly on 18:04:35 5/31/2000 Let's not fog with this MW stuff right now. LKL is coming on with the Rams and Steve Thomas as we speak. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. "MW info" Posted by Shaggy on 18:26:40 5/31/2000 Lots of info on the MW's family at the swamp. Very interesting indeed! If you can stand the constant barrage of LP saying sexual abuse doesn't exsist. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. "Looks like" Posted by lake on 21:47:41 5/31/2000 The words of NJK, SLK, EGK and a few others just might be enough to put GLCKB and some other behind bars for a few years and tie someone to the murder of JBR. But this is one for the FBI and not the BPD. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. "But" Posted by sally denver on 21:53:32 5/31/2000 The Ramsey's are guilty in the death of JonBenet REGARDLESS of anything else! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7. "Lake has Initialitis>>>" Posted by ayelean on 22:34:52 5/31/2000 re post #4 it smacks of SBTC. Is Lake bragging that it knows more than the rest of us. But then I suppose the killer would know more than the rest of us too. Maybe the killer and the person that the killer confides in. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. "Not likely, SD" Posted by lake on 22:24:55 5/31/2000 But since SLK(R) is a government employee, I think the Feds are might be able to put some extra pressure on that one. The case may be about to to turn the corner and ST is going to be run over again. This guy can't can't stay on his feet. Poor Steve. He is going to be run over but good this time. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8. "Well" Posted by lake on 22:38:25 5/31/2000 Most of you could be run over by the truth of this case and would not know what hit you. Just like little Stevie. If he were not such a moron one might feel sorry for him. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9. "Morons" Posted by short timer on 22:59:47 5/31/2000 Why hope GLCKB is arrested? Why not AKC? And don't depend on SKR to help anyone. BTW, SKR is not to be confused with SR who is another problem, IMO. JMHO. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10. "alphabet soup" Posted by maundy on 23:12:53 5/31/2000 monkeys and tigers in my soup... SBTC Shabbat-chai [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11. "Here we go again!" Posted by A.K. on 02:32:42 6/01/2000 It astonishes me that people still persist in promoting this angle in JB's death, and that others continue to give it credence. Thank goodness the officials handling this murder investigation know a phony story when they see one. What I see is the most pernicious attempt at obstructing justice since Jack Ruby shot Lee Oswald. I've stayed away from here because I was disgusted by the way innocent people and potential key witnesses have been pilloried. And for what? Not speaking out publicly because a few busybody posters wish they would? Unbelievable. And while I haven't been checking that carefully, I'm told there have been no apologies. We've seen hoaxes aplenty on the forums, among them Cinder, Crow, Quiet Samantha, Patricia, and many others. So why is this particular one so difficult for posters to identify and figure out? It certainly wasn't for me. I made a few calls and got what I needed to know. And it did NOT come from asking this so-called victim, her lawyer and/or her therapist, all of whom are of ZERO value in determining the veracity of her claims. I don't doubt that this woman has had problems in her life, perhaps because of others, perhaps not. One claim that she's made is that she was sexually assaulted with a beer bottle, and there seems to be some medical evidence of this. But there are lots of pathetic, needy people in the world, and others who have been manipulated for a panoply of reasons. There are also evil people who take a shred of truth and stretch it beyond the bounds of human decency and have no shame about making themselves victims or involving others. Surely there are interesting connections that merit checking out in her regard, and I can appreciate the curiosity for that, but some serious self-monitoring should be required before anything is presented publicly. There are great thinkers and contributors on this forum: Ruthee's ongoing developments are always a joy to read, Szundi's medical lectures are always brilliant, Ginja's view of the legal system should be required reading daily. The folks who do transcripts, and others who produce research are advancing the cause of justice each day, as is Chris for making all this possible. Please forgive me for not mentioning so many, many names who make valuable points. But there's a big difference in what should be public "conversation," and what should remain in private discussion or email until developed to a certain degree. I'm not trying to suppress theories or imagination -- I actually found exhilirating LeCarl's "stage 4" threads and encourage that type of digging... precisely because it is germane to the reality of this case, and is not just an attempt to smear people who have been patently cleared and who just happen to be the most feared critics of the RST. There's no way a serious news organization would ever air or print some of the information posted here in the past few weeks. Any reporter stupid enough to try to sell that to an editor would be fired. What company, or insurer, would accept the liability of such an individual who lacks basic good judgment? As I've said before, promoting the story, then backing off and saying "well, someone should investigate this, but not me, I'm no investigator" is one of the most craven acts I've ever heard of, and I'm well-experienced in the mischief that comes from long-unsolved, high profile cases. I found it interesting that Carol McKinley feels free to go on Peter Boyles' show and make a connection to both Whites and this woman, but has not --to my knowledge-- been allowed to make those same claims on FOX TV. I submit there's a reason for that. But surprise! In her appearances on Peter's show she is speaking as an employee of FOX; her opinions belong to the company store. Once again, the unprofessionalism of everything-Boulder rears its ugly head. I can also tell you with absolute assurance that no tabloid has offered this woman money for her story. Not a dime, and certainly not ten thousand dollars. The possible exception is if the Weekly World News made an offer, but their payment would only be in Monopoly money. It didn't happen, folks. Anyone telling you otherwise is LYING. You figure out why. I hope such people will take up a new hobby, like finding land mines. That way when they blow up in their faces, they'll only be hurting themselves. I will end with two cryptic notes that will surely frustrate fly, but oh well. Edie, the bear found a way to stay in hibernation and allow for its honey to be circulated. The deed is done, and I --for one-- am celebrating. Finally, I hope that everyone who contributed to this all-too-transparent hijacking attempt will be called on the carpet and asked to explain their actions in a proper forum. I have no intention of making things worse by saying more. But I'll just bet there's a washed-up, blue-eyed, lousy actress who's mourning her dashed hope to regain a public profile. Perhaps her partners in crime will now learn that it's not an easy thing trying to sell tainted goods. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 37. "Who in the sam hell" Posted by Holly on 10:43:53 6/01/2000 is Edie the bear? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 13. "AK" Posted by Watching you on 05:47:39 6/01/2000 Well, you brought me out of lurk long enough to say BRAVO. What a brilliant, sensible, and absolutely truthful post. Thank you. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 12. "A.K." Posted by Greenleaf on 05:41:30 6/01/2000 Excellent; most thought-provoking post. GL [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 16. "Thank you both" Posted by A.K. on 06:39:33 6/01/2000 I've calmed down a bit but I'm not backing down. I just needed to make the point that this is a situation that demands the utmost in professionalism. There are enough hazards in the path to a courtroom. When someone hands you a theory that is as potentially explosive as this one, it needs to be checked out in a private and rational way by people equipped for that type of work. If there's more than smoke, that will surface publicly in time. OTOH, people making extraordinary claims which they can't support should be held accountable. I blame Hunter for setting much of this in motion, but just because he behaved wrongly doesn't mean others should too. It's because I care so much about JW and its dedicated sleuths that I felt the need to speak out. The internet is a powerful avenue for truth seeking and JW does it best. That's why we must be extra diligent in recognizing trolls whose goal is to create internal strife, for whatever reason. This MW angle is an almost perfect creation of malicious mischief... only it didn't work. Fear not, they'll be back with something else. They always are. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15. "Interesting, AK" Posted by Cassandra on 06:25:01 6/01/2000 Now I'm REALLY curious as to who you are, who the blue eyed actress is, and more. Cassie [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14. "AK" Posted by Luvsbeagles on 06:24:04 6/01/2000 Thanks. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17. "Hypocrisy strikes again" Posted by mary99 on 06:53:12 6/01/2000 Well, A.K., won't make any claims to being more knowledgable than YOU, because that will just end in a spitting contest, but let me say this: You want a SMEAR-FREE forum to debate the murder of JBR? What about all the things that have been said about PR, JR, Santa and Mrs. Santa, Burke, LHP, and GPP? What's good for the goose is good for the gander, IMVHO. You should abide by your own standards; if that means saying no ill about unindicted case figures, so be it. No more trashing PR, JR, BR, Santa and Mrs, AH, GPP, and any other I may have missed. That's fine if you want to be more moralistic than I. But to attempt to limit discourse on some very valid and debatable issues smacks of control of free expression and imposition of YOUR values on me. See the disclaimer at the bottom of this post. I am speaking my opinion and basing it upon the facts I have at hand. If you think the BPD cleared Fleet White of the allegations made by MW, read the press release again. Yes, Mark Beckner said Fleet White was cleared of the murder of JBR - that does not mean cleared no matter what comes up in the FBI investigation. Mark Beckner did NOT clear Fleet White of involvement in a sex ring, however. He did not clear Fleet White of allegations made by MW. He did not say there would never be charges filed against Fleet White, or that Fleet White is an unsung hero. He indicated that based on what they know now, FW is not a suspect in the JBR murder. Mark Beckner did NOT declare MW to be a fraud, or say the there was no truth to her claims. He did not say she was an unemployed actress, YOU did. So, if you think she is a fraud, why not prove it? Can you? I doubt it. I appreciate the good insights and discussion here as much as you, and have no quarrel with those who don't agree with my views on MW. But to read some posters comments on her is just plain sickening. Comments that she is an unemployed actress who is trying to make a few bucks are not case-related, their opinions, and venomous ones at that. Please contact your hero and ask him to explain his alter names and numbers. We look forward to the results of your sleuthing. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 22. "Well, AK." Posted by Holly on 08:17:51 6/01/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 08:17:51, 6/01/2000 You are certainly entitled to your informed observations, but why not back them up with some resources/sources we can all examine? I have made no secret that I distrust the Whites -- and why. You say to trust them. MW is a sham etc. How do you know not a single tab offered money (Monopoly $ excluded)? And who said tabs offered money to begin with? Why are you mentioning a beer bottle assault? I've not heard that anywhere else and what does it have to do with JBR? Is that supposed to diminish MW's credibility. I don't get it What good is all of this if the goal is to revive a sagging career as an actress? Do you have proof that MW has had an acting career that needs to be jumpstarted? If the faded actress stays out of sight and secret, how does her career benefit? Why can't opinions anti-White be discussed? The Whites have sought a public forum to talk to the People of Colorado, so what's wrong with talking back? I've got news for Fleet and Priscilla. Murder of a child is ugly business. If they think they are immune from scrutiny, especially in light of their proximity to the evidence, the victim, the major players, they are pretty damn stupid. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 18. "glad to see you back AK" Posted by luvsflowers on 07:03:56 6/01/2000 I thought at one time you had some connection to reporting or was it the tabs? My memory is not too good. Please verify the connection if you are in a postiion to do so. Also did that "something is gonna happen in the next few weeks" that you predicted ever come to pass? did we miss it? I miss a lot here on the threads and am glad you showed back up to clarify. Thanks in advance. Also Lake I have asked you this numerous times to no avail. If there is a shred of evidence that FW is connected to the murder why arent the Rams screaming this from the housetops as it would seem to point the finger away from them? Surely you are not keeping this information from them? you are their biggest supporter--well second biggest. Why are they still insisting it was a sicko pedophile stranger? Everyone agrees it was someone who knew them very well but they still hang onto the preposterous notion that it is an "unknown subject" that committed this crime. When are you going to help them out by giving them your theory? Their investigators could surely check it out and answer all these questions you are bringing out. Luvs [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20. "A.K." Posted by hareen on 07:20:33 6/01/2000 Please don't take this as being confrontational. I'm genuinely puzzled about something. You ask why posters are having trouble identifying this hoax. You say you made a few calls and got what you needed to know. You mention MW's partners in crime. Considering that you have this information, you are obviously legitimately concerned about the continued trashing of certain case related people. So A.K., why don't you just say what you know? Can't you see that if you have proof of who is behind this, you are in a position to put the whole thing to rest? Intelligent people who know what MW has said have found her believable. We've been told that she has some convincing documentation. Since the police declared her story not related to the Ramsey case, a link has been established to a former poster who apparently is related to MW. We've heard that he has been part of threats made to her, has been shown to have an interest in influencing the GJ, and has connections in the BDP. It has been implied that there are other things in regard to all this that we still don't know. Can't you understand why some people won't let this go just yet? Or why some of us wonder how this "hoax" was all pulled off and by whom? How did the the people behind it find an "actress" with a documented history of this kind of abuse and a connection to certain case figures? If you know, tell us. Or tell us why you won't tell us. Please! If you have the ability to put an end to this, do it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 36. "And if tabloids know" Posted by Holly on 10:39:53 6/01/2000 that MW is a sham, it's been 5 months, TELL THE STORY! This is perfect tab fodder. If they have investigated and know MW is a lying sack of chit then, for crying out loud, WHY haven't they screamed it in their papers? If any news gathering organization can disprove MW and restore the Whites to their former, almost universal, hero status, then why haven't they? I truly do not understand why there has not been an effort, by the people AK cites, to balance the scales. If the Whites are true heroes, and knowing the whole MW picture would lead us back to that conclusion, someone should be sharing it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 19. "Well, well..." Posted by A.K. on 07:15:05 6/01/2000 Why am I not surprised to see Mary99's undies in a bunch? Keep peddling, sister. Just don't be surprised if no one's buying. As for the actress, she's not MW. And I'll decline your request to expand on my theory. Luvs, I work in the media and have solid contacts. I explained about the "news" in my comment to Edie. I hope that helps. Allow me to give a huge cheer to Steve Thomas and Larry King. That was some remarkable television! Take care, all. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 23. "I'm trying to think of a " Posted by Holly on 08:21:51 6/01/2000 blue eyed actress with a sagging career. Hmmmm. Goldie Hawn? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21. "Hareen" Posted by A.K. on 07:42:17 6/01/2000 Those are fair questions to ask, but I'm not in a position to contribute more. I believe the investigation is in good hands, but should be conducted in silence. This idea that the People deserve to know everything is not one anyone with experience would agree with. I'd like to know more too, but if the information isn't forthcoming I won't make an assumption that there's something "there." And luckily I'm blessed with patience. Gotta run! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 28. "Holly & AK" Posted by fly on 08:37:19 6/01/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 08:37:19, 6/01/2000 AK - Many good points. More specific info would be nice, however, with or without the cryptic bits. Holly - How do you know not a single tab offered money (Monopoly $ excluded)? And who said tabs offered money to begin with? The first is a legit question, but you have to be joking about the second. How many times have we read the bit about how MW has been offered thousands of dollars for her story, but to protect her story's value/her integrity/etc. she has declined. In most cases the tabs were very, very strongly implied as the source of the offer, and I think explicitly stated at least once. Note, I'm not referring to the bribes supposedly offered by some of the people her story threatens to expose. That is a separate offer. If you question whether it was the tabs, then who was it? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 29. "fly." Posted by Holly on 08:46:56 6/01/2000 Of course I know MW/backed by Plasket and mame mention money offered. I just didn't hear the word TABS. If not tabs, maybe shows pay for info. Maybe a publisher. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 25. "A.K." Posted by mary99 on 08:28:23 6/01/2000 You can run, but you can't HIDE! Don't expect people to buy what you say about MW just because you 'say so'. Prove it. I listened to her and I believe her. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 24. "I agree with that observation, AK." Posted by Holly on 08:23:19 6/01/2000 A homicide investigation cannot be 100% public. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 27. "Good point, Holly" Posted by mary99 on 08:34:44 6/01/2000 I don't expect the FBI to start leaking to the tabs or to A.K. for that matter any time soon. In good time we will have answers to our questions and until then, I choose to believe MW over a man with some phony names and numbers, and a bunch of unanswered questions swirling around his head. If you are such an investigator that you can 'find the truth' about MW, please 'find the truth' about those questions I posed and post the answer here. Or have you already had contact with White? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 26. "Betsy talked about an actress..." Posted by Cassandra on 08:32:47 6/01/2000 HMMMMMMM An actress with sagging blue eyes... LOL Cassie [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 30. "Who the hell is" Posted by Holly on 08:47:34 6/01/2000 Betsy? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 31. "MW and Warped Minds" Posted by Lacey on 08:53:43 6/01/2000 Well said AK! Gutsy and articulate. Where da hell were you two weeks ago when I had to deal with them alone, lol??? Ah, but there's no convincing them, though - their minds are as made up as their story. And as you can see they are very confrontational. God, what am I doing here... Well y'all carry on. Sooner or later it'll bite you Lace . [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 32. "Holly" Posted by fly on 09:00:52 6/01/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 09:00:52, 6/01/2000 Betsy is a long-ago poster known best for her "Through the Looking Glass" sorts of posts, a belief that Masonic conspiracies are behind almost everything, and her comments about a famous person being at the Rams the night of the murder. Occassionally lucid and right on, Betsy most of the time appeared to be crazy as a loon or an excellent performance artist (or somewhere in between). She could be a hoot, or make lake look like a pussycat in terms of insults. Somebody (Maw?) once said she was actually a woman in NY who sold real estate. Who knows? You missed a real experience by missing Betsy. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 33. "Fly is absolutely right!" Posted by Cassandra on 09:13:52 6/01/2000 We never knew which Betsy would show up! There was another unusual poster called Rosalie. How would you describe her, Fly? Holly doesn't know what she missed, does she? Things were wild on the forums. Sometimes I miss those times...but we are grownups now, damn it! Cassie [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 34. "Yes, Betsy DID mention a " Posted by fiddler on 09:55:27 6/01/2000 blue-eyed actress, but she also insisted JonBenet wasn't really dead, remember? That's sort of the conspiracy to end all conspiracies. MW pales by comparison. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 39. "A.K." Posted by short timer on 10:53:12 6/01/2000 I don't know you from Adam except what you wrote today and wouldn't want to know you having seen the narrow field of vision that occupies the space behind your eyeballs. It must be neat to be so all-knowing and clairvoyant about not only this case but about MW, the lives and actions of sexual abuse survivors, what offers every tabloid except one have made in the past few months, who's been pilloried and who hasn't, what the most pernicious attempt at obstructing justice is or was (personally I thought it was even more pernicious for the Warren investigation to name Lee Harvey Oswald as the sole killer of JFK), how to make a few quick phone calls to end all speculation, who has sagging blue eyes and who doesn't, how to make a quick decision regarding what's a hoax and what isn't, what to give credence to and what not, when to come to JW and when to go, who's a busybody and who isn't, who to ask the real questions to in order to find out who's lying, who the real pathetic and needy people in this world are, who has problems in their life because of others and who hasn't, who's evil and has no shame and who isn't, who's into self-monitoring and who isn't but should be, who are the great thinkers and contributors on this forum and, by assumption, who isn't, what should be considered public conversation and what should be held only in private discussion, who someone's opinions belong to, who would write about this story and who wouldn't, who's lying and who isn't, how finding land mines zoomed to the top of the new hobbies' chart, blah blah blah ad nauseum. How you are even able to lift your head off the pillow each morning, what with all of the knowledge it contains, is surely a mystery of life that I hope will be solved after the JonBenet murder is solved. How you have held all that information together without being opinionated is another puzzling albeit solvable mystery. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 35. "Hinky connections" Posted by mary99 on 10:15:47 6/01/2000 There may be a Mason-ic connection, but it has nothing to do with the Masons. There may be a Alyce, but she isn't in the book by Lewis Carroll. There may be a Wonderland connection, but it's not to be found in 'Through the Looking Glass.' [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 38. "I thought" Posted by Holly on 10:49:05 6/01/2000 JB tick or treated with Daphne. Is that true? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ARCHIVE REMOVE -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The opinions expressed are those of the author of those opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Web Host, Webmaster or any Justice Watch member. The opinions and analysis included herein are based from sources believed to be reliable and in good faith but no representation or warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to their accuracy, completeness or correctness. Any copying, redistribution, or retransmission of any of the contents of this service without the express written consent of Justice Watch is expressly prohibited. Users of this site are subject to our User Agreement. Questions or problems regarding this bulletin board should be directed to the Webmaster Legal Disclaimer Administration A Administration B [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 8. "mini-rant for A.K." Posted by Gemini on 13:39:46 6/01/2000 Janphi, I guess we were writing messages at the same time. When I tried to post mine, the thread must have just closed (got no data found in this file message). Like you, I saved mine ... too much trouble to re-do, then made a quick run to the market for drinkables. I really wish I'd copied A.K.'s post for reference. seems kind of cheap to rant-on without the original post. Oh well. Thank you sweetly, Darby, for resuming the discussion. To A. K. in ref. to origin thread (More MW). Since you said you were leaving, I guess I have missed you, but think I'll add a couple of comments anyway. Sometimes, I enjoy reading your posts, and, other times, I think they're a bit condescending, but, in spite of that, interesting. However, I'm less than impressed when you draw some kind of phantom credentials to manipulate forum discussion to accomodate your own prejudices and pet views. That's a generalization, so I'll cut to the chase and deal with the particular issue at hand. Over the past several years, I haven't seen you voice your indignation about forum discussions that have hung a number of people out to dry. Nevermind the Ramseys, though there's been a lot (a LOT) of misinformation floated through the media ... especially the tabloids and forums ... about the Ramseys and the case in general without a word of caution from your seat herein. Let's find another example. How about the Paugh family? As far as I know, no one in that family, except Pam Paugh, has done as much as the Whites to establish a public persona. Yet, they've been the subjects of rampant speculation and insinuation on numerous forum threads. Nedra and Don Paugh have been the targets of horrible accusations. Where were you then? I'm not at all convinced MW has anything to do with this case ... just in a holding, wait and see, pattern. But, I do take exception to those of you who advocate the selective partitioning of information and discussion. The MW threads only make up a small section of this forum. What's more, any who have other interests and concerns also have the freedom to create related threads. i find it very difficult to understand why a few have this (seemingly) overwhelming need to limit areas of research and discussion ... to dictate the entire focus and shout down anything that deviates from the well-worn path. This appears to come from a heavy-handed need to control. Is it heretic to think each person here should be allowed to discuss topics of interest ... as long as they accept responsibility for their input? I don't think so. Over the life of the forums, I've found quite a few threads I felt were especially offensive ... disgusting even ... sick and twisted. And, it took time for me to learn enough tolerance to be able to scroll on past most of them and let my silence and non-participation speak for my POV. So, my suggestion is, let free discussion flow. The Whites may or may not have guilty secrets. But, the fact remains, they thrust themselves onto the public stage, and, in doing so, gave up their shelter from public speculation and perception ... just as the Ramseys did. jmo, of course. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 10. "Hmm. Very well" Posted by Holly on 13:46:36 6/01/2000 stated, Gemini. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 11. "MW," Posted by gaiabetsy on 13:56:28 6/01/2000 please e-mail me at any time. We share a lot in common, and since I've been "off the spool" lately, I'd love to get some support from you. My address is hdc@ispchannel.com. Please let me know about you. Help me. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 14. "Hats off to ..." Posted by mary99 on 14:05:07 6/01/2000 Darby, Janphi, Holly and Gemini...great posts. You ARE the real JW. A.K. is just one of many posters who become condescending, spiteful and sometimes downright abusive on the subject of the allegations MW made. Has me wondering if we are not hosting a few of the Boykins. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 12. "Sioux" Posted by darby on 13:57:09 6/01/2000 No plans, really. This indeed is up to the FBI to solve. My main problem is that I'm observing a very curious phenomenon on the forums. This is NOT a case of "Pro-MW People" vs. "Anti-MW People." Rather, this is a case of "People who want to know who or what is behind MW's claims" vs. "People who want us all to drop the MW subject like a hot potato without ever finding out who or what is behind her claims." This is strange. This woman emerged with documentation and support from esteemed people. Her family has known the Whites for years and years. Why is she making her claims? Who or what is behind this? I would think that whichever way one leans on the MW issue, we would ALL be on the same page and would together try to find out the answers to these questions. Why is this not happening? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 13. "Dare I suggest." Posted by Holly on 14:01:40 6/01/2000 AK could be playing agent provocateur. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 15. "Mystery thread on MW" Posted by mary99 on 14:13:06 6/01/2000 What happened to that thread, anyway? Have we had some selective forum tampering? Darby, Holly, you posted my thoughts to a T. (note: must refresh page before posting :) ) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 16. "Thanks, fly" Posted by darby on 14:19:58 6/01/2000 Okay, we'll call it a "mini conspiracy." The point is that multiple thinking people, some of whom know EVERYTHING that MW has brought with her, are behind her 100%. I KNOW the BPD said there was "no connection" between MW's claims and JBR's murder. Fine, but the BPD's statement left out some critical things and addressed others that were never in question. the BPD said that while there was no evidence that the Ramseys were involved in a sex ring, they also said that they turned over information about -a- sex ring to the FBI. I ask you or anyone else--WHAT sex ring? WHAT sex ring did MW talk about? To my knowledge, she never claimed that she had first-hand knowledge of the RAMSEYS' involvement in a sex ring. I think we can surmise that the only sex ring she talked about must have been the one that she said her family and the Whites were part of. And if that turns out to be true, then maybe there IS a connection--even though the BPD truthfully had to say "no connection" at this point. Besides, how hard would it have been for the BPD to include the three little words, "or the Whites" when they said they had no knowledge that the Ramseys were involved in a sex ring? WHY DID THE BPD SIDESTEP THE ENTIRE POINT OF MW'S CLAIMS IN THEIR STATEMENT? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 17. "I smell" Posted by lee2 on 15:09:28 6/01/2000 "control" all over AK's post. In my opinion, writing a lengthy diatribe about a subject one finds so unsavory is akin to using air freshener to mask a noxious odor in a non-ventilated commode. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 18. "Questions," Posted by Seeker on 15:23:35 6/01/2000 there are so many. My #1 question for MW is this; IF the Whites were involved in your allegations of sexual abuse, why haven't you brought suit against them? A.K. is in the know. There are at least 2 others on this forum that have some inside information as well. I enjoy reading these posts though. Keep it up everyone! You're getting closer. Janphi, Torchysmom says to tell you "Hi" (and is back in the center aisle on this case) and asks if you've been in touch with Paralegal? And that PL has some good theories that you may be interested in working on for this case. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 19. "darby" Posted by fly on 15:37:49 6/01/2000 darby - Perhaps the BPD statement intentionally left the issue concerning the Whites and some sex ring hanging, but maybe it looks like that under microscopic analysis but wasn't intended by the BPD. As I've said several times, to no avail, this is something that BPD could be asked to comment on by somebody with access (like mame or McKinley). So far, apparently nobody has bothered or reported what they were told. Too bad. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 33. "Here it is" Posted by janphi on 18:25:45 6/01/2000 The Catch-22 of posting a rant is, of course, that within the next few hours or days you will be forced to participate in whatever the focus of the rant was, lol! Something akin to those 4 fingers pointing back at you when you point one at someone else. Hi seeker (see, I just said I disliked these little personal messages--oh well). Did some of you all from ABC go to those other boards that some of the others set up? Obviously, I landed here after much reading and finally getting "sucked in", ha ha. Hello to torchysmom, too; should I assume she is not posting here under another hat? She has some good insights to share with those who haven't lost a child. Uh, paralegal must be the same one who is posting here now with that hat/handle (I don't pay a whole lot of attention--"principles before personalities" is kind of my thing)--thought I recognized the nasty flaming MO. NO thanks, no teaming up with that situation. 'Net people forget that they are all visitors here in my spare guest room and I wouldn't let real life guests come in and call me names and verbally assault me, why should it be different in cyberspace? I thought she said on the ABC boards that she was writing a book on JBR and had all kinds of inside info that no one else had and that people called her up and consulted with her because of all her JBR knowledge. It was her awful post directed at me (because I told her she wasn't the first one to create a "satanic cult abuse" connection to the JBR case) that caused that board to be shut down. Were you in that little group of posters that joined her in trouncing all over me? With all the twists and turns and angles in the JBR case, I just don't see why anyone would have to resort to personal diatribes for posting material. Anyway, hi to you all, glad you're here to read and learn and contribute. I'm not really developing any "theories;" I sort of have one I like which makes the most sense to me (and is not a popular or prevailing one), but I really just got involved here because I thought I knew FWJr. from somewhere a long time ago and came to see if I could figure out where (same reason I started on the ABC board after I saw the Rams on 20/20 with Baba Wawa in March, just a continuation of that). Two straight months of round-the-clock JBR sleuthing (at a huge loss of income) and I still don't have the answer to that--only some other very weird stuff about friends and acquaintances of mine, some connected to this and some not. Just not sure how anyone checks out any of this on-line conspiracy stuff; it's intriguing, but almost impossible to believe, even by someone as usually open-minded as myself. Glad to see you here. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 97. "Janphi, Out In the Open" Posted by Paralegal on 18:51:07 6/02/2000 Uh, paralegal must be the same one who is posting here now with that hat/handle (I don't pay a whole lot of attention--"principles before personalities" is kind of my thing) ---That would be me Janphi; is that why you have been avoiding me in chat and leaving as soon as I arrive despite my kindnesses toward you? thought I recognized the nasty flaming MO. ---Interesting how defending oneself against a verbal assault of egotistical magnitude is magically transformed into flaming! NO thanks, no teaming up with that situation. 'Net people forget that they are all visitors here in my spare guest room and I wouldn't let real life guests come in and call me names and verbally assault me, why should it be different in cyberspace? ---Aren't YOU a "net people" too? Then that applies to YOU as well, my dear! I thought she said on the ABC boards that she was writing a book on JBR and had all kinds of inside info that no one else had and that people called her up and consulted with her because of all her JBR knowledge. ---I believe that was YOUR story; aren't YOU the phenomenal researcher and all-knowing sage on this case? I am what I am, and represent myself on ALL boards as what I am-an experienced paralegal and former private investigator with a brain seeking intelligent life in Ramland. No ulterior motives, no books, no nasty personality dysfunctions, just me. Deal with it! It was her awful post directed at me (because I told her she wasn't the first one to create a "satanic cult abuse" connection to the JBR case) that caused that board to be shut down. ---Those who witnessed this event Janphi fail to recognize YOU as the victim, despite your constant self-promotional attempts to deceive them. Were you in that little group of posters that joined her in trouncing all over me? ---I do not have my own channel at mirc. It was started by Topaz from the abc board, who invited me, along with all the other ppl at ABC, to join, including you. She eventually asked me to co-own her channel and I accepted. They like me, Janphi, sorry that intimidates you. There was no conspiracy, dear, and no one "trounced" all over YOU. You were the one who trounced, dear, the rest of us just set boundaries to insist you respect others as you demand to be respected yourself. Can't help but have noticed the softer persona you have here at JW. That's all we asked from you at ABC. Glad you could make the leap. Hope you can sustain this new personality. With all the twists and turns and angles in the JBR case, I just don't see why anyone would have to resort to personal diatribes for posting material. Anyway, hi to you all, glad you're here to read and learn and contribute. ---Since discovering you here at JW, I have offered you civility, respect and support for your theories and participation here, both in the threads and chat. There are many witnesses to that truth, Janphi. I just discovered this unprovoked misrepresentation and self-glorifying attempt to discredit me at yet another discussion forum, just as you did at ABC. It didn't work there and it won't work here. When you join the bandwagon of peace, Janphi, you won't need to fear me any longer. Good luck to you. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 80. "Janphi" Posted by Seeker on 13:41:42 6/02/2000 Sorry, I don't have your e-mail addy so will have to resort to this forum to reply. I know, now, that you don't like these personal messages here, but what else am I to do? Anyway, I don't know what you mean by, "Were you in that little group of posters that joined her in trouncing all over me? With all the twists and turns and angles in the JBR case, I just don't see why anyone would have to resort to personal diatribes for posting material. Anyway, hi to you all, glad you're here to read and learn and contribute." so the answer to that is "no". Anyway, she does have some good ideas, but I'm not sure about the book writing thing. Maybe you have her confused with someone else? TM says you can reach her at her go.com address. Are you talking about Martin's theory? That's what I've been sort of working on and it would fit much better than some of the others. A third party in collusion with Patsy to "kidnap" JonBenet as a publicity stunt, is viable. Would fit with the unidentified DNA also. Like I said, I'm working on that theory too. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 20. "Gemini" Posted by darby on 15:40:10 6/01/2000 Though I can no longer see your post, it was a great one. I agree with everything you said. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 21. "fly" Posted by lake on 16:04:30 6/01/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 16:04:30, 6/01/2000 I try and give you the benefit of the doubt, but sometime your thinking is soo skewed. Fleet White wrote public letters pretending to be defending the good name of Boulder from the mess he claimed Hunter was making of the Ramsey case. And he cannot find it in him to write one public letter defending the good name of HIS family? Demanding that the BPD "clear" his family from the claims of NJK? Give me a break, fly. And god knows it is a huge family. If you open your eyes, you will see that the area within a 90 mile radius of Boulder is crawling with White/Brown/Cox/Christof relatives. The "hero" of many on JW has his feet nailed to the floor on this one. He can trot out posters like A.K. with his misinformation, but that is about it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 22. "Back at you, Seeker " Posted by darby on 15:54:12 6/01/2000 Good question, why isn't MW suing the Whites? Wish I knew. However--If you, A.K., and others are "in the know," why on earth are you keeping to yourselves any information that might help to clear the Whites? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 23. "lake" Posted by darby on 16:12:06 6/01/2000 Amazing. How do you know these initials? It sounds as if YOU are in the know. Just wish I knew how you know these things. I've always wondered about you. You've never answered me. Do you really want justice--not only for JonBenet, but for other children who might have been victimized in the same way? What makes you so sure the Ramseys aren't involved? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 26. "Darby" Posted by lake on 16:24:51 6/01/2000 I want the truth. That is all. The rest will follow as night follows day. But one truth is that many if not most JW posters have never wanted truth, they only wanted to bash the Ramseys because they THINK they KNOW the TRUTH. Well, as usual, THEY are wrong. THEY would not know the truth if they were run over by the truth. THEY would just pick themselves up, brush themselves off and head off in a 180 degree direction away from the truth that just ran over them. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 24. "does this mean AK didn't read" Posted by Edie Pratt on 16:16:10 6/01/2000 my post? I'll try again. Hi, AK, been looking for you and here you are. Thanks for the cryptic message, but when are we going to know what's become of the bear's honey? Can you tip your hat just a little bit more so I can celebrate, too? Good to see you back, AK:-)EP [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 25. "Lake--read it again " Posted by luvsflowers on 16:16:34 6/01/2000 I dont create my own reality. You must not comprehend what you read very well. I in no why alluded that you were pushing the stranger intruder pedophile--I said the Rams are. It is very clear to me that you believe someone very well known to JBR killed her and that possibly FW is involved or covered it up. My question is why dont the Rams jump on that bandwagon with you as it would tend to point away from them? Again for clarity--- what I said was that almost everyone( including you Lake) believes that someone very close to the Rams/or a family member did this crime. Everyone except the Rams that is. They are screaming someone who hated JR and was a sicko pedophile intruder stranger did this. So--since you are possibly giving a good lead as to who did this ---why arent the Rams shouting to the rooftop that MW could solve this case? Why arent they taking her by the hand and getting info from her? Why arent they accusing FW? What arent they giving up the guest list from the 23rd party and the dinner at the Whites that night? why arent they naming the out of town guests so that they can be investigated? Why why why?? there must be some reason why they cant--or they would. That is my logical explanation. Luvs [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 27. "so, leak" Posted by Edie Pratt on 16:28:35 6/01/2000 WHAT IS THE TRUTH? You seem to know what that is, otherwise you couldn't accuse others of not wanting to know what it is. Spill it or forget it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 28. "Luvsflowers" Posted by lake on 16:29:13 6/01/2000 One word. EVIDENCE. That which Steve Thomas and the BPD do not seem to think is important before one writes a book based on theory and speculation. The Ramseys and their investigators are much, much smarter than Steve Thomas and the BPD. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 29. "Pratt" Posted by lake on 16:31:37 6/01/2000 I thought this was about JFJBR, not about you. I don't owe you anything Pratt. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 31. "LOL leak" Posted by Edie Pratt on 16:36:27 6/01/2000 you sound just like the grubby little skank you are. Ask a simple question... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 30. "A.K." Posted by Morgan on 16:33:21 6/01/2000 It looks like someone took a hit in the old wallet. Am I right? Did MW's information upset one of your little deals? And now you're trying to shake loose some new leads. At MW's expense. Shame on you. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 32. "The poster A.K" Posted by lake on 17:33:04 6/01/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 17:33:04, 6/01/2000 Has had an agenda for years. And her agenda has never been JFJBR as far as I can tell. Her agenda has been ITRAAC. But A.K (by her own admission) has been in bed with the tabloids from very early on in this case. And so has FW. A "key witness" in a murder case in bed with the tabloids through a covey of middlemen and women is highly suspect. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 34. "So, A.K." Posted by hareen on 18:49:49 6/01/2000 If I assume the actress isn't Goldie Hawn, and it isn't MW, then it must be the therapist. Who else could it be? So are you hinting that Mary Bienkowski is a has-been actress who conceived and executed the MW scam in hopes of getting TV spots and reviving her career? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 35. "Janphi - and all who hate being told what to think" Posted by mary99 on 19:39:19 6/01/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 19:39:19, 6/01/2000 I really enjoy reading your posts, and today you really made some great points which may have been overlooked. Tell us more, if you can, about the discoveries you made. I agree with Darby, Janphi and short timer, we are being expected/told to provide documented evidence in order to be *allowed* to discuss this man and or MW. That is a condition set by those who wish to limit debate and free expression, and I sense the dark workings of a criminal family at work when the issue is raised, discussed and posters attacked time and time again. It's time we tell off the 'trolls' who patrol the Internet for the interested parties, injecting venom and stifling debate whenever MW comes up. I know when I'm being 'programmed'. And that's their specialty, isn't it? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 36. "In essence" Posted by darby on 19:49:04 6/01/2000 Don't you all see why some of us still wonder? MW could have been removed from the picture in a New York minute by the BPD when they made their official statement about her. The only thing that had to be said was that MW had absolutely no documentation created prior to the murder concerning the Whites. That's it! Why didn't the BPD do that? A.K. and all--THAT is why I still don't know. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 37. "Bravo, short timer!!" Posted by maundy on 21:07:35 6/01/2000 you said it so well... what happened to the original thread? btw, there are a lot of well written responses to AK here. i can't remember everyone's names, but thank you, too. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 38. "Goldie Hawn -- NO!!!!!" Posted by A.K. on 02:27:28 6/02/2000 The actress I mean is not nearly as successful as Hawn but is a name many of you would recognize. She's in the Screen Actor's Guild, but I doubt any of her reviewers have had glowing words to say about her past work. My mentioning her is a theory only, and possibly one operating serendipitously from MW and her immediate handlers. Anyway, she doesn't matter to me, nor does the MW investigation, as there's no nexus to the death of JB. That's all I care about. I've made the point many times that ego and emotion kill cases. If I had an ego I could talk about the many homicide and kids at-risk cases I've worked, predating JB's birth, let alone her death. I've read here and other places about significant pieces of information I have put out in the news on other cases, and it makes me smile knowing I've done well in telling the truth, and hopefully bringing to justice people who have committed crimes, or conversely, helping to clear the names of people falsely accused. Sometimes I make money, sometimes I work pro bono. My credibility is sterling among the people who matter. I only bring this up now because I'm not new to this arena and am trained to recognize noise on a subject. I notice when people, whether innocently or purposefully, try to retard an investigation. That's what has happened here: a creation designed to do harm, carried forth by midwives who may mean well but are out of their league. As I said to someone recently, when I finally figure out the progenitor of this particular MW angle, I will punch him in the nose, then shake his hand out of professional courtesy. For those of you who think this is my first rant in protecting innocent people, you have a short memory. I've consistently defended Don Paugh, as well as the Pughs, the McReynoldses and others who have fallen under the bus wheels. I don't post a lot, so I can understand why this may have been missed. Yet there's a huge difference between the horrendous treatment of the Whites and that of the other people. Think of Kmart vs. a mom & pop store. Holly, your mind and passion are admirable, but sometimes you just go off... There's no advantage for the Whites to defend themselves in a public way. Except to give the forums fodder. Also, the tabs were mentioned by Mame who supposedly witnessed a $10k offer. Now either it was said in a joking way by someone without authority, or it is a blatant lie. Either way, the statement was made and demanded a response to set the record straight. Lake, you're worth every minimum wage buck they pay you, just for the amusement value. Edie, I can't say more. I feel I've left a lot of clues, but I do tend to be cautious when matters of grave concern come up. Darby, your heart-felt questions are good ones and I don't know how to reconcile things. Obviously nothing should have come this far publicly, and I can appreciate the frustration some feel. Statistically, it's reasonable to imagine there will be no resolve that will be made public. Frustration is a common reaction to this kind of work. Ugh, this is longer than I had expected, and more revealing than I'm comfortable with. I'm unable to post and read much --anyone who knows me knows I don't shrink from debate-- but there's real work to be done. And long after this case is adjudicated or put into the deep freeze, I'll still be working it, and others like it. Well, there's never been one quite like this... So, carry on, crew -- just don't take any wooden nickels! :-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 42. "AK." Posted by Holly on 06:27:05 6/02/2000 The statement that only the WEEKLY WORLD NEWS (a tab satire rag) would offer Monopoly $ is not the truth and I think you know that. The tab offer was witnessed by several people, and it is the truth. Mame does not lie. And you damn well know it. You lecture, but do not provide any verifiable info. How come? Who fed you the movie star theory? Fleet? Now it looks to me like this can be read two ways. Either you are a well connected agent provocateur who is working behind the scenes to accomplish a goal that will advance justice OR you are just plain goofy. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 39. "Tiptoeing around the Truth" Posted by mary99 on 04:10:34 6/02/2000 First A.K. says we don't know the truth behind the MW story, but A.K. DOES. A.K. says we are barking up the wrong tree, and A.K. has proof that the MW story is a big fat lie cooked up by an unemployed actress. We should not impugn the Whites because A.K. says we're oh-so-wrong. A.K. wants us to DROP the whole debate because A.K. thinks we should, based on her info. What's wrong with this picture? First of all, we see a hasty retreat from the unemployed actress accusation, originally inferred to be MW but now it turns out to be another MW! Then, when pressed to expose the whole saga for what it is, to restore the White's good name and reputation, A.K. declines citing her standards. One can't have it both ways - if you say MW is a fraud, based on what you learned after making a few phone calls, back it up or back down... If you can't or won't back up your insinuations, which BTW, have no resemblence to official statements from the BPD - in fact are diametrically opposed to the most recent statements from the BPD, then I must conclude you are attempting to stifle the exercise of free speech and thought. MW has met with authorites. She has been and continues to be threatened. She offerred to take a polygraph, the BPD turned her down. She has shown no fear of being 'found out' to be a fraud, because, very simply, I don't think she is one. Liars hedge and dodge when asked to be specific. We've seen it with the Ramseys for three years. We have not seen MW behave as they do. Being in hiding yet willing to meet with law enforcement is quite different from the Ramseys behavior. A.K. wants us to self-regulate our discussion concerning the Whites. Why? When have they been forthcoming? How is the sleuthing on the meaning of the duplicate ID in Fleet White's name coming, A.K.? We are waiting to hear the truth. If you know it, share it. Otherwise, you put yourself in the same position as the Ramseys and jameson -- defending the undefendable. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 50. "Mary99" Posted by sarah on 07:39:14 6/02/2000 I sent you an email, I think.. I looked and it was posted in my delete file.. Did you get it? >>..Gonna look for an archived post-and may add to this discussion later. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 40. "A.K." Posted by short timer on 05:53:11 6/02/2000 Except for your great line that began "if I had an ego", which had me ROFLMAO, the diversity of these two sentences are my other favorites. "But I'll just bet there's a washed-up, blue-eyed, lousy actress who's mourning her dashed hope to regain a public profile. Perhaps her partners in crime will now learn that it's not an easy thing trying to sell tainted goods. "The actress I mean is not nearly as successful as Hawn but is a name many of you would recognize. She's in the Screen Actor's Guild, but I doubt any of her reviewers have had glowing words to say about her past work. My mentioning her is a theory only, and possibly one operating serendipitously from MW and her immediate handlers. So now we see that this blue-eyed actress is "theory" only. Failing to mention that the first time you wrote about the actress is quite misleading. Edie, it sounds like that bear is dripping its honey at a cemetery. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 41. "ACandyRose - New Mystery Woman info compilation" Posted by mary99 on 06:05:51 6/02/2000 I don't know if this was posted here already, and hope I'm not duplicating. I found it at WebbSleuths and posted it in its entirety so you may have the benefit of AuntieBJ's introduction: I have completed a story on the "Mystery Woman" known as Callie/Bridget/Nancy based on my own observation and opinion that has been added to the ACandyRose Subculture history files. I have also included a section toward the bottom of many of the missing threads from various forums that may help some of you to better understand this confusing story as several posters on all of the forums did some excellent research on this subject over the last month. Their research is based on "their" opinion, and not mine. I am only providing the source links to help follow this story. Thanks, ACandyRose http://jonbenet2000.tripod.com/MysteryWomanStory2000.htm [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 46. "I LOVE" Posted by Holly on 06:45:25 6/02/2000 A Candyrose! What a superb job. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 45. "To be fair, AK doesn't owe us anything" Posted by Cassandra on 06:42:13 6/02/2000 and certainly not information she has gleaned in her line of work. I imagine there is confidentiality involved, since she is apparently uncomfortable with what she has divulged so far. She seems to feel people are going down the wrong path, and that is her personal opinion, so why must she be attacked for it? We all have our own opinions about all this. Let's not drive her away because her opinion might be different from that of other people. This is not the Swamp. A theory should be able to stand up under challenges. JMO Cassie [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 44. "look to to..." Posted by mame on 06:33:46 6/02/2000 lions and tigers and bears...OH MY! and an unemployed actress who is a member of the screen actor's guild...well, that narrows it down to a gazillion winged monkeys! too funny. there are more bad apple trees than i thought on this yellow brick road. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 43. "All right, A.K." Posted by hareen on 08:48:46 6/02/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 08:48:46, 6/02/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 08:44:08, 6/02/2000 I'm not going to let this go yet, because I really want to understand what's going on here. And I DON'T! Why are you and some others so intent on stopping us from wondering who is behind this if it's a hoax? This is making NO sense as Darby so articulately pointed out. You say, "Anyway, she doesn't matter to me, nor does the MW investigation, as there's no nexus to the death of JB. That's all I care about." Yet, in some of your other posts on this thread, you have made the following comments: "What I see is the most pernicious attempt at obstructing justice since Jack Ruby shot Lee Oswald." "Finally, I hope that everyone who contributed to this all-too-transparent hijacking attempt will be called on the carpet and asked to explain their actions in a proper forum." "That's why we must be extra diligent in recognizing trolls whose goal is to create internal strife, for whatever reason. This MW angle is an almost perfect creation of malicious mischief... only it didn't work. Fear not, they'll be back with something else. They always are." Now, A.K., if all you say is true, how can you expect us to believe it has no connection to the JBR case? If this is an "obstruction of justice" or a "hijacking attempt" or a scheme concocted to "create internal strife", the reason for setting it in motion MUST be connected to this case. Is that faulty reasoning? The person/people behind it would have a motive to set it in place, wouldn't they? This is a pretty complex hoax. It took some real doing on somebody's part. Wouldn't knowing who wants things sidetracked be a little clue? And if the people you suspect are behind it, are in no way related to the case (say an actress or Singular, as some have implied,) then how do I reconcile that with the comments you made above? I'm curious about all this. And I'm going to stay curious until some of this is explained one way or the other. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 54. "lake & Holly & mary99" Posted by fly on 08:26:10 6/02/2000 Holly - Your story keeps changing, and I can't imagine why. First you question how AK knew MW had never been offered money by the tabs (except WWN monopoly money, perhaps), but imply that nobody had ever said MW had been offered money by the tabs: How do you know not a single tab offered money (Monopoly $ excluded)? And who said tabs offered money to begin with? And then when I said mame, MW, or somebody had said MW had turned down tab money to stay "pure," you admit something about money had been said, but still suggest it wasn't the tabs: Of course I know MW/backed by Plasket and mame mention money offered. I just didn't hear the word TABS. If not tabs, maybe shows pay for info. Maybe a publisher. And then, lo and behold, you post that a tab offer had, indeed been made, and for real money, despite the offer apparently being from the WWN: The statement that only the WEEKLY WORLD NEWS (a tab satire rag) would offer Monopoly $ is not the truth and I think you know that. The tab offer was witnessed by several people, and it is the truth. Mame does not lie. And you damn well know it. Are you suggesting above that WWN is not a tab but did offer real money, and now stating that a "real" tab also offered money? Seems like all the Ramsey spin we've been subjected to over the years has started to get you a bit dizzy. :-) mary99 - You posted to AK: One can't have it both ways - if you say MW is a fraud, based on what you learned after making a few phone calls, back it up or back down... I tend to agree that definite statements that MW is a fraud should be accompanied by specific evidence, just as similar statements about MW's story's validity should (but almost never are). However, you lose me when you next say that AK's statements are diametrically opposed to the recent BPD statements. That simply isn't true. BPD in no way said that MW's story has validity, other than the fact that she has been abused. That's a far piece from saying there was any evidence of a sex ring, especially one including Fleet White - the core of MW's accusations. In fact, there is a comment by Beckner that everybody keeps ignoring that can be read as dismissing the rest of MW's story. Beckner said (roughly quoted) he wouldn't comment on the rest of MW's allegations (about the sex ring allegations) "out of respect for her." Now maybe you read that as a supportive statement, but I tend to read it as allowing MW to withdraw with some face saving, in spite of her being mostly bogus, as far as BPD could tell. lake - Yeah, well I try to be patient with you too, in spite or your highly skewed thinking. :-) I haven't seen anything to suggest that Boulder and environs are crawling with all those relatives. Perhaps I've missed it. Of course, the fact that MW has relatives in the area doesn't mean her story is legit. Nobody has really questioned the fact that her family has links to the White family. It is the nature of those links that have been questioned. This story of hers could be basically delusional, as far as I know. Many delusions are not random imaginations - they start out with a few facts (such as knowing the Whites), and then things begin to spiral into neverneverland. I don't know if MW is delusional or not. I won't even say that the whole elaborate sex ring story has to be bogus, although I suspect it is at least dramatically overblown. But nothing has come forth that I've seen that pushes me toward more belief in her, and BPD's statement clearing Fleet White of any role in the sexual abuse and murder of JBR is a pretty strong push away from believing her. The fact that Fleet hasn't been shouting from the housetops isn't very convincing evidence of his guilt. Maybe he is protecting somebody - not necessarily himself. Or maybe he is not protecting anybody, including himself, except in the sense that another diatribe would just draw more attention to an incorrect, preposterous story that has essentially disappeared except online. Now that the BPD has stated he had no role in the abuse or murder of JBR, that becomes even more reasonable. We keep hearing that "things will break soon," and I do hope that is true. I'm not holding my breath, though. Too many broken promises in the forums for that, I'm afraid. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 69. "fly. There is not a story change --" Posted by Holly on 11:58:17 6/02/2000 just an update. I called a person last night who could give me the "offer info". I had not heard tabs mentioned in the interviews but I coud have missed it. Last night someone told me a tab DID offer money and that others were witness to the offer. So my point is that if AK knows all the tab sources, then she SHOULD know about the only offer I am aware of at this point. But if you can find a prior tab offer reference, post it please. I'd like to save it for my case notebook. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 74. "Holly" Posted by fly on 12:52:15 6/02/2000 Fair enough. New info explains a lot, although I'm amazed that you'd never heard mame/MW use the turned-down-tab-money evidence of MW's legitimacy the many times it was used. I'm not sure what you mean by prior offer. I have no idea which tab, WWN or other, made the offer. I don't know if more than one made one. All I know is what I posted. If you look through all the MW related threads I'm sure you'll find reference to what I noted. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 48. "Apparently, both factions have a piece of the puzzle" Posted by Cassandra on 06:59:07 6/02/2000 but nobody has it all. The rest of us just watch to see what happens next, and how it affects the investigation into the death of JBR. Meanwhile, let's not beat each other about the head and shoulders debating this issue. We're all in this together, with one goal. Cassie [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 47. ":-) hareen" Posted by mary99 on 06:57:14 6/02/2000 RIGHT ON HAREEN!! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 52. "fairness " Posted by darby on 07:51:22 6/02/2000 As Cassie said, we should all be fair. If A.K. has information, and she's trying to lead us down what she thinks is the right path, great. But she seems to be going about it in a very confrontational manner, doesn't she? Who could disagree? A.K. says that she can't share all of her information--that's fine, I'm not demanding it. But how then does she have the right to criticize anyone for still wondering about the very things that she cannot tell us? As hareen said so well, some of what A.K. says appears to contradict itself. Much of the rest, as I can see, seems to be condescending to the poor peasants here at JW who just aren't in the know. Do you know what is a much bigger mystery to me than Mystery Woman? It's the emotional, almost panic-stricken reaction I've observed from certain forum members since this woman emerged. I might have let the whole issue die a natural death were it not for these hysterical responses, the likes of which I haven't seen since the unveiling of jameson's "shower vision." What I have NOT been seeing from many of these folks are sound, logical arguments for whatever cause it is they've taken up. Instead I'm seeing a lot of baseless attacks. I'm at a loss for why this is happening. I'm trying to be fair, but the fairness rule should apply to both "sides"...shouldn't it? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 51. "Mary 99" Posted by sarah on 07:41:04 6/02/2000 See post 50 [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 73. "MW brings out the Dr. Jekell/Mr. Hyde in us." Posted by mary99 on 12:49:20 6/02/2000 Seems like a lot of long-time posters are becoming absolutely, irrationally, exclusively focused on trashing MW and anyone who supports her or believes her. Even though I never met her, the reaction to her story by certain long-time posters has been so hate-filled, so much of a personality change form the poster we though we knew - it just re-inforces my suspicions that there are people who are scared of her and what she says, because it's the truth. Their venom has just convinced me more than ever they are manipulators, real 'plants', whose purpose has been to co-exist with us peacefully for three years to monitor the forums - just waiting for the day when their brand of 'damage control' would be needed. Look at the number of 'W's, 'B's, and 'K's out there who would prefer this story go away forever. Isn't it logical many of them monitor these forums and participate? No, they are not newbies, they have been here and earned your respect when they blasted Alex Hunter. Until MW came forward, they were no different than you or I. Since MW, they are characterized by their extreme cruelty toward MW and her allegations. It's a small, extremely vicous group that's has shown a dramatic personality change. RonS and BobC in particular. They have convinced me more than ever she, MW, is telling the truth - just because they are so afraid of her - and any and all debate concerning Fleet White. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ EMAIL mary99 ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 49. "Hareen," Posted by WitchyWoman on 07:22:56 6/02/2000 I think AK said there was no nexus to the death of JB, not the case. The difference IMO is MW (in A.K.'s view) has nothing to do with the death, but may have something to do with those involved in the case which would be apart from the actual murder. As I have said before I do not believe MW's story has anything to do with the death of JB either. I think MW, whether her story is true or not, is a lady that needs help and I hope to God she is now getting it. I certainly understand those here that believe AK isn't forthcoming with information, just inuindo's to build his/her own self up. I agree, he/she seems to be knowledgeable, but so does MW. If we believe everyone one that comes to the forum claiming to have secret knowledge we might as well believe there is an ocean in Boulder, CO. WW [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 53. "A.K. " Posted by darby on 08:13:15 6/02/2000 I am keeping my mind open to whatever it is I think you are trying to say. May I ask ONE thing, however? Are you trying to tell us, with the Kmart analogy, that you believe there is a fairly wide conspiracy behind MW? As I've said, which EVER way this mystery leads, we need to find out the truth. I absolutely think that whatever or whoever is behind MW's emergence--this must be found out. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 55. "Darby...Perhaps" Posted by Cassandra on 09:32:22 6/02/2000 AK thinks it belongs under the Big Top only as a Sideshow, and others think it belongs in the Center Ring with the death of JBR. Only the people who were present that night know the truth. Cassie [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 57. "darby" Posted by fly on 10:22:04 6/02/2000 "Panic stricken responses"? You seem to be suggesting the skeptics are panic stricken, but that's not what I've observed. Seems to me that the most vehement, emotional behavior has most frequently come from those who believe in MW in response to somebody voicing skepticism of MW's tale. I do agree, though, that people's reactions are a very interesting aspect of this whole mess, and as difficult to understand at times as the JBR case itself. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 56. "Cassie and fly" Posted by darby on 10:18:27 6/02/2000 Cassie--fair enough. I'll wait and watch. fly--you said: "BPD in no way said that MW's story has validity, other than the fact that she has been abused. That's a far piece from saying there was any evidence of a sex ring, especially one including Fleet White - the core of MW's accusations." Yet, this is right from the May 15 press release: Boulder Police have forwarded information to the FBI in reference to some of the woman's allegations regarding the operation of a child sex ring. We certainly can't know for sure by this statement whether or not a sex ring exists. But it sure looks as if the BPD had determined that MW's allegations regarding the operation of a child sex ring were worthy of FBI investigation. Also from the May 15 release: Nor do we have any evidence that John and Patsy Ramsey were part of or participated in a child sex ring operation. Okay, possible evidence of a child sex ring might exist, but there's no evidence that John and Patsy participated in it? Hmmm. Maybe the hypothetical sex ring information that the BPD turned over to the FBI involves only MW's family members, or possibly even other people. But, as you said above, Fleet White was at the core of the allegations MW shared with the BPD--and NOT MW's family members or even the Ramseys. So it appears that the BPD's statement about child sex rings neglected to exclude the only person who was really in question. This must have been a horrible, horrible oversight by the BPD. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 59. "darby" Posted by fly on 10:30:41 6/02/2000 darby - Yes, they forwarded "information" to the FBI. The nature of that information is not known. It could be evidence they discovered, or it could be MW's own unsubstantiated statements (or her therapist's) rather than "evidence" - basically their case file on MW. The statement could just signal they were letting the FBI handle the investigation of the sex ring, and that that was not something they were interested in dogging forever. Now, you've still not addressed the implications of Beckner's potentially very telling "out of respect" statement. Let's keep the whole context in play, not just focus on one part. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 70. "fly." Posted by Holly on 12:03:46 6/02/2000 I don't think "unsubstantiated" statements were given to the FBI. They can collect their own statements. Maybe copies of verification materials... [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 75. "Holly" Posted by fly on 12:56:05 6/02/2000 Of course that's possible. As I stated, we don't know, and thus, to take it as evidence of evidence of a sex ring is rather risky. I don't see anything so weird about BPD possibly handing over a copy of MW's statements to them, however, even if the FBI would do their own interviews. Might be rather helpful if they wanted to see if everything was consistent from interview to interview, right? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 58. "fly" Posted by darby on 10:29:38 6/02/2000 Okay, maybe not "panic stricken." Perhaps I should have said: afire, ardent, fervent, fervid, fired, avid, eager, dedicated, fanatic, frenetic, rabid, wild-eyed, infatuated, obsessed, possessed or zealous? But certainly NOT: cool, halfhearted, indifferent, lukewarm, careless, heedless, insouciant, negligent, unmindful, disinterested, lackadaisical, uninterested, or apathetic. I'll work on it. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 61. "RESPECT?" Posted by darby on 10:49:28 6/02/2000 fly, you must know exactly what I'm going to say. We all know that, regardless of what MW had to say to the BPD, the net effect of the public reports about her are that people have speculated that Fleet White Jr. and/or Sr. might be part of a child sex ring. If the BPD isn't aware of this, they must be brain dead. (Don't go there, lake) Now, if the Whites are known to be completely innocent of any wrongdoing, then who would be more deserving of respect, them or some abused woman from California--however unfortunate her circumstances may be? Would the BPD, out of respect for this woman, allow people to continue to speculate that Fleet White is part of a child sex ring, when in fact this is false? You say that Beckner said that "out of respect," he would not comment further on MW's allegations. While I have no reason to not believe that he said this, I do have to think that he was referring to something other than the FW/sex ring thing. One thing that comes to mind is that the BPD never publicly shared what MW claimed her mother told her about who murdered JBR. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 60. "darby" Posted by fly on 10:34:36 6/02/2000 :-) Ah, but the indignation of the skeptics was usually focused on the issue of whether tarring and feathering a "cleared" individual prior to having any investigation, or while ignoring the BPD statements was fair or appropriate. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 63. "Turning it over to the FBI" Posted by WitchyWoman on 11:13:16 6/02/2000 doesn't seem to me a big deal, allegations were made that crossed into another state. That would be the logical thing to do, turn it over to the FBI. It doesn't mean the FBI is investigating anything about it. It could be in their files with a zillion other classified as nut cases OR it could be on the top of a lot of their desks, they could be investigating as we type. There is just no way to know what is going on and maybe there never will be. If the FBI doesn't say anything EVER, there was probably nothing to say. There are so many super intelligent people on this forum sometimes I hesitate to write. There are some deceitful people here as well it seems, more now than when I first came. I have no valid idea's who are writing these posts. I have some guesses and they seem pretty good guesses to me since I do believe if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, it probably is a duck. Some of these deceitful people think they are so smart they can fool the masses regarding who they are. What they cannot see is their persona speaks loud and clear through their voices as well as their writings. They are so much smarter than we average Joe Blows they can outwit us, or so they believe. Now I don't claim to be the sharpest tack on the forum, but neither do I claim to be the dumbest either, but I can see a duck and know a duck when I see one. There are also some people here that I see as gullible because of their own situations in life. I do NOT speak of only those abused, but some that have so little personal knowledge of what can (and does) happen to other people daily they are apt to believe things others won't. Don't mistake personal knowledge for heresay knowledge please, personal to me is - it happened to you! You can work with abused victims forever and never know how they feel! You can have empathy, but you can not feel what the person feels. You can be understanding, but you cannot understand. Unless we personally have walked in those shoes we do not know the torment suffered. Just MHO! WW [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 62. "fly" Posted by darby on 10:56:17 6/02/2000 I understand what you are saying. Nobody should have to endure groundless speculation. But remember, the speculation was not fabricated from nothing at all. And I'll re-iterate here that my number one question, which could put the whole matter behind us in a heartbeat, has not yet been answered. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 65. "darby" Posted by fly on 11:31:35 6/02/2000 darby - I can't find the URL to the DailyCamera article that covered the BPD statement and included Beckner's remark. If you are somebody else can provide it, I'd appreciate it. My memory, however, is that his response seemed to be in reference to MW's story about the sex ring itself. The article itself would probably clear this up. As to letting speculation continue by allowing the ambiguity about Fleet and the sex ring to stand without comment... Well, both of our positions on this are just speculation, and both of our requests for information remain unanswered and unacted upon: Is there documentation pre-murder concerning MW's critical allegations? (yours) What did BPD mean by not specifically clearing White of involvement in a sex ring? (mine) Seems like two worthwhile questions (especially mine) for some reporter to tackle. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 64. "well, hell" Posted by mame on 11:33:56 6/02/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 11:33:56, 6/02/2000 if i hear one more person say "this woman needs help and i hope she gets it"...puullleaaazzzzeee. this dignified, courageous, WOMAN has the strength and grace of a thousand "know it alls"... i'll never understand how after three years of putting every "bus person" and "case character" and even the BPD...through the grinder how one little voice has caused such a vicious response from the "masses"! we all seem to have such a double standard on who is fair game and who isn't. slow justice is a nasty little thing...when a murder case of a little girl is played out in books, tabloids, movies, and living rooms only...many are hurt. you can't blame those discussing their opinions in coffee shops, internet forums or living rooms. you can blame a system that has taken three and a half years to grind to a halt. so it appears we may never know who are the real good guys and girls are. it's been left for us to decide based on the information dog and pony show that now says they know it all! and anyone who dares step in to challenge the ego driven CONSENSUS of private opinion is ridiculed. now ain't that grand. that sure isn't the "american way" that i learned in high school civics class! my sources say this entire case is now on a shelf. so who wins? certainly not jonbenet ramsey! [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 72. "Hello, AK..." Posted by LurkerXIV on 12:27:10 6/02/2000 ...thanks for taking the time to weigh in on the MW debate. I don't know who you are in "real life", but I have always found your posts to be measured, reasonable, and informative. When you say you have solid contacts, I believe you. With your extensive journalistic experience, you have learned to research all tips and never to go forward with "iffy" material that cannot be independently confirmed. So I understand where you are coming from on the MW issue. However, for the rest of us who are not professionals, it is perfectly OK to ask questions, to speculate, to form and voice opinions on all aspects of the JBR murder case. That is why we are here on the internet, where there is so much more freedom of speech than in the print media. Thanks for your input, and please keep posting here. Your viewpoint is well-noted, and adds to the vivacity and veracity of the debate. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 71. "Well, Miss mame marple." Posted by Holly on 12:06:15 6/02/2000 I don't think this case is on the shelf with the BPD. Maybe the DA shelved it until it's back in their ballpark. Godamighty. Let's not start a "cold case" panic. :-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 68. "Well, I'll be doggone, A.K." Posted by hareen on 11:49:01 6/02/2000 It took a while, but it finally dawned on me that you said the actress in question wasn't Goldie Hawn. But I had only mentioned her in jest, referring to an earlier post of Holly's. The thrust of my question was about MW's therapist, and I now realize you didn't mention her at all in your answer. Was that an oversight on your part? Maybe you meant "NO" to both? Or maybe not. I'm also trying to hear you, A.K. I know you have some information, even though I'm not quite sure how much is theory and how much is fact, at this point. And I do, of course, respect your need for confidentiality. But you seem pretty self-assured to me. I don't think you'll answer what you shouldn't -- though Cassandra's point is well taken. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 67. "mame" Posted by fly on 11:46:23 6/02/2000 mame - When BPD, Hunter, and bus fodder have been put through the grinder unfairly, people have protested. Maybe you just didn't notice. This was especially true when the person in the grinder had been officially, or all but officially, cleared of involvement in the JBR case. MW's story has been declared kaput by the BPD in terms of any relevance to the JBR case, but that has had no effect on some people's belief in her story. That is the issue that continues to provoke comment, mostly. One way to shut down comments skeptical of MW is to provide evidence that her story is legit. BPD obviously isn't going to. Maybe the FBI will someday, but I doubt it. Maybe you feel you can't, and that's OK, but don't expect some of us to believe in her. How about at least putting on your journalist hat and trying to get the BPD to address the ambiguity in their statement concerning White and MW's story? That might settle at least one or two issues. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 66. "Mame," Posted by WitchyWoman on 11:41:10 6/02/2000 It is from you I believe that I learned MW was abused as late as this very year. How could someone that was abused no longer ago than this not need help? You must have thought she needed help, you helped her. I don't understand how all of a sudden after being in therapy for 10+ years, abuse ongoing she is all of a sudden no longer in need of help. Please tell me why your opinion is she no longer needs help. WW [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 82. "We have to be careful" Posted by Luvsbeagles on 13:42:50 6/02/2000 Flame away if you must.....but I'd like to comment on something I have noticed lately. I am referring to the process of what I will call "superanalyzing" for lack of a better word. I read the BPD release on MW. To me, what it said is pretty plain...they took this woman seriously, they investigated her, they found no evidence that the Whites had anything to do with the murder or that JR and PR are involved in a sex ring. Thats it. Period. I dont think they have to spell out and answer all the possible implications that people can come to if they dissect every little word. You know...they didnt say anything about Aliens not abducting her..so maybe that is still a possibility. SHEESH! AK said it wasnt Goldie Hawn. (the fact that we are even DISCUSSING Goldie Hawn shows how bizarre this whole case is!) But because he didnt mention the therapist now we are off and running on that fact....oooh it must be her! It reminds me of Clinton (and I am a diehard Demmocrat so I am not criticising here) He had lots of fun taking people's direct questions and twisting and turning them until "is" has forty different meanings. Lets not do that here. I know some people feel MW's claims werent fully investigated and I think thats a valid, although not necessarily correct concern. But dissecting and reading too much into things will make you bonkers. And AK..although I think you had a lot of good things to say about not attacking people or assuming things without fact I will say to you what I have said before.....if you can say something that will help people understand the truth then SAY IT...if you cant (or wont) THEN DONT! Enough with the dancing, mamby pamby "bears" and "flying monkeys" and " circulating honey" crap. It is IMHO juvenile, attention getting, and just downright silly. Ok..hey thats my first rant. (Thank you for indulging me) LB [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 86. "Luvsbeagles" Posted by hareen on 14:02:19 6/02/2000 To my knowledge I'm the only one who has raised the question of A.K's not mentioning the therapist in her answer to me, so I want to defend myself here. I'm simply ASKING A.K., because, as I said to her, I believe she knows more than we do about what might be behind MW's coming forward. (IF somebody is behind it -- I don't know that yet.) A.K. chooses her words carefully. I understand your point about superanalyzing posts and think it's very valid. But I believe there is a lot to be gained by superanalyzing what A.K. says. If she wants to answer me, she will. If she doesn't, I'll take note of that. One reason I raised the question was to see if she did answer. Let me point out that in A.K.'s first post on this thread she said: "I have no intention of making things worse by saying more. But I'll just bet there's a washed-up, blue-eyed, lousy actress who's mourning her dashed hope to regain a public profile. Perhaps her partners in crime will now learn that it's not an easy thing trying to sell tainted goods." The way that's worded indicates to me that the actress is a major player here. And how many women are major players in this? I'm just wondering and looking for the truth. But I'm not making any assumptions. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 76. "Malicious Intent" Posted by Lacey on 13:22:53 6/02/2000 Fly, sweetie, I admire your tenacity to rebut the MW bashing bitch-issue but you probably know you are fighting a losing battle, lol. These pseudo-sleuths, their case is built on sinking sand and even Darby continues to whine why why why to a question that is not soundly grounded, because the only so-called *proof* is the word of the MW, and she has been discredited by an investigation with the remains turned over to the FBI. Apparently yes, the BPD handed it to the FBI to pursue as they see fit. And that was their obligation, to turn it over to the appropriate agency of investigation. Seems so simple, but not to conspiracy theorists sighting sex-rings around every corner, eh? The MW speculation was malicious, to put it mildly -- it went too far and it was too far fetched. Eventually I came to the conclusion that this group was more interested in turning titillating speculation into fact that to uncovering the truth, i.e., the myth of the mythtery woman. I watched in horror as they made fact out of factoid and moved MW up the food chain from flavor of the day to center of the investigation, serving up roasted Whites as main course. Though stunned, still I held my comments to the end of the investigation. And now they have the audacity to cry foul! and minimize the extent of their appalling behavior. What they did. It would sorta be like, well, you know I have some suspicions about Granpaugh. I think there are clues that suggest something sinister, but no way would I attempt to parlay this into the disturbing deeds that these middle-aged crazies have perpetrated on the Fleet Whites. They went too far and continue to do so and when I see it I flame it. Carry on Lace . [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 77. "Lacey" Posted by fly on 13:27:12 6/02/2000 Yeah, I know it's mostly a losing battle. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 88. "Mary99 no Cowardly Lion" Posted by RiverRat on 14:14:11 6/02/2000 Thanks for having the Nerve!!! I have been tossing a very similar scenerio around. I may get drug to the swamp for this one but upon Head Little Head's return last week she rallied her troops by telling them that "our leads are being investigated." Does this mean that the Ramsey's have already joined hands with BPD or another P.I. firm is raking in the big bucks. There's an old saying, which one is it, umm, the walls have ears or a fly on the wall? The obvious does not worry me. What does though is HLH's Confidence that THEIR leads are being investigated. Has there been anything brewing lately besides the MW information? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 78. "Yeh, fly" Posted by lake on 13:42:10 6/02/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 13:42:10, 6/02/2000 Sort of like Thomas writing a book and giving his hypothesis of how and why he thinks PR killed JBR. At least those of us who have a hypothesis that the MW claims may have indirect or direct impact upon the killing of JBR are not stupid enough to expect to charge you for our theories and assumptions. And as Martha would say; "Thats a good thing". [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 83. "MT: Mystery Thread's fate?" Posted by maundy on 13:44:34 6/02/2000 What happened to the origianl thread this thread is based on? Is it's fate a big secret? [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 81. "Lacey" Posted by Gemini on 15:58:11 6/02/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 15:58:11, 6/02/2000 JMO, as usual, but I think your approach is excellent. Ya see something that jerks your chain ... flame it and move on. My only real concern in all this is why there's such a concentrated attempt to stifle this side-road discussion. A.K., are you Cindy Adams? ... if you never say hello, you don't have to say goodbye (edited to add the tag I intended but forgot) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 79. "yes, lake" Posted by fly on 13:41:01 6/02/2000 But then, Thomas actually has some evidence to talk about, whether or not his hypothesis is correct. Perhaps that's the difference in the charges. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 87. "fly" Posted by mame on 14:12:11 6/02/2000 you make excellent points. if i trusted the BPD and their investigation i would move on as well. i've interviewed some of those they interviewed in this "investigation"...i know of the tactics they used...it wasn't in my opinion a full and complete dig. to not take time to speak in person with the DA who prosecuted the boykin case is outrageous. that's the first person anyone i've spoken with wants to talk to FOR HOURS! the BPD was too busy when in california to meet with him! la de da...any respectable person i've spoken with believes that's a sin. the incomplete investigation bothers me for a lot of reasons. first, i do care about everyone's reputation. also, i'm raising children to be citizen's in boulder...they may be a witness someday. they need to know that they will be fairly heard. if the BPD ever hopes to prosecute this case and use their star witness on the stand...they better know every little detail about that witness! that includes ruling in or out allegations made by anyone! even the most unskilled defense attorney would make mincemeat out of this case if investigations are not complete on ANYONE sitting on the stand... i have never asked ONE person to believe these allegations. ever. yet, time after time it is suggested that i am on one side...or another. i do believe IN THIS WOMAN...as a human. i know for a fact she is not a PLANT...or associated with a blonde screen actor's guild member! i do not have the investigative skills of a police force or fbi to turn over every rock and connect the dots in this story. i don't wish to have those skills. there are other outstanding investigative reporters and private investigators of high regard doing this as we speak. i am not involved in those investigations. i know little more than what you've read in the paper. i only hope as The Witness does, that these allegations ARE investigated fully. see i believe her reputation and courage [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 85. "Well, fly" Posted by lake on 13:54:57 6/02/2000 You have not seen that evidence and Thomas is putting his own personal spin on that evidence you have not seen. But then you trust a corrupt cop that writes a book using case files of an open investigation and who had been in bed with the tabloids during the time he worked the case. Me, I find the MW to be more honest that Thomas has proven to be. Maybe things will change, but right now MW stands head and shoulders above Thomas as a human being. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 84. "Fly" Posted by short timer on 13:53:49 6/02/2000 What evidence is that? I don't remember any evidence that directly links PR to killing JonBenet. Speculation does, but not facts. JMO [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 90. "HOLD ON JUST A DADBURNED MINUTE!!!" Posted by Cassandra on 15:10:34 6/02/2000 I must object to Darby's plaintive wail being referred to as a "whine". Darby...This is serious business. It calls for a limerick. Cassie [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 89. "lake, short timer, & mame" Posted by fly on 15:06:38 6/02/2000 mame - You haven't specifically asked someone to believe MW, but you have gotten pretty darn indignant when people have questioned her believability. And I don't think you would want to "let a small voice be heard" unless you thought what that small voice was saying should be believed. So, I find your "I never..." a bit disingenuous, if technically correct. I do agree, however, that MW is not a Ramsey plant. They aren't that stupid. Professional actress? No reason to believe that so far, except that if she's mostly bogus, her tale-telling skills probably would qualify her for that title. :-) Honestly, mame, you might not want to do the far flung investigations (I can understand that), but you would be doing everybody here a great service if you could try to get clarification of the BPD statement that is so hotly debated. I'd very much like to know the real story, regardless as to which of our interpretations is correct. If you don't trust the BPD and don't want to believe their answer, well, that's another topic, but at least we'd have their explanation, rather just our own perspectives on things. lake - I'm not saying Thomas' theory is right. However, he was privy to all of the pre-GJ evidence and did not have to rely on what he read in the newspapers. short timer - Well, the reports from the handwriting analysts might be one bit of evidence. Not airtight, for sure, but evidence nonetheless. Also those fibers. And inconsistent statements. I'm not defending the accuracy of Thomas' theory. It definitely has its share of holes. However, it is his theory after having seen the evidence first hand, something none of us can lay claim to. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 93. "Thanks, Cassie" Posted by darby on 16:19:53 6/02/2000 Lacey better hope she never lives to see the day that I lash out in limerick form. fly and Lacey Don't tell me that I whine or that this is a losing battle. This generalization doesn't tell me exactly what I said that you disagree with. If you have a gripe about anything I've said, give me specifics. Yes, Lacey, the BPD handed "the remains" over to the FBI to pursue as they see fit. But the claim that "the Boulder Police have forwarded information to the FBI in reference to some of the woman's allegations regarding the operation of a child sex ring" was made by the BPD, NOT ME. Or are you trying to say that it's the BPD who is "interested in turning titillating speculation into fact"? Don't tell me what you think I think, Lacey, because you might just be wrong. You certainly are this time. Dammit, Lacey, the only thing you got right is that I'm middle aged. And fly, what losing battle are we talking about? What battle? If MW is wrong and everything that she said is wrong, then I think it would be nice for the WHITES that this be brought to light. Would you rather we just move on to other things and let the whole thing drop? Believe me, I'm not the only one in the world who wonders if there isn't more to the story. Would it be fair to the WHITES if anyone was left to wonder about MW claims if in fact they are bogus? If MW is totally full of shit as you seem to think, then I am interested in knowing the motivation of people who have stood behind her. Why the therapist? Why Lee Hill? What did these peole have to gain? Why would they care? Does the scam, if there is one, have something to do with the case or is there just a group of people out to destroy the Whites? And Lacey, I can ask why as many times as I want. It's not whining, and I'd appreciate your not labeling it as such. You finally pissed me off. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 92. "Fly, one more time" Posted by lake on 15:48:58 6/02/2000 NOTE: This message was last edited 15:48:58, 6/02/2000 It is you that are relying on tabloid media type reports and "spin" from "insiders" like Thomas. I see little difference in the MW claims you read about and the Steve Thomas stuff you read about. But the big difference is that the BPD chose to "investigate" the claims made against the Rs in the glare of the media, but the MW claims seem to be a more serious matter and warrent less media coverage (until and if suspicions and theories become charges) than the investigation of the Rs. Now fly, you can put your spin on that. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 91. "Lacy" Posted by short timer on 15:43:35 6/02/2000 "They went too far and continue to do so and when I see it I flame it." I think you went too far when you felt a need to say Darby was whine whine whining. If you could drag your pompous self-centered personality away from the mirror, you might remember that Darby lost her mother this week and might possibly deserve a little bit of slack, even from someone as arrogant as you. [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 94. "Don't mess with Texas!" Posted by Cassandra on 17:11:31 6/02/2000 Darby will kick your ass in the most ladylike fashion. Cassie [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 95. "Back Atcha Baby" Posted by Lacey on 18:22:44 6/02/2000 >And now they have the audacity to cry foul! and minimize >the extent of their appalling behavior. (flol, quoting myself here) ROTFL, I rest my case and I stand by my post. Good grief, I have watched the MW cult group call the Fleet Whites every dirty vile name and accuse them of every unspeakable act in the book, but HEY!, doncha ever level whining charges against one of THEM.. Jeeeeez, Listen to yourselves! WAH! AWRIGHT THEN! PUT UP YER DUKES WOMAN, AND MEET ME @ LIMERICKS. :þ Bring your garROT. Or not. We'll have to use an old one 'cause I don't start threads Well, whatever, I want nooo part of that MW cult thing. Next thing ya know you'll be cutting out your tongues. Lacey . [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 98. "heheh" Posted by Gemini on 18:52:33 6/02/2000 No disrespect to anyone on this thread, but that was funny, Lacey. (LOL ROFL) You and Ryder. Kids. aaaaahhhhh :-) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ] 96. "lacey" Posted by maundy on 18:46:06 6/02/2000 mmmphmm ppprmrw myrmyr mo mere ;) [ REMOVE ] [ ALERT ] [ EDIT ] [ REPLY ] [ REPLY WITH QUOTE ] [ TOP ] [ MAIN ]